The Intellectual Space to Be Anti-Male Is Necessary and Desirable

In a couple of posts in January, I touched on the topic of “male-bashing.”

“Male-bashing” is an inaccurate phrase, since — as Hugo says — words are not fists. (And see this post by Mandolin, as well.)

But in general, I understand the phrase “male-bashing” to mean not literal bashing1, but “unfair criticism of men, rooted in prejudice against men.”

Well, unfairness and prejudice — how could I defend that? Really, I can’t. I don’t believe that anyone should be judged or treated differently based on what’s between their legs.2 There have been times when I’ve encountered outright anti-male bigotry on feminist boards, both directly and indirectly (such as women who agreed with a man in argument having their positions dismissed as “male-coddling,” which is sexist against both sexes).

That’s prejudiced, and it sucks. No doubt about that, at least in my (male) mind. On the occasions I encounter stuff like that, sometimes I object, and sometimes I roll my eyes and mutter under my breathe about picking battles.

But I still think that male-bashing — or, rather, the intellectual space for male-bashing — is necessary.

Mainly because what male-bashing is, is contested territory. If a feminist scholar says that rape is extreme behavior, but part of the spectrum of normal male behavior, is that male-bashing? That’s pretty clearly what Christina Hoff Sommers insinuated when, seeking to discredit Mary Koss’ rape prevalence research, she wrote (emphasis Sommers’):

In 1982, Mary Koss, then a professor of psychology at Kent State University in Ohio, published an article on rape in which she expressed the orthodox gender feminist view that “rape represents an extreme behavior but one that is on a continuum with normal male behavior within the culture” (my emphasis). Some well-placed feminist activists were impressed by her.

So is Koss’ statement anti-male? Apparently Sommers thinks so, but I don’t know why. Koss isn’t saying all men are rapists; she’s not saying that for men to rape is normal; she’s saying that there is a continuum of male sexual behavior, and rape is an extreme on that continuum.3 You might disagree with that, but should the very thought be off-bounds for those of us who want to avoid being bigoted against any sex? I don’t think so.

Similarly, I’ve more than once seen critics of feminism suggest that being critical of masculinity is anti-male. From my perspective, nothing in this world is more harmful to men than cultural norms of masculinity, and nothing more profoundly anti-male than the idea that the ideals of “masculinity” should not be criticized or changed (or, preferably, done away with). Every person who is against challenging the idea of masculinity, is in favor of boys being beaten and bullied in schoolyards; is in favor of men going off to stupid wars where they can be shot and blown up, mainly by other men also trying to be masculine; etc, etc. But for other people, my entire line of thinking is somehow “anti-male.”

Historically, the idea that women needed the vote — (“What are you saying, that men don’t vote in the best interests of their families?”) — was once considered anti-male. I’ve more than once been told that thinking that men and women should be equally represented in government, was anti-male and sexist, because I was claiming that male politicians can’t represent women. (I do think an individual male politician can represent women. I’m not sure a governing body that’s 85% male can adequately represent a population that’s 51% female). I’ve also been told, again and again, that my belief that children of lesbian couples turn out fine without a father is anti-male (never mind that I’d say the same thing about motherless children of gay male couples).

The intellectual freedom to be anti-male is necessary, because today’s common sense was yesterday’s anti-male screed, and today’s screed tomorrow’s common sense. It would be bad for both women and men if all of feminism’s good ideas were dropped because they were labeled anti-male.

* * *

There’s another reason, which I believe but am having difficulty articulating: I think that when fighting an entrenched, unjust system, radical ideas are valuable as a “shock to the system.” (Credit to Mandolin, who discussed this with me in IM a while ago, for influencing my thinking on this.) There is a value in fiery rhetoric; there is a value in saying “fuck all that shit.”

  1. Of course, some men are literally bashed, but this is usually called “violence” or “abuse,” not bashing. []
  2. I can think of a few very narrow exceptions to this, in cases that either have to do with genuine physical differences, such as having urinals in men’s restrooms but not women’s, or that are intended to mitigate the effects of already-existing sexism, such as affirmative action. []
  3. In context, Koss’ paper (published in The Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology) argued that a spectrum approach is a more useful way of categorizing “sexual aggression/sexual victimization” than a typological approach, which says a “subject is either a rapist, a rape victim, or a control subject. Recently, several writers have suggested that a dimensional view of rape be adopted. In this framework, rape represents an extreme behavior but one that is on a continuum with normal male behavior within the culture.” []
This entry posted in Christina Hoff Sommers, Feminism, sexism, etc. Bookmark the permalink. 

49 Responses to The Intellectual Space to Be Anti-Male Is Necessary and Desirable

  1. 1
    Mandolin says:

    Yes, yes, yes, yes, fuck yes.

    Which I say as a woman who both has been criticized for being anti-male because I criticize masculinity (canNOT get over the fucktard who said I was IN FAVOR OF RAPING MEN because I called the impulse to rape men evil! EARTH TO IDIOT, your reading comprehension is made of fail.) and ALSO as a woman who is frequently called a collaborator or a shill or male-coddling or whatever-the-shit because I happen to agree with men including our wonderful Ampersand.

  2. 2
    Christina says:

    within the culture

    I read that as the key to understanding what the woman actually said.

  3. 3
    PG says:

    Similarly, I’ve more than once seen critics of feminism suggest that being critical of masculinity is anti-male. From my perspective, nothing in this world is more harmful to men than cultural norms of masculinity, and nothing more profoundly anti-male than the idea that the ideals of “masculinity” should not be criticized or changed (or, preferably, done away with). Every person who is against challenging the idea of masculinity, is in favor of boys being beaten and bullied in schoolyards

    This is exactly what was happening in the post and comments to that post, I think from Feminist Critics, that trackbacked to your quote of little light’s post recently. Instead of saying, “Yeah, what happened was bad and shouldn’t happen to anyone” (which I considered the pro-male position), they were insulted by the idea that the male group behavior cultivated as a way to lesson boys into the norms of adult masculinity could be harmful to anyone. (Also apparently some of the commenters there didn’t grasp the concept that little boys can be part of enacting the discipline of masculinity onto dissenting peers without the boys being conscious that that’s what they’re doing.)

  4. 4
    Lilian Nattel says:

    I think that there is also a value in recognizing the continuum of human behaviour, male/female aside, that includes the extremes. The problem in excluding the extreme is that makes the behaviour other and monstrous. And while I might abhor extreme violence (as in rape, further as in torture), to make it other and monstrous puts it in an exceptional category. Then it’s something to gawk at and tsk tsk over, punish (whomever is stupid enough to get caught and poor enough to be without resources) but nothing more really. If it’s part of a continuum, then we can ask deeper questions and look at what within our society’s values, its institutions, its way of thinking support the behaviours that in extreme are abhorrent and work on uprooting them at an earlier, less extreme stage.

  5. 5
    Doorshut says:

    I agree, but I’m critical of using the word “bashing” to describe anti-male sentiment, because of things like this. Bashing when applied to a minority typically means something very different and I’m uncomfortable relating “unfair criticism” with that violence.

  6. 6
    DaisyDeadhead says:

    As you know, I was miffed at you, Amp… but you have redeemed yourself with this one. Pardon Christian terminology! :P

    But really great.

    Similarly, I’ve more than once seen critics of feminism suggest that being critical of masculinity is anti-male. From my perspective, nothing in this world is more harmful to men than cultural norms of masculinity, and nothing more profoundly anti-male than the idea that the ideals of “masculinity” should not be criticized or changed (or, preferably, done away with). Every person who is against challenging the idea of masculinity, is in favor of boys being beaten and bullied in schoolyards; is in favor of men going off to stupid wars where they can be shot and blown up, mainly by other men also trying to be masculine; etc, etc. But for other people, my entire line of thinking is somehow “anti-male.”

    Underscored, for the win.

  7. Pingback: links for 2009-03-30 « Embololalia

  8. 7
    grendelkhan says:

    I’d agree more with this if it wasn’t apparently common wisdom that whenever someone says that the radicals are being mean, the radicals are in fact simply speaking truth to power, and any perception of being anti-male is solely the reader’s privilege speaking.

    I’m not saying that the hate is unjustified, that it’s morally equivalent to hating on an unprivileged group, or that radical feminism is inherently hateful, but it’d be nice if people would at least own it.

    (Why, yes, I have brought this up before.)

  9. 8
    PG says:

    There is a value in fiery rhetoric; there is a value in saying “fuck all that shit.”

    Probably, but I’m more skeptical of the value in saying “fuck you.”

  10. 9
    Mandolin says:

    PG,

    Maybe you wouldn’t be if you had to read the comments that end up in mod at one of the major blogs for… like a month. The “oh, we can all talk this out” illusion goes pretty fast.

    Some recent samples include: “We’ll stop treating you like fucking n*ggers when you stop acting like fucking n*ggers”, various insults thrown at we sinister Alas Jews… at least we don’t tend to get comments threatening to rape and murder the female bloggers, though I understand those are very common at the big feminist blogs.

    Yeah. To those people I say “fuck you.” And there’s value in it. There’s value in me not being emotionally bound by their systemically buoyed poison.

  11. 10
    PG says:

    Mandolin,

    In my own experience moderating, I didn’t publish comments like that. They got deleted and forgotten. People like that don’t want to talk; they just want to shit rhetorically all over your blog.

    Obviously every moderator has her own goals for a blog, but I didn’t see any value in publishing someone’s comment just so I could reply “fuck you” to them. It’s sort of like my attitude toward people who mistreat me or my friends in real life but who don’t have any actual power over us: I try to blank them out instead of giving them the attention they crave.

    And if someone’s comment was acceptable for publication, that meant it deserved better than a “fuck you” from other commenters.

  12. 11
    Mandolin says:

    Yeah, we don’t publish them either (have you seen them around?). But that doesn’t mean there’s no value in saying fuck you to them, even if neither comment nor response gets published. You’re imputing circumstances to my earlier comment that were not stated within it.

  13. 12
    Individ-ewe-al says:

    I agree that sometimes need a space where you can vent, and also where you can explore theories without a bunch of concern trolls making you justify to them that you’re really truly not a misandrist. I had the odd experience of posting an idle comment to LiveJournal about an overheard conversation between some male colleagues who were well meaning, but unconsciously sexist. And suddenly I was accused of man-hating and sexism against men, and no matter how many times I said I meant those particular men, not men in general, I couldn’t get through. I have a pretty good idea how wearing that kind of thing would be if I blogged regularly about feminist issues (I’m trying to get into it more) in a high-traffic, very public blog rather than the relative safety of LJ.

    That said, I’m wary of places like womensspace or the iblamethepatriarchy boards which risk just turning into hatefests. I’m not offended on behalf of the maligned men, I’m worried that it’s not good for the mental health of participants to keep egging eachother on with more and more violence and hatred. I’m an outsider, I’m not placed to judge, but it worries me.

    I think one place that does this kind of thing really well is Shapely Prose. They have a clear policy that says they’re mocking and snarky and they’re not going to do fat politics (or feminism) 101 and if you don’t like their “tone” you can go elsewhere. But they’re always kind and thoughtful even so.

  14. 13
    PG says:

    Mandolin,

    But that doesn’t mean there’s no value in saying fuck you to them, even if neither comment nor response gets published.

    Sorry, I misunderstood — I was thinking of the “fuck you” being said with the intent of its being heard and felt by the person at whom it was directed, i.e. to someone rather than just in my head. I say “fuck you” in my head all the time to vent, but I try not to say it to actual people even if they seem deserving. Either the person is an asshole who will be delighted by the attention and vindication, or the person is merely severely misguided and will be genuinely hurt.

  15. 14
    Robin says:

    I don’t know if there’s any value doing so, but I just wanted to say fuck YES to this post. You articulated the point beautifully, Amp, and really made me think.

  16. 15
    Ampersand says:

    FWIW, Robin, it pleases me to know you found it useful.

    (I don’t participate in comments much anymore (way too little time for the blog nowadays, alas) but I try to keep up with reading comments.)

  17. 16
    Harold says:

    I admit that I am some what literal when I read things and I don’t fully get the point of the post. If a person believes they have a creditable and moral argument, I do not see how it can be compatible with being anti-male unless you’re arguing being anti-male is moral. If you have a discussion with another person who believes you’re being anti-male and you do not believe so, why would you accept their framing that you are being anti-male?

    common sense was yesterday’s anti-male screed, and today’s screed tomorrow’s common sense.

    The common sense in question was unpopular, it was never anti male. Some nuggets of the idea may have been in an anti male screed, the actual anti-male parts were removed in the implementation. I have no problem with screeds, but extremely angry ones I personally believe they more about the author generating a lot of heat rather than light.

    There is a value in fiery rhetoric; there is a value in saying “fuck all that shit.”

    I agree with this, in general in terms that people see fiery rhetoric as powerful, and that people in general respect power more than practically anything else. Of course, from a minority personal perspective, I would prefer if most citizens of the Internet would live by the rule that they would never troll, harass, or insult other posters. I don’t see any point of even swearing at a poster that is bothering me. I very rarely swear at people, but if I angry enough to tell a person off I only would want do it in person.

  18. 17
    Silenced is Foo says:

    Have to agree about the masculinity-is-the-problem thing, but I don’t see that problem changing any time soon.

    A person who lambasts a woman for failing to be feminine, for failing to live up to her feminine gender role as subservient and delicate? I’d think that the average mainstream moderate-left person wouldn’t tolerate that. Obviously there are bigots and there will always will be bigots, but I don’t think we see any silent assent to that bigotry.

    Meanwhile, I think most men participate in the masculine pissing contest, and most women support it. Nobody says boo when a guy calls another guy a pussy. Obviously, again, this is pulling stuff out of my own personal observations in my own life (AKA my ass).

    Either way, my point, to be blunt, is that while the pressure for women to be feminine is substantial, I think the pressure for men to be masculine is greater. This ins’t a “But what about the MENZ” post, since I think that basically what this “pressure” leads to is the oppression of women. I just think that this systemic problem is the furnace that fuels the patriarchy, and the part of the problem that we, as a society, are furthest from solving (and least interested in doing so).

  19. 18
    PG says:

    I just think that this systemic problem is the furnace that fuels the patriarchy, and the part of the problem that we, as a society, are furthest from solving (and least interested in doing so).

    Agreed. I don’t think we can advance feminism much further until more people understand that it is not a zero sum game being played at the expense of men, but rather a liberation of all people from arbitrary demands placed based on what the nurse wrote on their birth certificates.

    In some ways I worry that even women who consider themselves feminists are often very bought into assumptions about masculinity. A friend of a friend, who considered herself a feminist even (especially?) in high school, on seeing a destitute-looking family — mother, father, three kids — broken down on the side of the road said, “Oh, those poor kids, too bad he doesn’t have his act together better.” And it’s like, hello, that’s just as sexist as looking at a kid who came to school unwashed and with mismatched clothes and blaming it on the mom. Both parents should be held responsible for all aspects of caring for their children, at least until you know whether they have explicitly divided responsibilities between themselves.

  20. 19
    Mandolin says:

    A person who lambasts a woman for failing to be feminine, for failing to live up to her feminine gender role as subservient and delicate? I’d think that the average mainstream moderate-left person wouldn’t tolerate that. Obviously there are bigots and there will always will be bigots, but I don’t think we see any silent assent to that bigotry.

    That’s true. There’s no silent acceptance of the fact that women shouldn’t be bitchy, or talk so much, or that they’d be prettier if they’d just wear a little makeup, or that they should consider a diet. My friend’s Democratic mother didn’t tell her that she should enjoy street harrassment, and sexual abuse at work while it lasts because it’s flattering, and that she shouldn’t get so strung up about people doing things like hollering names at her or grabbing her ass. My Democratic activist professor didn’t compliment a student by telling her that it was so remarkable how she managed to be intelligent and express her opinions while still somehow miraculously maintaining her femininity. At the Democratic club meetings I’ve been attending, no one has treated my behavior differently based on how my behavior adheres or fails to adhere to feminine requirements. I’ve never been with a group of college-age males who vote Democratically who think that lesbians and women who don’t shave their body hair are just kind of weird and gross. Democrats never expect women to adhere to feminine requirements, and enact prejudice against women who don’t. That never, never happens.

  21. 20
    Harold says:

    Hi Silenced is Foo,

    Meanwhile, I think most men participate in the masculine pissing contest, and most women support it. Nobody says boo when a guy calls another guy a pussy.

    The general problem in my experience is that lot of men have built in winner and loser frames. If you are winner you can do no wrong, if you’re a “loser” you completely deserve your lot in life. I hear often from my male coworkers that auto workers deserve to lose/have lowered pensions, but I know they would all be up in arms many years down the line, if that happened at are company.

    As for that particular insult you mention, I really do not like it. I would not call another person that. Part of the reason why I do not like that insult is that it seems to apply to me in several ways…

    Do too bipolar illness I cry quite a bit.
    I go to work and have a pretty good job, but right now I not capable of complete independence.
    Ever since I got sick 4.5 years ago there is no point of me getting into a relationship because I would be a burden.

  22. 21
    chingona says:

    Mandolin and SiF,

    There definitely are a lot of mainstream moderate-left people – men and women – that buy into a lot of enforcement of femininity and just generally don’t accept things that a lot of feminists take for granted. They might think that women can have jobs and careers and stuff like that, but there’s huge chunks of feminism that would be martian to them.

    That said, I think (or at least, my own life experience has been) that feminism has succeeded in opening up a certain amount of social space for women to act in less stereotypically feminine ways with fewer consequences than in previous generations, and it also has succeeded in opening up some but not quite as much social space for men to be less stereotypically masculine.

    As for the OP, yes to both points. Yes, what is and what isn’t anti-male is pretty contested territory. I don’t know any feminists that actually self-identify as anti-male (though it’s a big world, and I’m sure there are some), but I know a lot of people who think even talking about rape culture is anti-male. (This line of thinking seems to be “Everyone I know thinks rape is terrible therefore there is no such thing as rape culture.”) I don’t think feminists can stop talking about that stuff just because some people get upset. (And Harold, of course I don’t concede this territory as actually anti-male, but my protestations don’t seem to carry a lot of weight.)

    And yes to the need for space to say fuck that shit, for space where your most basic understanding of yourself isn’t up for debate. It’s been interesting hanging out here, where the commenters are more ideologically diverse, to see commenters name blogs where I participate a fair amount as places that are extreme or unwelcoming of different view points. These are communities that I enjoy and that I don’t think of as being in lockstep at all, places where I’ve disagreed strongly with all sorts of people, including the hosts. But no, they aren’t places where people have a lot of patience for doing 101 type work. Sorry. You get the rest of the world. I get two or three blogs. I’m not going to waste too much time feeling guilty about that. Even Twisty Faster. I don’t comment over there because she scares the shit out of me, but that’s also why I read her.

  23. 22
    Mandolin says:

    Even Twisty Faster. I don’t comment over there because she scares the shit out of me, but that’s also why I read her.

    Absolute ditto.

    Reading Twisty is like the burning, stretching feeling of building new muscles. It hurts, and you grow.

  24. 23
    Mandolin says:

    That said, I think (or at least, my own life experience has been) that feminism has succeeded in opening up a certain amount of social space for women to act in less stereotypically feminine ways with fewer consequences than in previous generations, and it also has succeeded in opening up some but not quite as much social space for men to be less stereotypically masculine.

    I agree with this in the general sense in which it is usually stated, but I also think it lacks context. One must remember that while masculinity is a real and damaging construct, femininity is a slightly different beast, sociologically speaking. Femininity is a set of extremely constraining behaviors meant to enforce social submission. It is, in effect, the construction of the sex class.

    Western women have, indeed, in the past generation, been allowed slightly more access to a sphere of behaviors that extends from the constraints of femininity — but femininity was more constraining in the first place. There have always, historically, been more ways of successfully performing masculinity than femininity. If men start out in a confining masculine box that’s 10 x 10 ideological inches square, and women start out in a confining feminine box that’s 3 x 2 ideological inches square, then yes, it’s true that these are both boxes that need breaking. And when the feminine box expands to 5 x 5 and the masculine box only expands to 11 x 10, then it’s also true that there’s been more percentage-wise progress toward expanding femininity than masculinity. But women are still stuck in a fucking smaller box.

    I find SiF’s bringing that topic into this thread, and framing it the way he did, to be incredibly offensive. Not only does it demonstrate monumental cluelessness on the sociological level, but it brings the oppression olympics into play, and suggests that men win them at least in this event. And in a space which is supposed to be defending the rights of radicalism.

    There should be spaces on the web where SiF is not permitted to exercise his male privilege in such a clueless, intrusive way. I don’t mean as here, where he might get called out, or asked to leave if and only if the conversation becomes hopelessly derailed. I mean, places where he wouldn’t get out of moderation. And if those spaces are then seen as “unwelcoming” to men because they’re unwelcoming to male privilege — that’s peach pie okay.

    Which doesn’t mean there aren’t spaces for other kinds of spaces on the web, such as this one, which I love because the kind of participation that’s allowed in the threads is highly contextually determined. (For instance, I would probably not find SiF’s assertion so annoying in a thread that was premised on less advanced feminism, and I certainly would never have called him out with the unflinching language if the thread wasn’t specifically about the need for places in which there is room to call out men in unflinching language.) So before anyone decides to ascribe the more extreme feminist positions to me, or to suggest that I want to destroy the way of life of a blog like Alas, I seriously hope that they remember that I am a moderator and a poster *here* and not anywhere else.

  25. I would like to ask a question about language, and if this is too derailing, please ignore it: Why is it called male-bashing or being anti-male instead of man-bashing or anti-man? (Okay, even as I typed that, “anti-man” just sounded odd, but that oddness probably points to something worth thinking about.) We don’t–at least I don’t think we do–tend to talk about female-bashing or about something being anti-female. And I am asking this out of, of course, the distinction between male-as-sex and man-as-gender, but–and unfortunately I just realized that I have to go move my car or I will get a ticket, so I will be back later to finish this question–what I am wondering, first, is this: Who first called male-bashing? If it was people like Sommers and conservatives and people who are in general opposed to feminism–and other progressive ideologies–why should we cede the language used to describe women’s legitimate and angry expression of their anger at men, not simply people who have penises between their legs, but people who are being men, to the other side? In other words, if the point is that there needs to be a space where women (and men–though perhaps that is a different space) can get “fuck-it-all” angry at men and can say what they want in the way that they need/want to say it so that they do justice to their anger, then why not claim that space ideologically as well, by insisting that it is men who are getting bashed and not simply people born with penises?

    Don’t know if that question and my reasons for asking are clear enough, but I will leave it up and let the discussion, if people decide to take the question on, become what clarifies things. Hope for me that I don’t have a ticket!

  26. 25
    PG says:

    RJN,

    “Male” encompasses non-adult people with penises between their legs, so people who consider themselves to be calling out “male-bashing” can write books like “The War on Boys.” As I noted re: the Feminist Critics trackback, there are lots of people who get up in arms if you point out that boys hurt each other (and trans-girls who are so unlucky as to end up in their midst) in the process of enforcing masculinity. They see this as an attack on Boyhood, which is some sort of sacred Tom Sawyer thing involved skinned knees, schoolyard brawls, a distaste for soap, etc.

  27. 26
    chingona says:

    Hmmm….I was going to say maybe it’s because feminism is perceived as being opposed to maleness, as in masculinity, as opposed to individual men, but that’s my own feminist framing coming into the picture, probably not what feminist critics and the like mean by the term. PG’s explanation sounds good to me.

    Speaking more generally, I’ve found that if someone is using male and female as nouns to refer to people (as opposed to animals), there is a good chance I’m not going to like what they’re saying. Not sure exactly what’s up with that, but there it is.

  28. PG,

    I take your point, but I am not sure how it answers my question, and maybe my question, as I wrote it originally, is a good deal more complicated than it had to be. I am wondering why Amp, for example, in this post, should adopt the language of Feminist Critics or Sommers in describing a phenomenon that they are, in fact, mischaracterizing with a term like “male-bashing.” Leaving aside, for the moment, objections like Hugo’s to the term “bashing,” and thinking primarily about what Amp talked about at the end of his post–“There is a value in fiery rhetoric; there is a value in saying “fuck all that shit.””–why not use “men” or “man” instead of “male?”

  29. 28
    chingona says:

    Western women have, indeed, in the past generation, been allowed slightly more access to a sphere of behaviors that extends from the constraints of femininity — but femininity was more constraining in the first place. There have always, historically, been more ways of successfully performing masculinity than femininity. If men start out in a confining masculine box that’s 10 x 10 ideological inches square, and women start out in a confining feminine box that’s 3 x 2 ideological inches square, then yes, it’s true that these are both boxes that need breaking. And when the feminine box expands to 5 x 5 and the masculine box only expands to 11 x 10, then it’s also true that there’s been more percentage-wise progress toward expanding femininity than masculinity. But women are still stuck in a fucking smaller box.

    That’s a really good point, and that I didn’t think of it that way probably speaks to that fish-in-water quality of femininity and masculinity, the way it’s more insidious manifestations are nearly invisible. I’m reminded, actually, of something Twisty said. She had written a post about performance of femininity, and the first several commenters said things like “Well, I wear make-up because blah blah blah,” and she came back and asked why it is that whenever she writes about femininity, the first thing people come back with is pretty dresses and make-up and stuff like that, instead of grown women giggling, deference, etc. It’s not like those outward things, like high heels or make-up, are irrelevant, but we get really hung up on those things and don’t talk much about the more insidious ways gender roles shape our behavior.

    A year or so ago, I did a project with a male colleague, a guy I like quite a bit and work very well with. As we were finishing up the project, we were having a little love fest – praising each other for how well it went and for avoiding all those pitfalls of working with other people – and then he commented on how weird it was to go into meetings with me and when I asked a question or made a comment, people (all men) would turn to him to answer. Now, on one level, I had noticed this, because I knew immediately what he was talking about. But on another level, I hadn’t noticed, because that kind of shit is so common that I’ve learned to just take it and move on. I’m bad enough at performance of femininity that lots of people in my professional life think of me as a right bitch, but there still are all these small humiliations that I can’t do away with.

    I think I’m more aware of some of the issues around masculinity now than I was because I have a young son, and I’ve become much more conscious of how early and how strong our socialization into gender roles is. I’ve also become aware of how I still have certain notions of masculinity. My son plays with dolls and with kitchen stuff and wears pink barrettes in his hair if he wants to, but if he wanted to wear a dress, I would have a “Oh shit, what do I do?” kind of moment. I wouldn’t have a similar issue with a girl who never wanted to wear dresses. I wouldn’t think twice about it. At the same time, taking in all the media targeted at kids, I’m very aware of the way in which the world is open to him in a way it isn’t to girls. Most children’s books show boys active and doing things, while girls sit and are pretty. So, yeah, I think you’re right that femininity is a different beast.

    So, this is way longer than I intended. One more thought before I actually get to work. In thinking about this, I think there was one period of my life when my views could have been described accurately as “anti-male,” and it came not at some time when my feminism was more radical than it is today, but when I was living in a much more explicitly patriarchal society than the particular American subculture I live in now. Over time, even as I normalized within myself much more rigid gender roles than I had grown up with, I came to see men as fundamentally dangerous and untrustworthy and to be avoided whenever possible. And I saw this as “natural,” but a deficiency that could be overcome with proper socialization. So, with that experience, it’s hard for me to see feminism as “anti-male.”

  30. 29
    PG says:

    RJN,

    I am wondering why Amp, for example, in this post, should adopt the language of Feminist Critics or Sommers in describing a phenomenon that they are, in fact, mischaracterizing with a term like “male-bashing.” Leaving aside, for the moment, objections like Hugo’s to the term “bashing,” and thinking primarily about what Amp talked about at the end of his post–”There is a value in fiery rhetoric; there is a value in saying “fuck all that shit.””–why not use “men” or “man” instead of “male?”

    But from what I understand, Amp isn’t criticizing men, he’s criticizing masculinity, and as aforementioned, masculinity is something that gets acted and formed much earlier than the point at which anyone would describe a young person as a “man.” Ten-year-olds who are not close to being “men” yet are nonetheless “male” in many senses that are meaningful for the critiques brought by feminism. The number of violent incidents in which one is involved probably actually decreases as male persons become older and violence has much greater physical, legal and social consequences. (I physically fought only with my little sister, and we’ve stuck to emotional abuse for the last decade or so.) Yet that early process in which boys were expected to be enacting masculinity in part through violence has a long term effect.

  31. 30
    Danny says:

    Late comer trying to catch up but here goes.

    I think the one thing that causes a good portion of the confusion (and I think its been mentioned already) over whether something is anti-____, ____ bashing, or what have you is where the line is drawn and when different people draw that line at different points cross paths with each other.

    (I’m sure I’m misunderstanding this but I’m going to go with it in hopes of working my way through it.)
    grendelkhan:
    I’d agree more with this if it wasn’t apparently common wisdom that whenever someone says that the radicals are being mean, the radicals are in fact simply speaking truth to power, and any perception of being anti-male is solely the reader’s privilege speaking.
    This touches on sort of what I’m talking about. grendelkhan seems to have drawn a line on anti-male commentary. There are people that agree with this line and those that don’t (FTR I don’t). In the event that such people cross paths there is a potential for chaos (and hell different people may have different opinions on what choas is).

    Okay I’m gonna end here for fear of sounding like a rambling nutcase.

  32. 31
    thebigmanfred says:

    The intellectual freedom to be anti-male is necessary, because today’s common sense was yesterday’s anti-male screed, and today’s screed tomorrow’s common sense.

    I don’t agree with this. At least not how it is phrased. Common sense isn’t inherently good or bad, so we should always be concerned about what is common sense. It was common sense for slavery to be practiced, or women denied the right to vote, or any number of other things that we consider terrible today but would not have been considered terrible in the past.

    It would be bad for both women and men if all of feminism’s good ideas were dropped because they were labeled anti-male.

    I completely agree with you here.

  33. 32
    Mandolin says:

    “Common sense isn’t inherently good or bad, so we should always be concerned about what is common sense”

    Which is why we shouldn’t assume that because “today’s common sense” dictates we shouldn’t say something that we should, in fact, based on that common sense, not say it. I think you’re arguing Amp’s point for him.

  34. 33
    Sailorman says:

    Mandolin Writes:
    April 1st, 2009 at 1:13 am

    Which is why we shouldn’t assume that because “today’s common sense” dictates we shouldn’t say something that we should, in fact, based on that common sense, not say it.

    Well, yeah, duh. Isn’t that common sense? It should be.
    ;)

  35. 34
    grendelkhan says:

    Danny: I think the one thing that causes a good portion of the confusion (and I think its been mentioned already) over whether something is anti-____, ____ bashing, or what have you is where the line is drawn and when different people draw that line at different points cross paths with each other.

    But I don’t think there’s much disputable over whether or not something betrays loathing for men. Sure, people can argue about whether or not that loathing is good, or helpful, or justified, but in pretty much all of the cases I’ve seen it, it’s frankly none of my damned business, which is why I’m not talking about any of that.

    I just think it’s disingenuous to ignore this sort of thing whenever someone wants to have a warm fuzzy.

  36. 35
    Get Real says:

    So equality being equality, the space to be anti-female is also necessary and desirable? And if not, then how do you justify the double standard without proving yourself a bigot-passing judgment on an entire group based solely, in this case, on sex?

  37. 36
    Tyler says:

    I think part of the problem is a lot of feminists don’t separate the ideology of masculinity and patriarchy from actual men and boys, ie their fellow human beings who happen to have a penis. Lots of men and boys are deeply victimized and scared by masculinity and patriarchy, lots of boys deal with domestic abuse, most often by fathers or step fathers but get abused nonetheless. A patriarchal system involves a handful of men ruling over a larger group through fear violence and the threat of violence, other men who are considered a threat face much of that violence. Why does America incarcerate so many Black Latino and Native men. One thing I see feminists do that irritates me is imply all men are automatically privileged oppressors and all women are oppressed, this is simply not true.

  38. 37
    kbeb says:

    There is no such thing as female privileged or female sexism. Female privilege is defined by men. It really all depends on how you frame the argument and how your personal biases inform your perspective about this issue.

    But here is a personal story about my experiences with sexism.

    Lets say your a girl with a gift for math and computers. Picture being the ONLY woman in your classes. I went to school for CS and I have a minor in Mathematics. So fuck you if you think women can’t do math. I’m sure I’m much better at it than most men. Most guys think I’m a novelty (only girl in Applied Mathematics for Engineers btw). I used to hear them say that I’ll be gone in a week or so. My other favorite was how a TA once called me “sweetheart” when I asked a question about his incorrect theorem. I guess he thought it was “cute” that I was trying to outsmart him? Ironically he asked me out. I’m sure you can imagine my answer to that. So consider that I was hearing that shit for 4 + years (my masters was okay).

    Then when your working your way up the ladder in your average IT dept. I was accused so many times of “using my sex” or “affirmative action” for why I got promoted over my male counterparts. Could be..my work was better? I didn’t dick around all day? I have to work harder than my male counterparts JUST to prove otherwise. That is what its like in a male dominated profession for a woman. You get looked over and no one takes you seriously. You just get a pat on the head and told to leave because “the men” are now talking. If you have ideas its very hard to get them taken seriously. I worked with a great guy who is my partner now – he does all the front man stuff. He gets much better receptions from IT depts than I do. We did a non-scientific study but he was more likely to get contracts than I was. Even wearing my short skirt. lol. Look, I have a sense of humor about sexism, after all I spend a LOT of time on the internet.

    But I worry when I hear so many men who feel that women are somehow putting them down.
    If I could tell them all one thing: Honey. The reason your powerless is “you!” Women didn’t make you lose the promotion or not get into school. Maybe taking responsibility for yourself and stop blaming others for your own failures would be a step in the right direction. This is a dog-eat-dog world and we all have to use every advantage we can get. Men have their advantages and women have their survival tools. But just remember that Men are often the source of their own unhappiness with women. If you go out on a first date and your only fixated on how your going to have sex with her. Don’t listen to anything she says to you. Pay for everything. Then find that she is cold to your advances. Sure you may feel ripped off. But who’s fault is that? Who created the expectation that if you pay she will fall into your arms? Men blame women, call them whores. But guys, fantasies aren’t real! Women are people …and they have the same propensities for manipulation/deceit that men do. The problem is that men are raised to think otherwise. Women are innocent and naive and won’t hurt a fly. LoL. When men get used they blame the gender (as if that matters). If a man scams you do you go OMG THAT FUCKEN MAN WHORE?!?! No you don’t. You hate him. But you don’t attribute his deception to his gender. I’m not sure why men think this way. I think it has to do with the fact that most guys don’t really think about things like this. Really take the time to challenge their perceptions. Even when its pointed out to them they often will ignore it or downright deny it. Most of the behavior is what I call subversive sexism. Its not out in the open ~ its really behind closed doors. Unfortunately the media constantly uses subversive sexism. I don’t blame guys for thinking this way because if i was CONSTANTLY bombarded with messages to reinforce that way of thinking, I would be too. The sad part guys…is that its all manipulation to get to your wallets. It works. Guys sex appeal doesn’t come from money. Most women know that. But if you want to date chicks who only value money –again — your fault.

    wow big rant. lol

  39. 38
    Grace Annam says:

    Tyler:

    actual men and boys, ie their fellow human beings who happen to have a penis.

    That definition of “men and boys” excludes some good men I know.

    Grace

  40. 39
    Tyler says:

    [Note to other mods: I see someone deleted this comment. I can totally understand why you did that, but since I banned Tyler based partly on this comment, I’d prefer to leave it where people can read it, in the name of moderation transparency. So I’ve restored it; I hope that’s okay. –Amp.]

    Wow Kbeb, that thread made no sense, it was like it was a big personal rant that was pure anecdote. I know I’m bad at math, I’m better at cooking. I don’t care for gender stereotypes, I just find that disappointing a lot of your ultra Feminists actually are for gender stereotypes, they just want to rewrite them to say girls rule boys drool. I am not denying that sexism and male supremacy is real, simply that a battle of the sexes mentality of individual men vs women is totally counterproductive, childish really. Just because Feminists don’t necessarily have the power to act on it making blanket negative assumptions about all men is still wrong. Morally but also literally. Theres space to be anti male but I hope it gets very little respect intellectually just like I would hope anti female writings would get very little respect intellectually. Lets leave that stuff to the playground, its a favorite trope of Hollywood, and a great way to keep the masses divided. For me the question is are Feminsts revolutionaries or just privileged white women who really mean me when they heap praise upon womanhood in general and claim men in general as the enemy(because they don’t really have serious enemies) and attempt to level victimhood from time to time when its helpful to their own ends. Its fascinating to me that every time a woman hits an obstacle its because of institutional sexism according to you, but every time a man does its all his fault all internal to him, because hes just “lazy” or “bad”. You preceeded to follow this up with some gobbligook about dating. All of which was premised around the assumption a date is about a man trying to win over the woman, never the other way around, interesting how that works. It seems to be based on chivalry type assumptions. Of course I imagine you never think women do men wrong, use them abuse them manipulate them etc. I know a very political older woman who in addition to being involved in other causes considers herself a feminist and she actually talks about Female Privilege, its not as substantial as male privilege but it does exist. It can be best summed up by the phrase ladies first or the man always pays for things or what have you, she believed that in the fight for true equality women had to drop those kinds of privileges, that the cost of exercising was a maintenance of inequality, she also says that women are the biggest defenders of sexism.

  41. 40
    Ampersand says:

    Tyler, I don’t think you’re going to be adding to a discussion we want to be having here at “Alas.” Thanks very much for your comments, but I’d prefer that you stop leaving comments on “Alas” from now on. Best wishes to you.

  42. Pingback: A Couple Quick Links For November 2012 (NoH) | Feminist Critics

  43. 41
    Schala says:

    @kbeb

    But I worry when I hear so many men who feel that women are somehow putting them down.
    If I could tell them all one thing: Honey. The reason your powerless is “you!”

    Victim-blaming much?

    Your framing in the rest of the post assumes it’s group A vs group B. But it’s not. It’s group C vs group A and B. And group C includes the 1%, the top class of people, those who make hiring decisions at the executive level, those who decide to export jobs to China, those who decide that electric cars are not good, until Tesla Motors (an independant car maker with no previous history) beats them at it – and who enforce many gender norms at the legal level.

    Regardless of the penis-owning (or not) of group C, they definitely don’t care specially about men as a group. Group C also includes parental-enforced norms, bully-enforced norms, teacher-enforced norms, doctor-enforced norms (Ritalin anyone?). Everyone who has power-over you and can influence your view towards your sex and other sexes.

    They might not be responsible for an individual man’s failure, but they sure are responsible for maintaining or worsening the state of things for him at levels he has no control over (dating norms, court standards, criminal standards, support when he needs it, financially, psychologically, socially).

    The standards saying men should approach (or they’re obviously not interested), pay for the date (or they’re stingy and/or uninterested) and impress their date (performance monkey) is not biological, inherent and universal. It’s not enforced by him even less (and he’s not the Borg).

    MAYBE male animals do more ‘impressing’ in nature, and are the more supplicating sex there, but much of male humans’ behavior is socialized into them. In Sweden, more women do the approaching (it’s still not 50-50), and there is less plausible deniability to be had in signals of interest. The US are a real-weird place in that regards. Some (mostly people on shallow dating forums, including some men) think it’s oh-so-horrible that “men aren’t doing their god-given duty to approach” in Sweden, but the men there might think otherwise and many might welcome finally having a break*.

    *If I wasn’t perceived as female, I’d probably be single forever, because I can’t approach. I’m incredibly socially clumsy to start with. Can’t read signals of interest, can’t even know when I give some of mine. Now imagine being tasked with doing all the approaching. I’ve never even really cared about sex, but being alone forever didn’t seem like a good prospect regardless.

    The fact that Sweden’s situation exists at all tells me we’re not stuck with a unique universal standard for behavior.

    I heard India and China have as many female scientists and mathematical majors as male scientists and mathematical majors (or at least a huge difference from here). They apparently don’t have the same bullshit stereotypes spoonfed to them since birth, and their parents have an hyperfocus on higher education. The culture of anti-intellectualism which creates entrenched pariah-like geeks (and makes that status very unappealing to women as a date prospect or for their own selves) doesn’t exist there apparently.

    I’m waiting to hear of a country where nursing students include a higher proportion of men than just 5-10%. And where men caregivers are assumed to be as competent as women caregivers.

  44. 42
    Grace Annam says:

    MAYBE male animals do more ‘impressing’ in nature,

    Depends on the animal.

    Grace

  45. 43
    Ruchama says:

    I have to admit total confusion on the “dating norms” thing. I’ve heard so many different versions of what the rules currently are that the only reasonable conclusion I can reach is that there are no rules.

  46. 44
    Robert says:

    There are rules. Whoever brought the handcuffs, gets to decide who wears them, for example. And, the person who had the most orgasms has to make the bacon sandwiches afterwards. Common sense stuff, really, even if it does lead to a lot of post-coital lying by the sandwich-making-avoidant. (“No I didn’t come at all. That was just a leg cramp I was having. You make ’em.”)

  47. 45
    Ruchama says:

    But then the vegan and kosher among us are still left confused.

  48. 46
    Robert says:

    People who choose health, love of animals, or arbitrary religious rules over bacon, were confused to begin with and there’s nothing I can do for them.

  49. 47
    TheSameDog says:

    today’s common sense was yesterday’s anti-male screed, and today’s screed tomorrow’s common sense

    Wrong. A little of what was yesterday decried as “anti-male screed” is today’s common sense, but most of it is still considered anti-male screed today, and rightly so. Extrapolate this.