Questions I Want to Ask Entitled Cis Het Men, Part 3: Space for Men
2009 24 Oct
I’m about to assert something that makes me nervous, because I worry that people are going to stick me in the “asshole MRA” box. Don’t get me wrong: I certainly don’t think that women have it better, overall, than men do. But I do wonder whether it might be good for feminists to acknowledge that — although we don’t experience nearly as much privilege as men — there are a lot of advantages women experience that men don’t.
Because women aren’t seen as threatening, we have an easier time doing confrontational things like approaching strangers on the street. Because women aren’t seen as fighters, we stand a lower chance of being mugged than men do. Because women are seen as emotional, we’re given a huge amount of social space to consider and discuss our feelings. I can work with and be affectionate with children far more easily than a man could. I can be explicit and overt about my sexuality without being viewed as a creep.
And there are at least a few recurring complaints about how trying to be masculine can suck. First and foremost: that men don’t feel they’ve been taught to process their emotions, or don’t feel allowed to display them. Another: that they’re perceived as less manly if they don’t achieve success through a career, especially if they aren’t the main breadwinner for their family. A third: that men are expected to be sexually insatiable, or always to be sexually available.
Of course, it’s worth noting that the advantages women experience are almost always the flip side of unfortunate stereotypes. For instance, one might say that women get more social space for emotion because we’re stereotyped as irrational and hysterical. But that doesn’t change the fact that most of us easily grasp that space, while most men don’t. And if we can reject the Oppression Olympics for just one minute and stop thinking about who’s got it worse, it becomes clear that the advantages and drawbacks associated with being both male and female are intertwined. The two systems reinforce, and cannot function without, each other. The gender binary may not hurt everyone equally, but it hurts everyone. As those beautiful “Every Girl / Every Boy” posters say, the most obvious example is: “For every girl who is tired of acting weak when she is strong, there is a boy tired of appearing strong when he feels vulnerable.”
I do suspect that it may not be psychologically realistic to ask people from our underdog-loving culture to embrace an image of themselves as privileged; my thoughts turn again to the trans man who hated the thought of being a white male. But if we feminists can’t work productively from a stance that acknowledges our social advantages, how can we expect straight/dominant/big-dicked men to do it?
Could feminist acknowledgment of the women’s gender-based advantages help pave the way for more men to acknowledge male privilege? Could feminist acknowledgment of the advantages on both sides of the gender binary help us better grasp what sucks about being a guy?
Am I citing Thomas Millar too much here? Well, at least once, he frustrated me. Amongst the comments on one blog post, I thought he was stating his views about stereotypical guys rather harshly. I suggested that it might be better to seek common ground, or at least to explain things gently; he said he wasn’t interested — “I think we all work with some people where they are and can’t soft-sell our views enough to deal with others.” He added, “If I’m going to alienate someone for saying what I think too bluntly, I’ll pick entitled cis het dudes.”
I won’t pretend I didn’t laugh when I read that — but I worried about it, too. I’ve had an enormous number of experiences trying to discuss feminism/sex/gender with men in which the men tensed, bristled, and closed me out. I don’t think it was always because those guys couldn’t stand the thought of losing their privilege, either. I think a lot of dudes have been led to feel that they have no place in gender discussions — that those discussions will always be about what men are doing wrong, and that no one’s prepared to work with them where they are.
All groups have outsiders. Movements inevitably form themselves around oppositional forces. As someone who’s spent her share of time feeling feminist rage, I’d say that being filled with feminist rage is totally understandable. And seriously, don’t get me wrong: I’m not giving unfeminist guys a free pass. I’m not happy about the fact that so many men are apparently alienated from feminism because us radicals are too confrontational — or too uncomfortably correct — for their fragile masculine egos to handle. (I’m being sarcastic! Mostly.) I’m really not happy about the fact that I’ve got to think about marketing anti-oppression — in a just universe, wouldn’t anti-oppression market itself?
But at the same time, I’m a realist. I know this isn’t a just universe, and I want to use tactics that’ll achieve my goals. Which are: I’d really like to find more men at my side in the sex and gender wars. I’d really like to talk to more guys who don’t see ideas stamped with feminism as an attack — rather, as an opportunity for alliance. Plus, if we’re going to think in terms of cold hard tactics, it’s worth noting that normative men hold most of the power in America. (That’s part of what we’re complaining about, right?) So swelling our ranks with The Oppressive Class means we can ruthlessly use their power for good.
Can we do better at making feminist discourses around gender and sexuality open to normative men, without driving ourselves crazy? How can we make our movement open to, and accepting of, normative men? Put another way, how do we convince normative men to support us?
Maybe we don’t need a lot of normative men in the camp of sex and gender radicals; maybe we’ll be happier without silly Gender Studies 101 questions clotting our discussions. Still, even if we don’t try to “recruit” them, I’d love to see more widespread analysis of masculinity and masculine sexuality amongst normative dudes … if only because getting a sense for their societal boxes might simply make them happier. If only because I think they’ve got their own liberation to strive for.
So at the very least, I’d like to contribute to an America where serious examination of masculinity and male sexuality can flourish.
That’s my final question. How do I do it?
Click here for the followup post I wrote after this whole series went explodey.
Tags: feminism, masculinity, privilege
I wish I knew…
“That’s my final question. How do I do it?”
Short answer: I seriously hope you NEVER FUCKING LEARN THAT.
Long answer: masculinity is already examined, deconstructed, questioned and problematized more than enough. It is DYING from vivisection wounds. What you call “masculinity” is just a nucleized form of it, a survival spore that formed during four decades of immersion in feminist vitriol; a naked, dry trunk that has deliberately shed all branches of diversity, being unable to support them in ultra-hostile environment. This very phenomenon you describe, this desperate clinging to a handful of reductionist, atomic concepts that constitute today’s masculine identity – it is not the natural state of masculinity, it is the fucking DAMAGE YOU FEMINISTS HAVE INFLICTED.
If you wish to bring more men into feminism, it’s a really great strategy to label them “The Oppressive Class.”
That ought to work like a charm!
I find the tone of your post sensitive and empathetic to men, which is rare from my experience with feminists. You have already pointed out many problems, I’ll add one.
Perhaps men just don’t agree with many of the radical feminism’s presumptions, like men are the oppressive class. Besides the obvious disagreement on intellectual level, men don’t like to be oppressive because oppressive to women means they fail as a real man, a real man protects women, not oppress them. Manliness is also a form of virtue for men and if they fail they’re morally bankrupted in addition to being less of a man.
By the way– every so often, one comes-across the occasional radical feminist who says openly that men HAVE NO PLACE in feminism.
Sure, maybe you find this objectionable, but you wouldn’t dispute that these individuals are feminists.
The range of acceptable opinions within feminism, then, goes right-up to the level of outright discrimination, and it’s completely tolerated.
That fact stands-out more clearly than any pretty words you could ever say, don’t you think Clarisse?
@ubernerd: I suppose it’s true that men who disagree that men have it better than women are never going to ally themselves. Those aren’t really men that I think it’s ever going to be easy to communicate about these issues with, though … at least I don’t think so. I’m more interested in how to reach men who agree that men are generally in a more powerful position, and who are interested in describing, but have trouble expressing that agreement because they feel blocked from the discussion by feminists or because they’re afraid of suffering social consequences.
General note: Most of the interesting comments have been happening in other posts about this ones, or the crossposts at Alas, A Blog. I’ll try to post a followup when I can.
Clarisse, I don’t know exactly how. But I’m straight, white, cis, dominant and male, and I really want to start engaging in this discourse- I hate the idea that masculinity is damaged by questioning it. If you come up with anything new, let me know. These have been excellent posts.
I agree that women have a lot of advantages that men don’t. I lived in Montreal (Canada) where it would not be shocking to anyone there if we described most spheres of the montreal society as matriarchal. Family, flirt, education (teaching and learning), fashion, health, shopping are several things are dictated by women to some extent.
One thing I would like to address however is that, nowadays, women’s hardship is often (I wouldn’t say often, but I can definitely say ‘in a large proportion’) caused by women. I don’t know if that aspect of feminism was covered in this blog previously but it is definitely one reason why feminism is not interesting to me, as a man.
Ha, I think your post answers itself. As a liberal man who doesn’t self-identify as feminist, I would definitely participate in threads on this blog, because as ubernerd pointed out, your tone is very welcoming. So I’m going to be real with you, here, and reveal more about myself than I usually do on random blogs.
I talk about gender issues with women I know. Friends, relations, girlfriends; anyone I’m already on good terms with. And yes, sometimes with other guys, too, though I admit this is rarer. The main reason I don’t participate in most gender threads on the Internet? The anonymity. Anonymous discussions can quickly turn testy, and when they do, I’m not prepared to respond in kind. (And de-anonymitizing myself by giving out personal information on the Internet that could lead to my identification is not an option; trust me, I’ve been there before.) I don’t want to feel like that guy who’s venting the frustrations of any possible failings on my part to a crowd of women. I’ve probably pissed off both the feminists and the MRA’s here, who’d see that as patronizing and deferential to women, respectively, but there you have it. That’s the most honest answer I can give you.
At the same time, of course, I’m pretty competitive by nature, so if I enter an argument, it’s to win it. So if it’s going to turn out that I’m going to bring up something in my life that’s negatively affected me as a man, and some women strongly contradict this, and I’m not about to come back with a stronger-worded rebuttal, then I’m not going to bring it up in the first place. Chances are, it’s one of those minor annoyances in life that I can deal with on my own.
I can’t speak for all of us “liberal but non-feminist-identifying men” that seem to be your target audience here, but for myself what would help is a light-hearted environment that best simulates a non-anonymous setting. Think of it like a cheesy sitcom that’s light and fluffy, but at the episode’s end, lessons are learned by all, complete with a moody soundtrack number and a voiceover by Zach Braff. A more intense, lugubrious affair is something I’d rather avoid.
If your question is how to get guys like me to not only participate in gender discussions, but also start identifying as feminists… can’t really help you much there. I generally have problems with most single-issue liberal groups, be they of the feminist, socialist, environmentalist, racial empowerment, or what have you – some of my fellow Asian American political activists have me mistaken as a conservative for this reason – and I doubt I can come around to call myself a feminist unless feminism changes to accommodate my misgivings about it, which I doubt y’all are willing to do. So it looks like we’ll just have to co-exist, and draw on our points of agreement where they exist, and there are plenty, without a wholesale joining hands in a circle.
@Magpie_seven: Followup coming once I manage to synthesize all the feedback I’ve gotten (which is considerable!). But I also have a big report to write for work. So maybe a couple weeks.
@sylphhead: a light-hearted environment that best simulates a non-anonymous setting
This is definitely going to figure in my followup. One thing to note about my perspective is that a lot of my activism has focused on running events. So, for example, when I created Sex+++ the sex-positive documentary film series, I think it did a really good job of creating such a light-hearted environment as you describe. And I’ve concluded — partly based on the Sex+++ experience but also partly based on the feedback I’ve gotten for these posts — that the most effective tactic for engaging men in these discourses is going to be creating events like that, which aren’t too overtly “serious” and don’t advertise themselves as anti-oppression fora or whatever (even if they secretly are).
“Because women aren’t seen as threatening, we have an easier time doing confrontational things like approaching strangers on the street. Because women aren’t seen as fighters, we stand a lower chance of being mugged than men do. Because women are seen as emotional, we’re given a huge amount of social space to consider and discuss our feelings. I can work with and be affectionate with children far more easily than a man could. I can be explicit and overt about my sexuality without being viewed as a creep.”
If you’re explicit and overt about your sexuality, you’ll generally be seen as a slut. Because women are seen as emotional, we’re seen as illogical and our opinion aren’t taken as seriously. Because we’re not seen as threatening, we face more inter-gender violence.
On one hand, the sexism men face tends to be indirect to incidental and often don’t have a long-term negative impact. Conversely, the benefits women receive tend to be indirect to incidental and often don’t have a long-term positive impact. Additionally, the most detrimental issues faced by men (save gender-identity, race, ability, class, and sexual orientation) stem from power structures among men; it is intra-gendered, something of which women are kept out. These power structures function to keep men in power and in the process, men step on each other to reach “the top.” The benefits women receive function as a reward for “knowing your place.” Don’t get me wrong – women will step all over each other too and men also get rewarded for being a “real man”. But when all is said and done, it functions to maintain a playing field that isn’t level with women at the disadvantage.
The reason I say this is because one thing I noticed is just how often feminists receive flak for not acknowledging women receive benefits or that men suffer too, or for not doing it “enough.” I was posting on Feminist Critics the other couple of days. I’d gone through the archives first and noticed just how often they a) fight straw-arguments, b) complain about feminists not acknowledging how men suffer too in discussions that over-whelmingly affect women, c) accuse feminists of claiming men don’t suffer at all because we acknowledge Male Privilege. Of course they also will pick apart statistics, etc., and claim feminists are deliberately being deceitful but then demonstrate the exact behavior themselves, but this is typical in any types of sociological discussions.* Before that, I was at another blog with an entry titled “What is wrong with MRAs?” that discussed the issue with MRAs and the issue with feminists. The issue with MRAs was their tendency to uncritically blame ills they face on feminism and their overwhelming lack of effort towards actually making things better for men. The issue with feminism was that they don’t acknowledge bad things happen to men; or they don’t do it all the time; or they don’t do it enough.
Does anybody think something is wrong with that picture?
Feminism exists as a reaction to Patriarchy; the male experience is default, albeit unexamined. MRA exists as a reaction to feminism; there hadn’t been a movement critically examining gender until feminism but now we also have men who will theoretically do the same. With that in mind, why are we uncritically accepting the concept of feminism being obligated to “take care” of men, especially when they not only have “the floor” but they have a movement that can do so? In context, why do we uncritically accept the idea that somebody else will decide if feminism is doing enough for men? Why is how men may or may not feel at every turn such an issue for a movement that addresses the fact that women are treated as a second class?
Clarisse:
Despite the fact that your other thread is moving along quite nicely, I’d like to point out that Collette’s piece is a perfect example of why the feminist movement will never have anything significant to say to men and why any concern it (referring to organizations such as NOW and the more “activist” blogs, not all individual feminists)claims to have for men is not belied by actions. So forgive me if I have to be a bit accusatory but Collette ( I don’t think most of the people who would read that thread over there would accept her conclusions about how the argument was going) has basically relegated any of men’s legitimate concerns to a scrapheap.
Whilst I could easily bring out such things as the “White Feather” campaign (what could be more equality minded than a bunch of feminists going around shaming young men for not being sent into the senseless meatgrinder of the western front in WW1) I’d prefer instead to make two general observations and ask Ms Colette a question.
My first observation: patriarchy (assuming you don’t believe in kyriarchy and that such a thing as patriarchy currently exists in the modern anglosphere)does not arise in a vacuum absent female input. Most men are socialized by women during their younger formative years, and most men develop their sexual personae and what behaviours work best for them by observing what tends to work for them to attract women.
B. The typical man is conflated with the top alpha males in almost all feminist discourse. Farther it is explicitly assumed that if 51 percent of the positions of power in society are held by penis possessors than rather than oppress the other penis possessors who presumably are in competition with them, they’d rather work with them to oppress the sex that doesn’t have dangling genitalia. Which is why family courts almost never give custody to mothers and why men whose cheating partner divorces them and takes the kids never have to support the former wife. Because as everyone knows family law is made for fathers whom everyone respects as the Most Important Parent.
And I’ve got a bridge in the everglades..
In any case my question to Colette is this: Does she know a single example in law or by practice whereby men’s sex disadvantages them in a very important aspect of their lives to an extent that women’s doesn’t?
@Colette — I addressed your post over at Alas. I agree with your analysis of how arguments tend to go at Feminist Critics and in MRA discussions, but I think you’re taking the wrong message from my posts.
@Clarence — In any case my question to Colette is this: Does she know a single example in law or by practice whereby men’s sex disadvantages them in a very important aspect of their lives to an extent that women’s doesn’t?
I can think of a lot, but that’s not the point of this conversation. If you want to have another Oppression Olympics discussion then go talk to Toy Soldier; he loves those.
“Despite the fact that your other thread is moving along quite nicely, I’d like to point out that Collette’s piece is a perfect example of why the feminist movement will never have anything significant to say to men and why any concern it (referring to organizations such as NOW and the more “activist” blogs, not all individual feminists)claims to have for men is not belied by actions.”
Wait a minute …
Are you suggesting feminists aren’t talking / doing enough for men to your standards?
“So forgive me if I have to be a bit accusatory but Collette ( I don’t think most of the people who would read that thread over there would accept her conclusions about how the argument was going) has basically relegated any of men’s legitimate concerns to a scrapheap.”
Clarisse – Exhibit A.
Also, I apologize if my observation was misplaced. What finally prompted my speaking out was that you’re a lot like me in your awareness of rigid gender-roles and expectations existing to the detriment of both men and women, and you’re very sex-positive. Additionally something you said was absurdly misrepresented for convenience at one of the above mentioned blogs – twice. Since this was the last cross-posted entry there of this series, I decided to put it here and also at Alas. Thank you for your resonses on both ends.
@Colette — Sorry, I probably came across as a bit snippy on that last bit. This whole series has kind of made me feel attacked from all sides at times.
To expand … like I said, I do think you’re right about how those conversations are going in some existing more “masculine” spaces. I’m frustrated by some people’s apparent attempts to imply that I’m saying feminism “should take care of men”, which I thought your comment was also implying when I first read it. But now that I’ve reread it I think I understand better.
Feminism may be a somewhat useless label at this point for actually determining a given person’s specific ideology … but I’m still more impressed by people who say they’re feminist than by people who refuse to use the label. I have a hard time pinning down why this is.
Colette:
I have specifically given Clarisse credit.
As for your question, I shall answer that when you answer mine.
Clarisse – You didn’t come across as snippy at all!
Obviously recognition and discussion of the status quo’s impact on men has its place in feminism; its inevitable and inherent. The question, if anything, seems to be, “what is the degree to which such discourse should exist and are feminists obligated to have a ‘quota’?” I believe this should be decided by the feminist, or agreed among feminists, not dictated by the whims of anti-feminists or entitled MRAs, etc.
Additionally, it is not troubling to me perse when entitled MRAs or anybody (directly or indirectly) demand feminists refocus their attention to men by discussing always or jumping through verbal hoops to soothe them when they’re not the focus. They expect feminists (overwhelmingly female) to prioritize the feelings of others (i.e. men) over our’s as women are socialized to do, and feminism to comply with Male As Default. I get that, it is why they’re not feminists.*
What has troubled me is the lack of critical response; that it goes unchecked. I don’t mean “what about teh menz?!” comments when the inevitable tool shows up to derail, but calling it out as the direct symptom of Male Privilege that it is. It is especially bothersome when I see feminists complying in terms of approval-seeking (“yes we care! See this? And this?” Why is that non-feminist dictating the rules of feminism to feminism?). That is what I mean about “uncritically accepting.”
To these people, even when it isn’t about men it has to be about men.** For feminists, this shouldn’t even be an issue.
Clarence – my question was sarcastic; you’re not obligated to answer. Your question was part of a larger derailment and a textbook example of not-fucking-getting it; I’m not obligated to answer.
* Of course it is important that female feminists remain cautious. We internalize those notions too.
** This also applies to white / cis / straight / abled / Judeo-Christian / non low-income.
Colette:
Quite frankly your admitted sarcasm makes you an unwelcome partner in any discussion about males and masculinity. Clarisse has behaved with dignity and respect, you with sarcasm and ignorance. I doubt you can answer my question, you seem addicted to the idea of male privilege and a denial that females might have such. Your attitude is in my opinion quite unwarranted, you haven’t shown you have any understanding of male privilege and patriarchy beyond what is posted on Finally Feminism 101 and when your arguments seem to be getting picked apart you resort to childish name calling and seem to believe you can read someone’s mind that you’ve never met.
In short, while you may be free to post on this blog I daresay you’ve contributed nothing to the discussion , nor have you been any kind of ambassador for feminism. When I read Clarisse I see someone with empathy and the ability to see beyond her own pre-conceptions, when I see your writing I see someone who is almost the cardboard caracature of radical feminists that I’ve run into over the past ten years on the internet.
There’s no sense talking to a bigot, and in my opinion that is exactly what you are.
Pardon me, Clarisse, for possibly hijacking your thread, but I’d be grateful if you’d permit me to respond to this criticism of my blog.
Who’s “they”? Are you referring to the bloggers (who represent the blog) only or do you mean to include the commentariat, who are a diverse bunch of people?
Many of your criticisms are, of, course, valid in respect of some of the commenters. The appear to be themselves “straw critics” when applied to the bloggers. (I notice you cite no examples.)
Most of the posts link and quote actual feminists saying the things we critique them for, and I’m continually admonishing the guests to do the same.
The obvious examples would be discussions about sexual and domestic abuse. First of all, I disagree that these overwhelmingly affect women. Even the studies that feminists cite, such as the National Violence Against Women Survey show quite large minorities of men being victimised. MRAs point to other studies that show about equal levels of victimisation.
To say that we “complain about feminists not acknowledging how men suffer too” oversimplifies the objection. The complaint is that feminists anomalise male victims, thereby erasing them outside designated discoursive ghettos.
Where have we accused feminists of this?
The problem with “male privilege” is that feminists have never articulated convincing criteria to distinguish between a gender privilege from other relative benefits and harms. Rather the criterion appears to be “if men benefit or if women are harmed, it’s privilege. If women benefit or men are harmed it’s PHMT”.
As I recently observed here, I’m constantly admonishing our guests to focus upon what feminists say and do, rather than inferring feminists thoughts and motivations. I do my best to adhere to that standard. Claims of “deliberation” would fail it.
Example?
Is is indeed. We try to do better.
Clarence, your remarks toward Colette in this comment are 100% ad hom.
Obviously it’s entirely up to you who you think it worth talking to, but the view I have come to is diametrically opposed to yours. One thing I noticed about her (too few) comments on FCB is that she engaged the issues in precisely the way that we would wish. That impresses me, however much I might disagree with her.
Clarisse:
Why should he talk to TS, when he can talk to Colette:
Or Clarisse:
You are engaging in the Oppression Olympics when argue from a perspective which asserts “male privilege”. It is hypocritical (yes!) to condemn those who merely react against this stance.
Quite simply, Daran, you seem to want to defend yourself but not allow me to do likewise. My opinions are my own, as yours are your own.
Clarence – I’m not trying to validate you. I’m airing a concern to Clarisse after my experience responding to criticism of her cross-posts, and else ware. I endured among other things more complaining that feminist acknowledgment of Male Privilege negates concerns of men and /or feminists don’t talk about men’s issues at all or enough, etc., all from non-feminists. That concern regards the derailment, straw-arguments, and sense of entitlement you proceeded to display in response to me. Sorry the irony is lost on you, but please don’t waste your time or mine. I’m really not baited by your insults or name-calling either. It is your own wasted energy.
Daran – I didn’t take notes, names, or post links because the aim was to explain the nature of my concern, not bog down Clarisse’s blog with details. I appreciate your input, and I will note out of fairness it isn’t necessarily always the actual blog entries to which I refer, but these are cross-posted and my contributions to Feminist Critics comments are under the same name. I’m not going to rehash arguments here, or repeat responses I already gave to your “privilege / benefits” issue on FC. For that matter, I don’t wish to participate in comments on FC further since I spent the chunk of my time there responding to straw arguments and misrepresentations which I said twice in my posts there I believe. Anything further on the matter, please contact me, or direct me to the appropriate thread/blog to discuss the issue. I’d be happy to do it. :)
Clarisse – apologies for what’s become of it!
Colette:
You wasted your time responding to me. As I said, I don’t respond to bigots. Intellectually dishonest bigots at that.
And that’s all I have to say to you.
Oh and Daran:
I normally wouldn’t say this as I tend to let you deal with feminists however you see fit. But Colette’s behaviour was far from ideal.
She left in the middle of the argument without even politely bowing out and came over here to complain about it giving a pretty one sided view of how things went. I find that rather rude as far as it goes. Personally if I had been a participant in that argument some of the adhoms she threw around about the poor posters in that argument (she did some of the very same things after all) I would find very insulting. I personally feels she left because she was starting to lose as she really had no answer for some of the arguments that other posters were tossing her way. But that’s just my opinion.
I will say I think her rudeness and total inability to see beyond her own nose on this blog is more probably her true self. She only played nice on FC orginally b/c it wasn’t one of the normal echo chamber blogs she was at.
@Colette — It is especially bothersome when I see feminists complying in terms of approval-seeking (“yes we care! See this? And this?” Why is that non-feminist dictating the rules of feminism to feminism?). That is what I mean about “uncritically accepting.”
I understand, but I’m not sure that the feminists in question are being uncritical ….
Would you feel differently if the people who were asking that feminists “prove we care” identified as feminists themselves? And therefore weren’t “telling the movement what to do” but, rather, were speaking from within the movement? Where’s the line at which we can comfortably engage in a conversation about men’s interests, without feeling like we’re being overpowered or overwhelmed within our own movement which is supposed to be centered on our interests? I think this is part of what I was trying to get at in the above post, in fact.
An interesting and somewhat relevant quotation that came up in my Twitter feed today, which I’m not sure I agree with:
http://brinstar.tumblr.com/post/281412799
@Daran — You are engaging in the Oppression Olympics when argue from a perspective which asserts “male privilege”. It is hypocritical (yes!) to condemn those who merely react against this stance.
Haha! Fair. That paragraph in my followup was so tricky. I really wasn’t sure whether to post it, but it goes back to the proving-my-feminist-chops thing.
I think the feminists in question are uncritical if responding not to being misrepresented but because they felt obligated to ensure non-feminist approval of feminist focus on male issues. The non-feminist critic won’t be satisfied until its non-feminism.
Because there are times men’s issues are discussed and because it is even more common for feminists to bring attention to and be critical of instances where men are being hurt by the status quo /Patriarchy, I’d be advised to consider what prompted such if feminists asked to “prove we care” about men’s issues.
As for the “line” you mentioned, that is definitely the rub. I do believe it should be up to the individual feminist or group of feminists. Personally, I’ve engaged in real life with non-feminist men on how rigid gender-roles and sex-expectations do damage to them as well; they generally listen and even agree, but it doesn’t go beyond that because they’re content with the overall “good” to take a few hits. As far as input from non-feminist or potential feminist but not *anti-feminist* men in discussions of masculinity within feminism, it’s a great idea. However, they’ll have to be able to acknowledge male privilege and do so without accusing feminists of believing men don’t suffer simply because we acknowledge male privilege.
Colette:
Your complaints against us are unanswerable because you don’t identify, with specificity, where we have expressed the views you attribute to us. This contrasts with the specificity with which I point to yours.
I’ve read all of your comments there very carefully. Nowhere, as far as I can see, did you address the privilege/benefits issue. Your response there was the same as here: on being challenged as to why you do not frame certain advantages that women enjoy over men as “female privilege”, you responded by accusing us of “accusing feminists of believing men don’t suffer” – a straw man.
I didn’t see any straw men or misrepresentations of your positions among your respondents in that thread (none of whom, until my recent comment, were bloggers). That doesn’t mean a lot, as I only skimmed much of the discussion. I’d be very happy to open a thread limited to just feminists and bloggers if you like.
“Your complaints against us are unanswerable because you don’t identify, with specificity, where we have expressed the views you attribute to us.”
I don’t need an answer, but thank you.
“I’ve read all of your comments there very carefully. Nowhere, as far as I can see, did you address the privilege/benefits issue. Your response there was the same as here: on being challenged as to why you do not frame certain advantages that women enjoy over men as “female privilege”, you responded by accusing us of “accusing feminists of believing men don’t suffer” – a straw man.”
Again, I’m not going to rehash or repeat arguments. Look at [12/9 11:30am], [4:45PM] then again to something stated by another posted in my post at [12/10 3:20am]. I also did slightly further at [12/10 1:30PM] which is also where I made it clear I was fed up with having what I say ignored in favor of convenient arguments I didn’t make. If that isn’t good enough for you, I don’t know what to tell you. They’re the only examples I’ve seen you give aside from just saying that it is true.
Also, nobody “challenged” me about whatever over here and if they did, I didn’t respond.
“I’d be very happy to open a thread limited to just feminists and bloggers if you like.”
Thanks, but had I wanted a feminist-only thread then I wouldn’t have responded in the first place. I would want a thread for anybody where I wouldn’t have to spend more time arguing about what was actually said and having to repeat myself when the content of my post is ignored in favor of something more convenient, like when engaging MRAs, but that wasn’t what happened at FC. If you come back telling me that wasn’t what happened over there, well, then I guess I’m lying.
“Plus, if we’re going to think in terms of cold hard tactics, it’s worth noting that normative men hold most of the power in America. (That’s part of what we’re complaining about, right?) So swelling our ranks with The Oppressive Class means we can ruthlessly use their power for good.”
I know I’m bringing back an old post but I decided to take the time to go back and reread this series and had some thoughts.
I think one thing to remember when talking about “normative men” is that, just like “normative women” who keep their heads down and play their part, may not necessarily want to keep their head down and play said part. It might not be such a great idea to create an “us vs them” battle between people when the problem is The System.
“Maybe we don’t need a lot of normative men in the camp of sex and gender radicals; maybe we’ll be happier without silly Gender Studies 101 questions clotting our discussions.”
I actually think we ALL could use some silly Gender Studies 101. The thing is (or at least I think) there are things that have been lost (or was never there to start with) that I feel need to be added back to the conversation. If feminists really did acknowledge male oppression then how can declarations like, “men are not oppressed” come about? If we all know that the system harms men and women why are there people that go to such lengths as redefining sexism in order to downplay what happens to men?
Ok so feminists got the early in gender discourse that’s fine well and good but simply put feminists don’t have all the answers because (and since they are mostly working with women’s interests in mind I don’t blame them) they haven’t been asking all the questions when it comes to gender.
Danny, yeah, I think it’s true that setting up an us vs. them is ultimately a bad call. As I’ve said before, I initially wrote this post as aimed at feminists (and I’m somewhat bemused — though pleased — that it’s ended up getting relatively little attention from feminists but a lot of attention from non-feminist men). I think I was imagining this as actually breaking down the us-vs-them idea, not as reinforcing it, but of course that wouldn’t come across to a non-feminist who read it.
First off, you need to loose the name, feminist sets up the wrong conversation it is a statistical word that makes your radical group, look like entitled females who want to run the world (to males). Feminist, I think, is the incorrect word anyway, what are you really trying to do? Are you trying to equal everyone’s playing field or just women? If it is just women, then you have something in common with the white douche bags, however I know its not.
The problem is that our capitalist system, is based around inequality, so almost every social group is full of inequality. Now white douche bags are the problem, not the ones on the street but the ones who hold power. They keep their morals, or their lack of morals, in our culture so that no matter how hard people try, as a whole people will still view women and other races as in superior. They control our working environment, whats on TV, and so on, until that is changed we live in an environment that creates inequality, and we will all have to live with it everyday.
It is however ironic that both parties (men and women) together create the problems both sides face, it is quite sad though if both sides changed just a few things men and women would finally understand each other. Men are the missing link in the feminist movement I believe. Most men struggle with looks, emotions, and social situations just as much if not more than women, we are only on the other end of the see saw. Until we fully understand this, both sides will continue to drag the other into more inequality.
I have quite a bunch of friends (lesbian or queer girls, most of them) quite concerned with gender issues, queer theory, etc. I rarely do more than see, listen and keep quiet, because, as a white-heterosexual-cis-man, I’m not a valid voice, and everything I could say looks suspicious to them. Not exaggerating, here. I’ve checked later on private conversations.
So, I actually feel I’m out of the debate because of my sexual option. it doesn’t matter how interesting is my question or my point of view. I’m The Opressor. The Enemy.
So, why would I care to participate? I prefer to read articles (congratulations on yours, btw) and think to myself. And I feel a lot of men feel the same way.
Alberto
Spain
Why has Batsa’s awful comment not been baleeted yet?
Alberto, thank you. Eloquently put.
Casey, I try to moderate comments as little as possible. Also, frankly, comments like Basta’s just make it obvious how much bullshit feminists put up with. I see it as a great case study.
“Also, frankly, comments like Basta’s just make it obvious how much bullshit feminists put up with. I see it as a great case study.”
Yes, this is feminists’ own bullshit, fermented ripe and served back to them by history.
When the book ‘The Secret’ was published it said something along the lines of if you see the world as postive, that is what you will see, and if you see the world as negative then that is what you will see.
The Feminist use of oppressor class, or privileged class also creates a lense through which that is all that is seen.
I would surmise that the vast majority of cis het males are interested in and want to have their needs met. Sometimes they try to achieve this through competition and deception or what ever method they think will work for them.
Masks
http://blogs.smh.com.au/executive-style/allmenareliars/2010/10/08/masks.html
http://blogs.smh.com.au/executive-style/allmenareliars/2010/10/15/stoicism.html
The five truths of manhood
1. You are going to die.
2. Life is hard.
3. You are not that important.
4. Your life is not about you.
5. You are not in control of the outcome.
As a member of the privileged oppressor class, I studied hard on how to pleasure a woman.
This Januaury it will be 10 years since I last got laid. Basically I a sick and tired of being the one who is the initiator.
Having discovered about the Kivin Technique, I guess that as I belong to the privileged oppressor class, I’ll go to the grave before any of the underprivileged oppressed proposition me.
Why do we demonize men?
Well it kind of starts at the cradle. At bit on parenthood that I read stated that in families it is the oldest child that gets the blame, if if the younger one started it, however if the oldest child is girl and the youngest a boy, it will be the boy who gets the blame, punishment.
In a research paper published by Barbara Leckie, Girls bullying behaviours The double edged sword of exclusion and rejection, tactics such as name calling, telling bad or false stories, and revealing confidences were aimed at causing psychological pain, and this was justified because the victim somehow deserved such treatment.
In Neil Lyndons case
http://clarissethorn.wordpress.com/2009/10/24/questions-i-want-to-ask-entitled-cis-het-men-part-3-space-for-men/
Is a classic example of such tactics in action.
Whilst it maybe reasonably safe for you as a female to explore the topics that you wish, it is not safe for men to do the same. If we stick our heads out of the trenches it is going to get shot or hacked off (figuratively).
I would surmise that it is in the vested interest, either consciously or unconsciously of certain groups to prevent men from exploring some of the issues that have you raise.
“Women Cant hear what men don’t say” by Warren Farrell, even though he is persona non de grata amongst feminists, it is an interesting book to read.
Maggie Hamilton if reading a book written by a female is more your style, wrote, “What men don’t talk about.”
NotGuilty: Whilst it maybe reasonably safe for you as a female to explore the topics that you wish, it is not safe for men to do the same. If we stick our heads out of the trenches it is going to get shot or hacked off (figuratively).
I would surmise that it is in the vested interest, either consciously or unconsciously of certain groups to prevent men from exploring some of the issues that have you raise.
Clarisse gets criticism from both feminists and non-feminists while discussing the topics she wishes. I think that just goes with publishing an opinion.
I don’t think there’s a vested interest in men exploring these issues. There’s a bit of disinterest from feminists, and a bit of annoyance when it comes to putting the focus on men’s issues within a women’s movement. I get the impression that a lot feminists would be happy with men discussing these topics in a (de)constructive manner.
I agree with machina.
Possibly machina’s right (his blog really IS interesting). I don’t feel quite sure, anyway. ¿Would that not be perceived as opposed, rather than complementary?
As I stated, in a previous comment, I sense a lot of defensiveness and essentialism (you’re a man – so you’re possibly against us) even among my women friends. So, wouldn’t men’s issues studies be sensed as a reaction against feminism?
Not saying they’re not needed! I really think they are!
chupamelrabo,
As a human being I support equal rights for all humans, it was suggested that I become a humanist.
I strongly dislike misrepresentation and dishonesty. Particularly in so called research.
I have posted in other sections of Clarisse’s writings, so draw you own conclusions.
I think that in the interaction between men and women, there barely explored and I will use the word binary interactions, perhaps more on the level of dopamine, and neurotransmitters, that in turn stimulate physiological responses that are below our level of perception or ability to perceive or to comprehend.
Complicating all this are the psychological defense mechanism of projection and transference.(of which we are all guilty)
I am not always succinct as I try to find ways of articulating what I am trying to say, besides I find verbosity rather boring.
Sure I get defensive, basically because I sick and tired of hearing about all the bad things men do and the negative press that we receive.
However if any of this is going to progress past the oppression olympics, all arguements must be considered, regardless of how uncomfortable that they may makes us feel.
Some will contain gems of insight.
chupamelrabu, there were a number of responses to Clarisse’s Alternet article around the net, one of them at pandagon.net. I responded to some comments, talking about the idea that the idea that a lot of problems with men and sex are due to the value placed on sexual accomplishment. One response I got, which I think sums up the attitude of a lot of feminists, was:
Your goal is a good one, but it’s not one that it’s women’s responsibility to put into action, or even one that we could put into action. It seems to me that the goal oriented way a lot of men look at sex is a product of male socialisation, but not one that they get from their mothers, for the most part, so women aren’t the ones creating the wierd, alienating attitude there. And as adults that mentality is reinforced and developed further mostly in homosocial environments, ie. it’s something that men teach each other, and police in each other.
So really, this one is on you guys. It’s a real problem, and it’s one that men need to fix for themselves. We can’t do it for you, and we shouldn’t have to. It’s up to the men who get it to go teach other men why in fact their seeing sex as being something you do for pleasure (the pleasure of both parties, ideally) rather than something you do just to prove that you can is actually better for them as individuals, as well as better for society.
@chupamelrabo — There have been some cases of masculinity-related dialogues being attacked by feminists, but those usually are dialogues that intentionally oppose themselves to feminism and feminist viewpoints. There are also masculinity-related dialogues that intentionally include feminist viewpoints, and those (from what I’ve read) have been welcomed and applauded by feminists.
@machina, @clarisse:
Ok, I agree. But, as I’m sure you already know, there’s not a single woman that doesn’t define herself as ‘feminist’, just as any person you know defines itself as ‘democratic’. It devaluates the term, of course, for there are a lot of points of view regarding the feminism (even opposed!). And, unlike other political movements, its internal differences are not that well stated.
The women closer to me happen to be queer-activist-bisexualesbian women, so their positions and discourses are really queer-activist and quite a lot heteromen-free. You can’t simply open a discussion topic about men’s issues, for it would be seen as a “counter-revolutionary speech”. Not yet. Maybe in a few years.
.alberto
.spain
There are definitely women who don’t define themselves as feminsts, although I think nearly all would agree with basic feminist principles.
Some feminists aren’t willing talk about problems that men face. Even feminists that are happy that men want to solve some of these problems in a way that is compatible with feminist principles don’t usually want them to do that within feminism. So I think “Space for Men” is a problem, and maybe that’s what you’re perceiving, because the main groups discussing problems with gender are feminists (who don’t generally want to talk much about problems for men), pro-feminist men (who tend to focus almost exclusively about the problems men cause women) and the men’s rights movement (which isn’t generally compatible with feminism).
Peter west posted an interesting article.
http://onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=11131
50+ words to state the obvious.
Basta!’s comment was a real eye-opener for me. I’d never thought about it like that before but when I think about it it seems he’s right.
Wow. I have never felt so tempted to delete a comment in my life as I am to delete Basta’s old comment, now. But I suppose it’s instructive that someone can actually read, not just my original series of posts, but all the incredibly thoughtful comments from various men on these posts, and decide that Basta is the one who’s got it goin’ on. Time to shoot myself in the head, I guess.
I saw that comment from BASTA! when it was posted and I thought he was quoting me, until I scrolled up to see what context I had written it in. Which is weird.
I won’t pretend I didn’t laugh when I read that — but I worried about it, too. I’ve had an enormous number of experiences trying to discuss feminism/sex/gender with men in which the men tensed, bristled, and closed me out. I don’t think it was always because those guys couldn’t stand the thought of losing their privilege, either. I think a lot of dudes have been led to feel that they have no place in gender discussions — that those discussions will always be about what men are doing wrong, and that no one’s prepared to work with them where they are.
–
Nail. Head. BAM!
Most insightful thing I think I’ve ever seen on any Internet discussion of feminism. Nice one. As a young, educated, moderately financially successful, straight, white, mono, “cis-gendered” and “hetero-normative” (or so I am told, not sure I know what they even mean) person I am The Enemy, I am the Oppressing Class, I am the Priviledged Overlord and the author of all misfortunes suffered by any group of people who have a name for what they are.
Thing is; I just try to treat people as they treat me with a default of being nice to everyone if I’m not sure. As far as I can see being a good person isn’t slightly correlated with any of the labels, so this seems a fair tactic.
And for this I am demonised; is it any wonder that I have no interest in involvement with any of these movements?
–
Keep doing what you’re doing; you’re doing good work.