I called in to “His Side with Glenn Sacks” this past Sunday. The guest on the show was Hugo Schwyzer, who has posted about the show a few times since Sunday.
Anyhow, I’m too lazy to transcribe the entire show, but I’ll transcribe the tiny part I appeared in. (You can listen to a recording of the whole show here.)
I marked in the transcript where Glenn cut me off, because I thought otherwise people might wonder why I was suddenly uncharacteristically silent. However, no criticism of Glenn is implied: There are too many callers for him to spend a lot of time with just one caller, so he has to cut people off once they’ve made a point.
The transcript probably isn’t 100% accurate, but it’s pretty close. It begins after Glenn has said the next caller is Barry from Portland, Oregon.
GLENN: How you doing Barry?
AMP: Hi, Glenn.
GLENN: Barry agrees with Hugo. So what’s up, Barry?
AMP: (laughs)
GLENN: Hi, Barry.
AMP: Hi, Nice to finally talk to you in person after all those emails. And hello to Hugo as well – you know me as Ampersand.
GLENN: Oh, Ampersand! Alright, okay.
HUGO: I sure do.
GLENN: Alright, what’s up? Feminist blogger – Male feminist blogger Ampersand.
AMP: Okay. Well I just wanted to say that there is an extent to which I do agree with the men’s rights movement. I do think that sexism harms men a lot. When you look at schoolyard bullying, when you look at the disproportionate male deaths in the workplace, when you look at the alienation from families for men who are working fifty or sixty hour weeks, the pressure to always be masculine and sexism in courtrooms that works against men sometimes. All of those are places where I think the men’s rights movement is really on to something.
GLENN: However…
AMP: However… The mistake made by the men’s rights movement is that you folks tend to think it’s a zero-sum game. You tend to think that, because men do have genuine complaints, that means you need to spend your time talking about how women don’t have genuine complaints. Which is why men’s righters like you do spend time writing column after column talking about how rape isn’t as serious a problem for women as feminists say it is, or that-
GLENN: I don’t say it’s not as serious for the women who’s been raped, I say it’s not as common as feminists say.
AMP: Right-
GLENN: Let’s be clear, I don’t say that, for those women who actually are raped, I don’t say it’s not serious-
AMP: Indeed. I wasn’t-
GLENN: I was saying it’s not as common as feminists make it seem. Alright-
AMP: If I may continue?
GLENN: Well, I wanted to talk about your point here, Barry.
AMP: Okay, well, the final point I’m making.
GLENN: Alright, Barry, go ahead.
AMP: That’s why I think the pro-feminist men’s movement has a better understanding of the situation. Because they understand that it’s not a zero-sum game. Or, I should say, “we.” We don’t say, “well, nothing bad ever happens to men, and no men suffer.” And we don’t have to spend our time talking about how – saying that deaths in the workplace is not a serious problem for men. Instead, we can understand that sexism is actually harming both women and men.
GLENN: Okay. Barry, I can go with you there. [Hangs up on Amp.] The thing is this: feminists have portrayed – and thank you for the call. Feminists have portrayed gender relations in the United States as a thing where all the advantages work in men’s favor, all the disadvantages work in women’s favor. They’ve exaggerated the advantages men have, they’ve exaggerated greatly the disadvantages women have. So that is why a lot of people like myself, in my writing and on my radio show, I do feel compelled to point out that women don’t have it anywhere near as bad as feminists say they do. And I do point out that men don’t have it anywhere near as good as feminists say, simply because that’s what I feel we have to do in order to have a real debate on these issues. We can’t have a real debate on these issues if we’re going to pretend that men have everything and women have nothing. Hugo, what do you think?
HUGO: Well, I don’t think that any of us in the pro-feminist movement are saying that men have everything and women have nothing.
GLENN: You come pretty close. (laughs)
HUGO: No, I think – What Ampersand is absolutely right about is that we in the pro-feminist movement totally understand that male pain is real, that men are hurting. But men like yourself have misdiagnosed the cause of that hurt and you have misprescribed the cure for that pain.
Thanks, Amp — well done. Uh, I don’t think my final line was “misproscribed”. Of course, the MRAs no doubt think I am “proscribing” instead of prescribing!
For the record, I was paraphrasing Michael Flood.
Thanks for the correction, Hugo – I’ve corrected it in the post.
Okay, I’m glad too that you’ve given more context to Glenn hanging up on you. At first I thought he was pulling an O’Reilly, but considering the context that was a legitimate time to cut you off. Way to make a good point there.
*sigh* someday, all information in all mediums will constantly be available to everyone.
I think I would have loved to have heard this firsthand. So much information is derived from intonation.
and, like Meatwad says “books are from the devil, and TV is twice as fast” “twice as fast at what?” “…information?”
Excellent, Amp! I haven’t heard the whole show yet, but in this segment you and Hugo made clear and important points and Sacks really didn’t have much of a response.
Well, what do you expect him to say? “Gosh, you guys are right–I’m taking the moderate, thoughtful path from here on in.” His listeners (and the advertisers) would eviscerate him.
I listened to the show yesterday, Amp. I wondered why you were so quiet all of a sudden, LOL. I agree with you that Glenn hung up at the appropriate time because he had a lot of callers. I thought it was especially interesting that after you said that men’s rights advocates tend to take a zero-sum approach, Glenn’s comments in response to you after hanging up ended up being exactly that – zero sum. He only proved your point.
I was a feminist at one time. Still am, but I call myself an equalitarian, for want of a better word. I have no complaints against feminist ideals; only against feminists who have no idea, or who refuse to believe that men should have equal rights in reproductive choice and family rights. I’m sitting here outside the mainstream, not by choice, but because feminsts want it that way. The idea of men having parental choice, while seemingly equal, detracts from women’s ability to force men into parenthood, allowing women to co-opt the father’s financial resources, which is a position of superiority, not equality. Many argue that only women get pregnant, so only women have choice. This is true only if the topic is abortion. I agree, only women get pregnant, so only women can physically have an abortion. Abortion is only one of several legal methods used to terminate parental responsibility. Legal abandonment is available only to women, yet this method is denied to men. Do none of you see the inequality here? Isn’t that what you’re fighting for? Equality?
My point is that men’s rights groups exist because of the inequality in the feminist movement. What irony!
We support feminist ideals; the tenet of equality. We don’t exclude feminists, they exclude us, because true equality removes them from their position of superiority and makes them equal. My favorite quote: “Let Liberty flourish, the chips fall where they may.”
Argh, I’ve read that comment at least three times at different blogs now!
Cut and paste-tastic
Is your “Argh” directed at the message or what you believe to be cut and paste? You don’t specify.
It’s not cut and paste. Of course the context is the same; equal reproductive and family rights are valid issues for anyone that believes in true gender equality, instead of the pablum NOW and NARL feed us.
The point of the message is that, from my viewpoint, MRAs are not misogynistic as a whole. Can the same be said of feminists and misandry? MRAs merely point out the hypocrisy in the feminist movement that has gained major legal equality in the workplace and government for women, while reserving reproductive and family rights superioirity for themselves. For this they get the misogynist label.
Apparently what makes us seem misogynist is the fact that we label ourselves men’s rights activists, seemingly to the exclusion of women’s issues.
As I stated, most of us started out supporting the feminist movement amd the ideal of gender equality. We still do, but we have moved on to wanting equality for both genders in the workplace and in family related matters. If I have to use a label to describe my politics, it would be Equalitarian.
No, I can’t hope to change minds overnight, or even in a decade. That won’t stop me from advocating gender equality. Bear in mind, that as long as NOW and other feminist organizations continue to be two faced on the subject of equality, I will continue to vote against their (formerly our) political Party .
You guys could have used a few more votes here in Ohio.
Have I mentioned lately how incredibly embarassing it is sharing a surname with Glenn ?
from my viewpoint, MRAs are not misogynistic as a whole
Feminism is not misandrist “as a whole” either, by your definition.
Men’s-rights activists were not created by feminism. cf. Hugh Hefner’s rallying cry to men when he started Playboy in the 1950s.
When you have your facts correct, Tony, get back to me. You obviously don’t know much about how family law actually works.
Mythago: “Men’s-rights activists were not created by feminism. cf. Hugh Hefner’s rallying cry to men when he started Playboy in the 1950s.”
Yup. You should read Barbara Ehrenreich’s “Playboy Joins The Battle Of The Sexes” in her book “The Hearts Of Men: American Dreams And The Flight From Commitment.” She goes into great detail regarding how Hefner rallied men in that chapter.
Par for old style feminists. Pick at everything in the message, make sures Ts are crossed and Is are dotted, but ignore the meat.
I know that women get custody in contested cases by a criminally insane margin. I know that a woman who has multiple chances to not be a parent may force a man into parenthood. Those are facts.
Here’s a few more for you.
Women are rarely cited for contempt for refusing visitation.
Single men are required to register with lttle known and less publicized state run putative father registries in in order to be notified if a child -known or unknown- is put up for adoption, and they only have 30 days from birth to register, and the registry works ONLY if the mother volunteers the father’s name.
Custodial parents (read; women) can get welfare to cough up their share of a child’s support for up to 5 years, but non custodial parents (men) get cited for contempt, liscenses removed, credit ruined, and thrown in jail for not paying.
Liberals in general, and feminists in particular will keep losing ground in the political arena until they realize that men are people also. More irony; it was the Left that taught men to be more sensitive and caring towards their chilfren, and now that men want the full experience, the Left stands in their way.
Equality for all; or we’re going to cram this equality crap back into Pandora’s box.
BTW, in no way am I saying that feminism is dead or has reached its goals. I’m saying that if feminists want more voters on their side they need to learn to comprimise. The Democratic Party is a coalition (compromise) of several groups that signed on to support each other’s agenda. The central theme for those agendas is Equality. I’m willing to sign back on when I see their leadership include equality for men. The ‘patriarchy” has conceded much, it’s time for the matriarchy to do the same.
Good god, are we next going to be arguing whether unicorns are ivory or cream? Man-hating feminists are a myth, the unicorns of the right wing pantheon of mythical liberals.
Of course, Tony, you have some kind of (non-anecdotal) evidence–studies, press releases, reports, quotes, etc.–that support your “facts.” Right? I mean, of course you aren’t just guessing that all your claims are true.
I’d like to see some of this evidence before I decide to take your post seriously.
There are man-hating feminists, actually. But they’re a tiny minority, and most feminists reject their views, as far as I can tell. There’s always a lunatic fringe to any political tendency.
or we’re going to cram this equality crap back into Pandora’s box
I seem to remember that the same “don’t be uppity or we’ll put you back in your place” crap was thrown around during the civil rights movement. Didn’t fly then either, Tony.
“I’m willing to sign back on when I see their leadership include equality for men.”
Right, even if that “equality” means that men have to give up the excessive privileges they already have, right? For example, it’s an established fact that there’s a wage gap. So, if in order to achieve equality, you would have to give up part of your salary in order to make it possible for a woman doing the same job to get the same pay, you’re going to all for it? Or if it were decided that since women are about 52% of the population (probably even higher if we’re only looking at working-age people), you’d be all for having women fill 52+% of all jobs? Somehow, I really doubt that.
The notion that feminists should prioritize men over women that men’s rights activists are always sprouting kills me. Especially when they petulantly deny that has anything to do with general expectations that women should put men before themselves.
the unicorns of the right wing pantheon of mythical liberals
I’m stealing this!
Jeez, look: of course feminism in the ideal–and in the main–is not anti-male. The point that the struggle for equal rights is not–and should not be conceived of as–a zero-sum game is well-put.
But I personally have known a *large* number of feminists I’d have to describe as irrational and/or anti-male. In fact, though feminism was one of the most important influences on my intellectual development, I no longer identify myself as a feminist. I was told in graduate school–repeatedly and vehemently, by women active in feminist causes and scholarship–that males could not be feminists. I was already disgusted with the irrational radicalism that was passing for feminism in my department at the time, so I finally decided “O.k., you say I can’t be a feminist, that’s fine with me.” I had no desire to be a “feminist” anymore, though my (passionate and deeply-held) views about the equality of the sexes had not changed.
Vilify my if you want, but I’m just trying to tell you that you aren’t helping your cause if you deny that there’s a significant anti-egalitarian faction of feminists. Or at least I’ve met lots of them, and other seem to have as well. I expect that’s why so few of my female undergrads identify themselves as feminists, though most do seem to be egalitarians. In fact, some of my smartest and most egalitarian female friends with Ph.D.s no longer seem to think of themselves as femnists.
And, of course every movement has its kooks, and of course the movement as a whole can’t be responsible for everything every one of those kooks says. But my point is that–in my experience–the kooky fringe of feminism is reasonably prominent. And until the majority of feminists realize this, the movement will continue to alienate people like me. Seems to me that the reaction to stories like mine here should be more like “Jeez, man, we know we’ve got a significant nutty fringe, but they don’t represent the core of our movement. Toughen up and come on back into the fold.” But the reaction is more often like “those feminists don’t exist, you made them up you misogynist!”
Prove me wrong.
Winston, I suspect your experiences on campus may well be a misleading impression of what the majority, or even the mean attitude of feminists supports.
Watching any political or social group on a post-secondary campus (heck, a lot of secondary campuses too) is like seeing the lunatic fringe in action. My personal pet theory is that students are at a point in their lives where they are old enough to have formed strong opinions and beliefs, but largely have very little responsibility other than to themselves (ie- no dependents, most jobs are part time and not likely to be career jobs, etc). This creates something of an imbalance in the fervor with which they attempt to spread their beliefs.
So, I believe that environment does make a difference, and that perhaps your sample group, although consistent, is not representative of the whole.
I agree–I make it a point never to judge any philosophy, social or political group based solely on what its self-appointed representatives acted like when I met them in college.
The kooky fringe of feminism is not “reasonably prominent.” It’s just the part to which people like to pay attention; they WANT to believe feminism is a bunch of man-hating nutbars, and they look for any fact that will confirm that bias.
I’ve known a number of women who clearly disliked men, yet would never dream of calling themselves feminists. I wonder where they fit into the scheme of things. I suppose the Winstons of the world would just say that any woman who expresses hatred –justified or not– of men as a group or as individuals is a de facto feminist. Of course, that’s crap. Hatred, fear, and dislike alone cannot sustain a struggle for freedom and reform, though sometimes they can spark the thought process that leads a person to desire change of the status quo.
What I see repeatedly on this boards and others where feminism is discussed by feminists is a desire to live without fear, distrust, and hatred. (For some, but not all, this becomes a desire to live apart from men.) Ideally, most time is spent talking about avenues that would remove the necessity for those emotions. But no one is a saint, including the average woman, and sometimes unpleasant feelings need to be vented if they are to be overcome. Also, it’s been pointed out here before by feminists that to live AS IF the ideal world of trust and mutual respect between the sexes had already been achieved is likely to make a woman a target. No woman in her right mind would do that if she intends to preserve her own safety and well-being as best she can.
See what I mean? It took only three comments for someone to make an accusation against me that was clearly inconsistent with what I wrote. What sort of an idiot would think that any woman who expressed a dislike of men was *ipso facto* a feminist? The mind reels…
Unhappy confirmation of my *substantial presence* hypothesis.
But I think the comments by Wookie and Mythago are eminently sensible. Your hypothesis is correct: most of the feminists in question were grad students. Though there were professors with similar views. On the other hand, my encounters with such feminists haven’t been isolated to academia.
Anway, I can assure you that there are many radical egalitarians about sex, such as myself, who have been alienated from feminism. It’s too bad that “radical sex egalitarian” is so NOT catchy… Anyway, vilify me/us if you like, but it won’t change the facts.
What facts? That feminism, like all other philosophies and political movements, has people in it who are obnoxious? I can’t say that I ever felt those people had some moral right to the F-word and that I should acquiesce to them.
No. As I’ve tried to make clear, it’s not that there are merely *some* such people. That would be a silly point. If I made such a point I would be a silly person. Let me make it clear: I am making no such point.
Again, here’s what I’m saying: such self-described feminists are sufficiently numerous to drive very many people (including myself and many females of my acquaintance) to refuse to identify themselves as feminists.
Perhaps I am wrong about how many such people there are among self-described feminists: on that point I am relying on my own personal experience.
Perhaps I am wrong about how many intelligent people are egalitarians with regard to sex but who refuse to identify themselves as feminists. Again, all I have to go on in this case is personal experience.
I *will* note, however, that it used to be axiomatic among feminists that personal experience was to be taken rather seriously. I don’t necessarily agree with that point, but I raise it for your consideration. Perhaps some statistics are available.
In essence, I’m merely saying, as a sympathetic outsider, that I believe that feminism as a movement has a problem. It was very important to me, but it lost me. Given what I’ve experienced, my reaction seems reasonable and not terribly unusual.
Ignore this friendly advice if you will, or conclude that I’m in error, but I’d really rather you not attribute stupid beliefs or bad attitudes to me.
p.s. My previous comment now seems testier than was warranted by Mythago’s comment. My apologies.
Winston, maybe your insistence that you, as a man, can tell women what feminism is might have been one of the reasons you got hostile reactions. I know it can feel like man-hating when you are told that you have to relinquish you traditional right to set the terms when talking to a woman, but that is what equality is.
That being said, I think that it’s not the radical elements of feminism that are causing people to turn away. It’s the way that anti-feminists point to the radical elements and lie about them, saying they are representative when they are not.
such self-described feminists are sufficiently numerous to drive very many people (including myself and many females of my acquaintance) to refuse to identify themselves as feminists.
The problem, as I see it, is that you’re allowing yourself to be driven, rather than calling those people on their crap. If you–a formerly self-described feminist–refuse to tell these people to get lost, how can you turn around and criticize those of us who still use the label for failing to do the same?
Indeed, these people are a problem for feminism, as they are for any other -ism. The real problem is that critics of feminism point to that minority and lie–citing thirty-year-old quotes from Robin Morgan as proof of what All Feminists Think. I actually had someone tell me, in all credulity, that about a third of N.O.W.’s members were lesbians–and when I called him on this, he asked (again, believing his own crap) whether I knew any lesbians who *weren’t* members of N.O.W.
Which is to say that even if we rounded up every nutbar who called him- or herself a feminist and sent them off to a quiet island somewhere, it wouldn’t matter. Feminism makes people uncomfortable. They don’t LIKE to be told things are wrong or that they weren’t making their choices are freely as they thought. And so rather than question themselves or their choices, they attack feminism so it goes away and stops ruining the party.
Oh fer chrissake. I’m not presuming nor insisting to tell anybody what feminism is. Just take what I’m saying semi-seriously for half a second.
See, one of the reasons I don’t consider myself a feminist anymore is that even relatively modest, friendly criticisms of the way things were going in the movement had *a tendency* to generate rather hostile responses and/or explanations about why I didn’t get to say such things because I was male. (See above.)
But that’s the kind of BS which, directed at females by the culture at large, made me a devoute feminist early in my life. I was attracted to feminism by the view that people and what they thought and said shouldn’t be judged on the basis of their chromosome count or the configuration of their genitals. I quit considering myself a feminist when I encountered a significant proportion of self-described feminists who were judging me and the things I thought and said on the basis of my chromosome count or the configuration of my genitals.
There are a lot of people like me (many of them female). Now, we could all be dumb, or closet sexists, or whatever. Or we could be honestly confused. But there IS another alternative that I continue to implore you to consider: that we are, at least a little bit, right.
Winston, I wasn’t saying you’re stupid or anything because you’re a man. But when a man “corrects” a woman, he is doing so in a culture where he is presumed to be smarter by nature. And when you “correct” a woman about the direction a movement by and for women should take, then you are invoking that authority. Please understand that can cause offense.
Not to belabor the point, but it’s wise to rethink it in terms of other movements for social justice. Should whites instruct blacks on how to petition for equality? Are the rich really the best judges of how the poor can best lift themselves up?
What I’m saying is that it strikes me as highly possible that you thought feminists were judging you for *being* a man when in fact they might be taking offense that you were using the station in life that the culture at large gives you for being a man.
Ah, I see, Winston. You can justifiably avoid any interest in feminist causes because of the bad rep which is supposedly created by the “man-hating cadre.” (Or whatever.) Nowhere do I recall you or the other MRA’s acknowledging that a woman can hate men and still have zero interest in feminism or feel zero kinship with other women. But, of course, I’m the one “acusing.”
Face it, no matter how I delivered my opinion, you wouldn’t want to hear it. Which is your right, of course, but your highly selective interest in who hates who, and why, hardly strikes me as the stuff of “egalitarianism,” –by any standard.
Actually, many posters here have listened to you respectfully, and responded to you seriously. Not that you seem prepared to give anyone any credit for that, judging from statements like the one I quoted above. Maybe that’s not true, but that’s certainly the impression you’re giving; if that’s not the impression you want to give, maybe you should consider changing the way you express yourself a bit.
As for not being judged by what’s between your legs, I can relate to that – it’s sometimes been a frustration for me, as a male feminist, to have some asshole feminist attack me for my sex without regard for what I’ve said.
On the other hand, feminism shouldn’t be about how I, personally, am treated. Yes, there are individual feminists who have treated me like shit because I’m a man (or such is my impression). At the same time, there are countless feminists who aren’t male-bashing. More important, just because an individual feminist treats me badly doesn’t mean that the wage gap is less unjust; that rape is less of a problem; that men don’ t hold a wildly disproportionate share of society’s powerful positions; that it’s okay that women are a disproportionate number of minimum wage workers; that it’s okay that men are a disproportionate share of on-the-job deaths; etc, etc..
I’m a feminist because I think that, about many important issues, feminism is both empirically correct and on the side of justice; that remains true whether or not a few individual feminists treat me rudely. Therefore, it would be illogical for me to stop being a feminist based on how I, personally, am treated.
Besides, plenty of “egalitarians” and Men’s Rights Activists have treated me like shit over the years, too. So if used that as a way of deciding what I should be, I couldn’t be part of any movement at all. :-)
* * *
It’s funny that someone mentioned Robin Morgan. Earlier this week, someone on a MRA board presented me with some decades-old Robin Morgan quotes; is it really fair to hold me responsible for what Robin Morgan said when I was in diapers? Why is (say) Susan Faludi’s recent book on men not also considered to be part of feminism, when these discussions take place?
I realize that this may not apply to you. But in my personal experience, if there are two male-bashing feminists in a classroom of 30, there will be a couple of people who walk out of the classrooom convinced that ALL feminists hate men – never mind that the people who actually said the stuff they’re objecting to were a small minority of the class.
* * *
Regarding being judged because of my sex. Generally, I think this is unjust. But in some particular circumstances, I think sex does matter. In feminist groups, it’s important that men NOT try to be leaders, and also important that men consciously avoid dominating discussions.
True, in an ideal society, sex would be irrelevant anytime people are exchanging ideas, but we’re not IN that society. Yet.
Um, yes?
Robert, the rich are not in a good position because despite the conservative position that being wealthy imbues greater intelligence and a higher moral character, in reality, the rich have a vested interest in making sure the poor stay poor.
Well, the short-sighted rich do. Bill Gates Sr. and the rest of the folk at Responsible Wealth seem to be in the minority in that regard. :(
Yeah, I would say the prevailing attitude at the time is that the federal government needs to get us back to when it was easy to get good help.
The conservative position is that wealth is created by the movement of resources from lower-valued uses to higher-valued uses. (Actually, that’s the “truth” position. The specifically conservative slant on that position is that such movement is best coordinated by individual free action, versus the specifically liberal slant that such movement is best coordinated by collective bodies.)
The traditional upper-class mythology concerning wealth is quaint and sometimes amusing, but completely nonoperative. Even the purveyors of the myths do so for pedagogical, rather than politico-economic, reasons. (It’s a Useful Lie in the teaching of the truth – in rather the way that we teach children about Newtonian physics.)
Left-wing emotional reaction to that mythology – “vested interest in making sure the poor stay poor” – is even further removed from operational logic, as fifteen seconds of consecutive thought make painfully obvious. How is Michael Dell made better off by keeping 90% of humanity from being able to afford his product? Does Stephen King stand to gain or to lose from an increase in the number of literate people with both leisure and disposable cash?
Analyses that had a glimmering of truth in a world barely emerged from feudalism are simply tired and anti-intellectual today.
Interesting use of Stephen King as an example–since his writings (however popular) are considered common by the literati elite, and he’s taken them to task over that fact.
Left-wing emotional reaction to that mythology – “vested interest in making sure the poor stay poor”? – is even further removed from operational logic, as fifteen seconds of consecutive thought make painfully obvious.
As long, of course, as you ignore thousands of years of history where the rich did everything in their power to squelch the poor. And, I would argue, are doing it now. You are operating under the assumption that wealth somehow breeds logical thought. The rich are just as emotional as everyone else and, in our society, seem prone to arguing that the poor are stealing from them.
The emotional, condescending tone of this response reminds me of something Kip said on your website, about how people respond to ideas that are considered long-settled within their own ideology.
Regarding your logic, it’s true that neither King nor Dell has an obvious direct interest in keeping the poor poor. However, a wealthy owner of a chain of McDonalds has a strong interest in there being a large class of poor people, both because it increases the pool of people who are wiling to work for McWages, and because if people don’t have money to spend on good meals they’re more likely to eat at McDonalds. The same thing is true for the owners of Wal-Mart; they rely on a large pool of people too poor to turn down Wal-Mart’s terrible wages, and they even more rely on a large pool of people who can’t afford good merchandise and so have to buy crappy Wal-Mart items.
So if argument-by-example is how we should approach this question – and, according to the logic of your own post, it is – then clearly there are some rich people who benefit strongly and directly form there being a large class of poor people.
Gotta go; more later. Well, probably not until tomorrow.
Citizen 382-22-0666:
Since I wasn’t there when you had the conversation with these people, I can hardly be positive, but usually when feminists say things like this they aren’t claiming that you as a man can’t support the feminist political programme. They are telling you that they don’t want you to cash out that support by calling yourself a “feminist,” and would prefer a term more like “pro-feminist man.” Roughly, because feminism isn’t just some set of abstract policy positions that anyone can sign on to; it involves some policy positions but it’s mainly something that you live, and as a man you (and I) necessarily stand in a very different position to the movement and to the living of feminism than women do. One reason they worry about this is because of how, historically, feminism has been co-opted and marginalized by liberal and Leftist in the name of an allegedly “broader” program (as if women’s liberation weren’t good enough on its own)?
I think it’s a pretty compelling argument. But whether it’s compelling or it’s complete nonsense, it’s not, as you have portrayed it, any kind of argument against boys helping out in the movement. What it is is an argument about how boys who do support feminism should act, how they should identify themselves, and how they should think of themselves in relation to feminist activism. It’s a call for humility, something which I’ve found, frankly, to be in sadly short supply amongst white Leftist boys. In any case, the fact that the argument is compelling doesn’t mean that there might not be other compelling reasons to reconsider the conclusion (I’ve tried to take up some of these issues and explain why I usually identify myself as a feminist anyway in That Feminist Boy Thing); but I can’t for the life of me find “It hurts my fee-fees when they yell at me for calling myself a feminist” among them. The fact that you as a man may not enjoy a practice, or that it might “alienate” men who are otherwise sympathetic to the movement, is no argument at all for feminists to forswear it. If feminists never did anything that didn’t hack some of the boys who claimed to be their allies off, there never would have been a feminist movement at all.
A couple further questions:
1. Why marginalize or abandon Robin Morgan? Of course, everyone has a mind of their own and people shouldn’t have to answer for every wack thing that another person who shares their political convictions says, but it would be a serious mistake to suggest that Morgan–who played an instrumental role in founding New York Radical Women and WITCH, putting on the Miss America protests, organized abortion speak-outs and put together Sisterhood is Powerful, and has been a formative influence on outlets such as Ms. Magazine–is some kind of nutty fringe figure. She’s a radical figure, yes, but “radical” isn’t necessarily a term of criticism, and radical feminism has always been an absolutely essential part of Second Wave feminist theory and practice. Any story of the movement that doesn’t centrally involve her in her role as an organizer, writer, and editor has got to be a seriously distorted one.
And–let’s put the cards on the table after all–I can’t think of a single quote by Robin Morgan that the Men’s Rights bully-boys drag out that actually has anything at all objectionable in it. What specifically is the point on which she shouldn’t be defended against her accusers?
2. While we’re at it, what is supposed to be wrong with man-hating, anyway? If some feminists do hate men, would that mean that there is something wrong with their position?
I, for one, hate men. Not all of them, but lots of them. And I hate them precisely because they act like men are supposed to act. I.E. because they are controlling, exploitative, rude, callous, and/or violent, just like they were brought up to be. I hate men who act like that and I hate myself when I realize that I’ve acted that way. I don’t think it’s because I’m a neurotic bundle of self-loathing or because I’m aiming to become one; it’s because I think that all of us men have a long way to go to break ourselves out of habits and beliefs that keep us from acting like decent human beings as often as we should. We grow up thinking that we have the right to do a lot of fucked up stuff and then we usually go on to do it at some point or another. Often at many points throughout our lives.
There are many men that I love and mostly trust but I love them and mostly trust them for the demonstrable steps they’ve taken away from the way that men are normally expected to act. And I’m doing what I can to help the efforts to change those expectations and those actions–in myself, and in others when I can reach them–but I can’t say I blame a woman at all if she doesn’t like most men or doesn’t necessarily trust our motives straight off the bat.
That doesn’t strike me as unreasoned bigotry; it strikes me as a rational response to the empirical evidence.
Rad, I am forever amused by the quotes that the MRA’s will pull out of feminist comments in online discussions and dangle them out there as if we all see what is supposed to be objectionable about them. As if all of us just happen to have that same visceral hatred rise up when a woman speaks her mind as if she had a right. ;)
The MRAs that are swarming feministing are particularly funny about this. And if they can’t find any examples of women just speaking their minds in an un-ladylike manner, they make shit up.
Um, I could go through these comments individually–which is *not* a sneaky way to assert that I could convince you all if given enough time–but I’m not going to. I’m not convinced by them, but a friend of mine recently pointed out to me–quite rightly–that I have a tendency to beat my head against issues long after it’s clear that my efforts are to no avail. And I’m trying to quit.
There are lots of issues that are so complicated and so nuanced that reasonable people can see them different ways. I expect that this is one of them. I’ll continue to work for sex equality, and I continue to fervently hope to see it realized in my lifetime. But I guess feminism *per se* and I are just permanently on the outs.
Though one comment for Rad Geek:
I had not intended to portray the argument as one against males “helping out” with feminism. I thought I was careful to point out that it was about whether I *am* (or could be) a feminist. Which is what you seem to be talking about, too. It’s really pretty hard to hurt my feelings, so that’s not what it’s about, either. I *could* accept a kind of adjunct, second class status as a quasi-feminist male or somesuch, but it ought to be pretty clear why someone like me who favors total egalitarianism about sex wouldn’t be interested.
So, with that I bid you a fond farewell, to go back to my own kind (male and female), the anti-sexist non-feminists.
Best of luck with the majority of your endeavors.
Why marginalize or abandon Robin Morgan?
I wasn’t suggesting that Robin Morgan is evil–only that what she said thirty years ago, or more, is probably not exactly what she would say today, and it certainly isn’t Feminist Canon. (though I am still pissed that the “Sisterhood is Powerful” crowd for buckling under and changing the original title, The Hand that Cradles the Rock, because some moron threatened to sue them. You can’t copyright a title, dude.)
Pingback: Glenn Sacks Slams Book as Attack on Fathers :: The Zero Boss