[This post was originally published on Clarisse Thorne’s blog, and is reprinted here with Clarisse’s kind permission. All three installments may be viewed here.]
I’m about to assert something that makes me nervous, because I worry that people are going to stick me in the “asshole MRA” box. Don’t get me wrong: I certainly don’t think that women have it better, overall, than men do. But I do wonder whether it might be good for feminists to acknowledge that — although we don’t experience nearly as much privilege as men — there are a lot of advantages women experience that men don’t.
Because women aren’t seen as threatening, we have an easier time doing confrontational things like approaching strangers on the street. Because women aren’t seen as fighters, we stand a lower chance of being mugged than men do. Because women are seen as emotional, we’re given a huge amount of social space to consider and discuss our feelings. I can work with and be affectionate with children far more easily than a man could. I can be explicit and overt about my sexuality without being viewed as a creep.
And there are at least a few recurring complaints about how trying to be masculine can suck. First and foremost: that men don’t feel they’ve been taught to process their emotions, or don’t feel allowed to display them. Another: that they’re perceived as less manly if they don’t achieve success through a career, especially if they aren’t the main breadwinner for their family. A third: that men are expected to be sexually insatiable, or always to be sexually available.
Of course, it’s worth noting that the advantages women experience are almost always the flip side of unfortunate stereotypes. For instance, one might say that women get more social space for emotion because we’re stereotyped as irrational and hysterical. But that doesn’t change the fact that most of us easily grasp that space, while most men don’t. And if we can reject the Oppression Olympics for just one minute and stop thinking about who’s got it worse, it becomes clear that the advantages and drawbacks associated with being both male and female are intertwined. The two systems reinforce, and cannot function without, each other. The gender binary may not hurt everyone equally, but it hurts everyone. As those beautiful “Every Girl / Every Boy” posters say, the most obvious example is: “For every girl who is tired of acting weak when she is strong, there is a boy tired of appearing strong when he feels vulnerable.”
I do suspect that it may not be psychologically realistic to ask people from our underdog-loving culture to embrace an image of themselves as privileged; my thoughts turn again to the trans man who hated the thought of being a white male. But if we feminists can’t work productively from a stance that acknowledges our social advantages, how can we expect straight/dominant/big-dicked men to do it?
Could feminist acknowledgment of the women’s gender-based advantages help pave the way for more men to acknowledge male privilege? Could feminist acknowledgment of the advantages on both sides of the gender binary help us better grasp what sucks about being a guy?
Am I citing Thomas Millar too much here? Well, at least once, he frustrated me. Amongst the comments on one blog post, I thought he was stating his views about stereotypical guys rather harshly. I suggested that it might be better to seek common ground, or at least to explain things gently; he said he wasn’t interested — “I think we all work with some people where they are and can’t soft-sell our views enough to deal with others.” He added, “If I’m going to alienate someone for saying what I think too bluntly, I’ll pick entitled cis het dudes.”
I won’t pretend I didn’t laugh when I read that — but I worried about it, too. I’ve had an enormous number of experiences trying to discuss feminism/sex/gender with men in which the men tensed, bristled, and closed me out. I don’t think it was always because those guys couldn’t stand the thought of losing their privilege, either. I think a lot of dudes have been led to feel that they have no place in gender discussions — that those discussions will always be about what men are doing wrong, and that no one’s prepared to work with them where they are.
All groups have outsiders. Movements inevitably form themselves around oppositional forces. As someone who’s spent her share of time feeling feminist rage, I’d say that being filled with feminist rage is totally understandable. And seriously, don’t get me wrong: I’m not giving unfeminist guys a free pass. I’m not happy about the fact that so many men are apparently alienated from feminism because us radicals are too confrontational — or too uncomfortably correct — for their fragile masculine egos to handle. (I’m being sarcastic! Mostly.) I’m really not happy about the fact that I’ve got to think about marketing anti-oppression — in a just universe, wouldn’t anti-oppression market itself?
But at the same time, I’m a realist. I know this isn’t a just universe, and I want to use tactics that’ll achieve my goals. Which are: I’d really like to find more men at my side in the sex and gender wars. I’d really like to talk to more guys who don’t see ideas stamped with feminism as an attack — rather, as an opportunity for alliance. Plus, if we’re going to think in terms of cold hard tactics, it’s worth noting that normative men hold most of the power in America. (That’s part of what we’re complaining about, right?) So swelling our ranks with The Oppressive Class means we can ruthlessly use their power for good.
Can we do better at making feminist discourses around gender and sexuality open to normative men, without driving ourselves crazy? How can we make our movement open to, and accepting of, normative men? Put another way, how do we convince normative men to support us?
Maybe we don’t need a lot of normative men in the camp of sex and gender radicals; maybe we’ll be happier without silly Gender Studies 101 questions clotting our discussions. Still, even if we don’t try to “recruit” them, I’d love to see more widespread analysis of masculinity and masculine sexuality amongst normative dudes … if only because getting a sense for their societal boxes might simply make them happier. If only because I think they’ve got their own liberation to strive for.
So at the very least, I’d like to contribute to an America where serious examination of masculinity and male sexuality can flourish.
That’s my final question. How do I do it?
Another: that they’re perceived as less manly if they don’t achieve success through a career, especially if they aren’t the main breadwinner for their family.
I’m not sure about this one. My impression, based mostly on anecdotal experience, is that men actually get praised either way. If they’re the main breadwinner for their family that’s all great and aren’t they manly. If they’re the part time working or stay at home dad they get praised for being brave mavericks and amazing men who can actually take care of the babies they sire! Certainly my partner gets praised for just playing with our kid in public whereas I attract no attention whatsoever in the same situation (or get criticized for some random thing my kid does or doesn’t do.)
So while I don’t disagree with your main argument-sexism does hurt men-I’m not sure that this part is as clear as you make it out to be.
Sorry about double posting, but another thought about gender roles and stereotypes…Women, at least women who are not classically beautiful, can be invisible in ways men practically never are. This can be good or bad, depending on the situation. It’s harder to get your boss to notice you but it’s also easier to get past security personnel without being harassed. I’ve never been arrested or been challanged by a border guard or even had my bag searched entering the subway. On the other hand, I’ve frequently had people attribute something I’ve said in a discussion to someone else or present it as their own idea (perhaps having only a subconscious memory of it having been brought up before.)
The bottom line is that a stereotype can be to one’s advantage or disadvantage depending on the circumstances. But it is always a limitation, narrowing who that person is assumed to be. That can be convenient, as in when people look at me and say, “She can’t possibly be a terrorist” but it’s always an externally applied limit on the person’s possiblities.
I think it would be good for there to be spaces for masculinity and normative male sexuality to be discussed in a feminist-friendly way by men. Hugo’s blog is one place that springs to mind, and he tolerates a LOT of commenters and comments that would not be tolerated in other feminist spaces, perhaps precisely because he values having a space for a wider range of male voices to be heard on sexuality and masculinity issues.
The problem for me with male commenters in feminist spaces is that they so often seem to be saying that whatever conversation is going on on the feminist blog is inappropriate/incomplete/invalid BECAUSE feminists have not fulfilled some sort of OBLIGATION to take into account these issues of masculinity and the perspective of normative male sexuality, and to provide a space for them to be discussed. These male commenters fall into the trap of blaming feminism or feminists for not creating or emphasizing or providing such a space. Even if it would be beneficial for feminism for such a space to exist, it can be really really frustrating work, and I don’t think women have an obligation to do it just because they want to blog about or participate in discussions of feminism. (NOTE: I do not think this is what the poster is saying; this is just what a lot of comments that get angrily shot down in feminist spaces seem to be saying/suggesting).
I think that Hugo is a good example of the fact that it is easier for men to provide that space to other men. Because they are less likely to have a visceral angry/hurt reaction to the in between steps of consciousness-raising, and therefore more likely to respond patiently and without righteous anger. It also provides a space where feminists can participate in discussions with a somewhat wider swath of men, but can leave and take a break when it gets to be too much; too hurtful or too difficult. (I myself enjoy Hugo’s blog but have gone for long periods without reading it because of “hitting my wall” so to speak with certain attitudes and problematic (to me) points of view). Kudos to Clarisse and other women who can do it too, it’s valuable and important work. But the VALIDITY of feminist spaces cannot rest on there also being a space where normative male perspectives on sexuality are centered.
Of course, it’s worth noting that the advantages women experience are almost always the flip side of unfortunate stereotypes.
This is true for men as well (but I’m sure you don’t intent to imply it is not true) and I think what drives them to other movements is a lack of discussing how many of the advantages of men also have flip sides.
Could feminist acknowledgment of the women’s gender-based advantages help pave the way for more men to acknowledge male privilege?
Not just women’s gender based advantages but also men’s gender based disadvantages. When it comes to discussing gender and you see that only certain gender advantages/disadvantages being discussed almost to the point that anything outside of them is taboo to talk about it could have the effect of sending the message that only those certain advantages/disadvantages matter. This can lead people to look to other places (or other movements) for discussion.
Could feminist acknowledgment of the advantages on both sides of the gender binary help us better grasp what sucks about being a guy?
I would say yes because recognizing all the problems of the gender binary is crucial to changing the way gender is classified, regarded, labeled, etc…. That is not to say that feminists should change their focus but to only acknowledge certain parts of the binary while trying to change whole doesn’t help anyone. I like to call this the difference between, “True but we aren’t talking about that right now.” and “That doesn’t happen!” One acknowledges the sucky parts of being a guy even if those sucky parts are not the main topic while the other tries to sweep them under the rug as if they don’t exist and calling troll when they come up.
How can we make our movement open to, and accepting of, normative men? Put another way, how do we convince normative men to support us?
From training a wild anima to forming an alliance between two nations usually the first part of getting someone on your side is to show them that you are not going to hurt them. Convince those normative men you are not out to hurt them.
Question about your post title. “Questions I want to ask entitled cis het men”. Do you mean to imply that simpy being a cis het man one feels entitled or that out of the entire population of cis het men there are a subset of them that feels entitled. I’m sure you mean the latter but it would be easy for someone to think you mean the former. Just asking.
I read this thread with interest, but it is of course basically a very extended and well written TPHMT argument? Which is to say that in most feminist spaces it would be pretty much dismissed out of hand. Even here, I am really not so sure you’d get the same response if you raised the exact same arguments and posted as “Richard” instead of ‘Clarisse.”
That dismissal isn’t necessarily a bad thing, but I can’t see having this conversation in most spots.
Even here, I am really not so sure you’d get the same response if you raised the exact same arguments and posted as “Richard” instead of ‘Clarisse.”
There’s a reason for that. There is a power imbalance and as much as we may deplore it, a discussion of the disadvantages men experience is different coming from Richard than coming from Clarisse.
Which makes no sense here. If the goal is to have a reasonably high level discussion, you need to be able to consider the underlying points and not who is making them. That applies whether you are trying to eliminate patriarchy in the discussion (women’s input will be discounted because of their sex) or whether you’re in a setting, as in some feminist spaces, where that role is reversed (men’s input will be discounted because of their sex.)
The speaker’s personal characteristics matter if s/he is making statements about something subjective; or is claiming objectivity and you want to attack his/her bias; or if s/he is claiming expertise in a certain subject. But in most cases it doesn’t make a shit’s worth of difference w/r/t the objective truth of the statements, and I have absolutely no idea why it should matter at all.
Well, there’s longtime experience, in feminist spaces, of men coming in and bringing these things up, but turning out to have a goal of either attacking feminism in general, or of dismissing women’s problems as relatively unimportant. They don’t often have a program for transforming society beyond “dismantle feminism and women should complain less because we should really be discussing men’s problems.” And these people, with very few exceptions, have no respect for the actual purpose of the forum they’re visiting, and if given the chance will dominate all discussions, and turn all topics into “what about the men/feminists suck.”
So feminists have become very defensive — and imo, they were right to do so, under the circumstances. Years of anti-feminists acting like that has, as the expression goes, “poisoned the well” — problems that (in my memory) were fairly routine topics of feminist discourse 20 years ago, have now become almost verboten.
Part of the reason I wanted to guest-post this series is because Clarisse entirely lacks that anti-feminist vibe — not just because she’s a woman (there are female MRAs and anti-feminists), but because her tone rings as genuinely feminist, at least to this reader. So I thought it would be a way to bring these issues up for discussion without raising the usual suspicions.
If the goal is to have a reasonably high level discussion, you need to be able to consider the underlying points and not who is making them.
I disagree. I think you have to consider the underlying points and who is making them as well as the cultural and historical context of both. Of course, this being the web, there is no way to know whether Clarissa’s real life name is Richard (or, for that matter, whether Daran’s real life name is Danielle, and so on). I agree that one should not dismiss arguments because of their source, i.e. I would consider it wrong to say, “Sailorman has no business being involved in a feminist discussion, he’s just a man” but I don’t see any reason to pretend that this space is somehow separate from the larger cultural context in which men are, generally, more powerful than women.
Sure, Dianne, but if in the end, it has the effect of privileging womens’ voices over men’s, in discussions of how the patriarchy affects men, then I think that’s a problem.
—Myca
Quick mod note: As not everyone may realize, Daran is banned from posting on “Alas” for the next six months. So we should try not to use him as an example.
I’ve always thought that the Internet was sort of a special place, insofar as you can really get into some pretty serious discussions with people without knowing a damn thing about them.
I have never really paid much attention to that stuff as a result online; I can’t remember how long it took me before I finally learned who was male or female or cis or trans or straight or gay or whatever. And it didn’t really change my views when I eventually knew.
If I were to have Internet powers, I’d be inclined to magically generate a discussion area where nobody knew who was who, and everyone posted as “ampersand” or “PG” or whatnot. I’ve considered switching myself on occasion.
But in any case, the theories of immediate privilege don’t seem to make much sense if you can’t also apply them to smaller situations. Being Christian doesn’t give you a whole lot of privilege in the context of posting on JList, and being male doesn’t give you a whole lot of privilege in the context of posting on Feministe.
A virtual setting where a woman comfortable telling Jon Doe to “check his privilege” is one in which it is arguable that John Doe doesn’t actually have any privilege, at least not over that woman who is talking to him. Privileged people don’t get banned, or told to “shut up and listen,” or the like. It’s a bit like kyriarchy on a very micro scale.
I don’t see how one can honestly ignore this reality in the context of having political discussions online.
As not everyone may realize, Daran is banned from posting on “Alas” for the next six months. So we should try not to use him as an example.
I didn’t realize and I apologize.
Sailorman,
“A virtual setting where a woman comfortable telling Jon Doe to “check his privilege” is one in which it is arguable that John Doe doesn’t actually have any privilege, at least not over that woman who is talking to him.”
That doesn’t follow. In ‘real life’, a class of people may have privilege over another. This shows in their views. Those views are espoused consistently by society at large and internalized by everybody, including if you’re part of a minority, which is where internalized sexism, racism, transphobia, whatever comes in. Spouting those views in a discussion is where “check your privilege” comes in, because those views come most consistently with people who benefit from the current system. It has jack all to do with the power of banning someone on a blog because a blog is not ‘real life’. In order to change and challenge those views, they need to be curtailed in the spaces where discussion is taking place. It doesn’t mean someone can’t comment – it just means that particular tropes aren’t wanted.
If I were to have Internet powers, I’d be inclined to magically generate a discussion area where nobody knew who was who, and everyone posted as “ampersand” or “PG” or whatnot. I’ve considered switching myself on occasion.
I’ve done that occasionally myself. It amuses me that I’m almost always identified as male if I use a gender neutral screen name. I was once accused of being an AI, but I don’t think I’ve ever been “accused” of being female. My eventual conclusion was that no one really passes the Turing test.
being male doesn’t give you a whole lot of privilege in the context of posting on Feministe.
You think not? Feministe exists in the context of a culture where women are treated differently from men from birth onward. Specifically one in which women’s opinions and right to speak are denigrated from childhood onward. Do you think that all is erased in an instant? I don’t think so.
To give a specific example: At one point Comrade Physio Prof was a guest blogger on Feministe. I have no problem with a cis man being a guest blogger or even with CPP specifically being a guest blogger. But his responses to comments in the threads showed a pattern of denigrating anyone with a female screen name who disagreed with him. (Except for Jill, to whom he managed a decent grovel.) Yes, I know, CPP likes to add profanity and snark to any comment he makes. That’s not what I’m talking about. He was clearly dismissive of any women who commented. Of men, he was less so. (I tried posting under a male screen name and a female, saying essentially the same thing both times. Got a reasonably thoughtful response once, a really snide one the other time. Guess which was which.)
A virtual setting where a woman comfortable telling Jon Doe to “check his privilege” is one in which it is arguable that John Doe doesn’t actually have any privilege, at least not over that woman who is talking to him.
Again, I disagree. All that it indicates is that John Doe doesn’t have enough power or privilege over the woman talking to him to force her to shut up when she feels he should check his privilege. He may have the power to make her feel uncomfortable still or to stop her from commenting completely freely, but he doesn’t have enough to completely shut her up. That’s all that can be said for certain.
Dianne, the examples you give in comment #2 are really only applicable to white (and non-poor-seeming) women. There are tons of women of color/poor women for whom those examples do not reflect their reality at all.
I’m thinking particularly of the bag searching/border guard/security personnel harassment examples.
I’ve always commented as a woman, which I am IRL too, but you all have now made me curious about commenting with a male name. Maybe I’ll try it sometime.
In all my years of trying my best to get others to understand my experiences with the best of intentions, I’ve finally learned that most of the words I uttered were simply hot air. There is no way to get anyone, much less cis-gender heterosexual men to grasp and actively involve themsleves in a conversation unless they wish to do so.
If anything, it’s the words of other men that will do anything to get other men to see the disadvantages and advantages they experience within society. When more men can say feminism in a conversation without bashing it, when a guy can call out a friend for a sexist remark, when guys stop frequently web-pages that are blatantly and habitually sexist and grossly hyper-masculine, then we’ll see some changes.
I give up my attempts to make men I care about understand and see validity in the things I say. I’ve stressed my self out enough over it, believe me. I know a few, count em’ two, male friends who work in ways that deconstruct sexist actions and hyper-masculinity of other men around them and hands down, their words magically posses more validity. Fine, as long as in the end they get it. Rest assured, the torchbearer won’t and can’t be me.
“Grossly hyper-masculine”?
Dianne
I can’t see what you’re getting at, Dianne.
Do you think that it follows that because men in the larger cultural context enjoy more power than women, then they enjoy more power than women here? (A preponderance of male power on a blog would mean, presumably, that men could shout women down, rely on the moderators to moderate in their favour etc.) If that is the case, what good is Alas at all?
Sorry Robert, I’m not sure what you want me to explain or what your qualm is with the quote.
Grossly seems a bit redundant. If someone is hyper-masculine, wouldn’t that be readily apparent by various societal standards already, since one of the meanings of gross is total and unmitigated? The other meaning for grossly would be disgusting. Considering the post discusses how to get particular categories of men to lay off some harmful ideals, the possible connotations of their presentation being disgusting probably wouldn’t help.
I guess I don’t want you to explain it, I’m just a little bit shocked you’d say it. It’s the kind of thing that (really not very many) feminists say that MRAs seize on as evidence that feminism is really about hating men.
Part of the anti-kyriarchy movement that I do appreciate, because it dovetails with my own values, is the notion that people’s choices matter and should be respected. It’s OK to choose to be a woman who becomes a rocket pilot, never reproduces, and dies in a fiery crash at age 39 in a test flight; it’s OK to choose to be a woman who has nine kids, homeschools, and sews their clothes. It’s OK to be a man who likes ballet and teaches kindergarden, and it’s OK to be a man who watches football as a religious sacrament and spends the weekends shredding deer with automatic-weapons fire while drinking beer. It’s OK to be “masculine” or “feminine”. It’s OK not to be.
“Grossly hyper-masculine”, like “grossly hyper-feminine” (or “grossly hyper-urban” or “grossly hyper-gay”) assigns a strong negative value judgment to people’s choices about how they’re going to live their life.
I think it would be wrong, for example, to give Amp shit for being an artistic and sensitive guy with relatively few traditionally “masculine” personality traits – but it’s equally wrong to give Fictional Frank shit for being a tough guy who hides his emotions. Giving people shit for their choices is an attempt to marginalize them and to control the social discourse by controlling other people’s actions. “Grossly hyper-masculine”, to me, reads as “people performing their gender in a way I don’t like and which I think I’m entitled to control.”
And that isn’t cool.
Perhaps I’m misunderstanding you, and in that case I would invite you to clarify.
“…and it’s OK to be a man who watches football as a religious sacrament and spends the weekends shredding deer with automatic-weapons fire while drinking beer.”
Gotta say, I disagree with alcohol + guns. Don’t think it’s okay. One or the other at a time, not both.
All right, bad example. It’s not OK in the sense of being safe or smart, it’s OK in the sense that it isn’t the type of wickedness that the righteous can legitimately come down on. Replace with “howling around a campfire with 20 other naked guys while getting hammered” if you like.
Will it ever be okay to be the proverbial Basement Dweller, or are we forever going to be doomed to low social status and told to get a life?
Because I fit that description. I’m 27, male, and live with my parents, who support me (much to their dismay). I’ve been “not in the labor force” since 2006, and I hope to never get a job. My position is one that’s generally considered not deserving of respect, and I don’t really respect myself, either. :(
Doug,
We are focusing on sexuality here. Your situation as a “basement dweller” as you put it, should not call into question your manliness or the validity of your sexuality or whatever. The fact that your parents are “dismayed” to still be supporting you but you “hope to never get a job” might lead some people to disrespect you. But hopefully not because you’re “not a real man” but rather because you are a person who has no desire to be responsible for his own welfare, as any adult should be, or who is a taker not a giver and therefore not at the top of my list of people to make a part of my life.
Got a friend who sounds a lot like you. 2 key differences,
1. He likes his life.
2. His parents like having him around. He works 20 hrs a week doing pizza delivery and pays them ‘rent’ that covers a fraction of what he costs them but they all like the situation.
So his life works for the people in it. Doesn’t sound like yours does.
Clarisse asked:
I have met few feminists who deny that there can be “advantages” to being female in a sexist, patriarchal culture, though those advantages–and I think this difference is important–are not merely the flip-side of disadvantages; they are, in fact, set up by patriarchy to perpetuate patriarchy; and I have met few feminists who do not recognize that it can really suck being a guy. To me, the issue is not that feminists need to acknowledge either of these things–and I should be clear that I do not mean to imply that there are not feminists whose rhetoric needs to be critiqued–but rather that recognizing the “disadvantages” of being male in a sexist patriarchal culture as real disadvantages–as opposed to the reasonable and legitimate and valid and often inconvenient consequences of being (or not being) man enough to measure up–requires stepping outside the gender binary, making, in other words, a feminist or quasi-feminist move within yourself; and that is not something that women who are feminists can do for you, nor is it something it is or should be their responsibility to make possible for you.
I guess what I am saying–kind of awkwardly, since I am typing fast–is that the questions presupposes that male and female “advantages” within the gender binary are somehow situated equally within that binary despite the fact that men have more advantages than women. In other words, I think the question elides the very nature of male privilege in the first place.
Clarisse also asked:
I confess that, as a man whom I imagine most people would probably define as normative–at least according to the criteria Clarisse has been using in her series–I have trouble with the premise of this question. I have never found feminist discourses around gender and sexuality closed to me. Sometimes difficult? Sure. Does it sometimes make me uncomfortable? Sure. Are there contexts in which it is inappropriate for me as a man to enter into feminist discourse as a “speaking subject?” Sure, but that doesn’t mean I cannot listen and find myself somewhere within the discourse. Do I think feminist discourse is always accurate in the way it speaks about men? No, but that is not the same thing as saying it is closed to me.
I also find troubling, though I don’t have the time to go into why right now, the insistence that the problem of “normative men” and male privilege, as Clarisse has defined them (us?), is somehow qualitatively different from the problem of male privilege in general, even as it applies to the trans man who was upset about becoming a white man. I’m going to make a leap that makes sense to me now, but may not hold water if you try to think it through: Apropos of what I just said, I think that both Daran over at Feminist Critics–there’s a trackback in part one of this series–and Toy Soldier ask some very good, critical questions about Clarisse’s series. Though I disagree–as usual and strongly–with where they end up in their answers, the questions they ask are worth asking.
the examples you give in comment #2 are really only applicable to white (and non-poor-seeming) women. There are tons of women of color/poor women for whom those examples do not reflect their reality at all.
I apologize for not thinking things through*. I think that the interaction between race and gender and how each cause maladaptive responses from authority figures would be interesting, but I clearly pretty much failed to start it.
*Partly a fail due to anecdote bias. My mother, who is half Mexican and looks Hispanic goes through security like she was never there. Including going in and out of Mexico. I’m assuming that she’s just the unusual outlier, though. I look like my (mostly white anglo) father and therefore pass so completely that my personal experience is probably irrelevant.
Do you think that it follows that because men in the larger cultural context enjoy more power than women, then they enjoy more power than women here?
Yes. Maybe not as much more than in some contexts, but Alas is not a feminist paradise where all gender assumptions, subconscious biases, and habits disappear. For example, I doubt you spent much time during or after posting this worrying about whether or not you might offend me. On the other hand, I spent a lot of time trying to make sure my wording would not offend sailorman or other men who post/comment on this blog whose opinions I respect and spent time afterwards worrying that it did. Could be just me (and I could be wrong about yo), but my guess is that that is fairly typical of “male” and “female” patterns of behavior. Women are taught not to be bitchy, men are taught to be assertive and stand up for themselves. This gives men more power than women.
(A preponderance of male power on a blog would mean, presumably, that men could shout women down, rely on the moderators to moderate in their favour etc.)
Men do sometimes shout women down on this blog. Or at least get them to stop commenting. Of course, people stop commenting on a thread for any number of reasons ranging from boredom with topic to something came up in real life. Nonetheless, many of the most persistent commenters are men. This is probably not a coincidence.
If that is the case, what good is Alas at all?
I see Alas as a place where issues like this can be discussed in a reasonable atmosphere, in which the male privilege and power are less extreme than in real life. And a fun blog which discusses a number of interesting issues, not just feminism. I do not expect it to be a perfect feminist paradise with equality and free beer and cookies for all.
One disadvantage of the “stoic man” stereotype is that showing emotions automatically makes you seem less intelligent and more vulnerable. If any woman wants to act emotional, she automatically gets less opportunities, and may be seen as a victim. If any man shows emotions, he is automatically a victim for bullying and criminal behavior. Just my take on the whole “emotions” thing.
Dianne
Actually, that’s quite true, if you mean: ‘worrying about how Dianne in particular might react to this or that comment of mine’. Obviously – since we only interact as entities in cyberspace – I know little about your sensibility and personality. If I were compelled to limit what I said to you to things I knew for certain would not offend you, I wouldn’t be able to address you at all, and nor would anybody else. On the other hand, I make it a rule when posting on Alas to prune my comments of anything that might reasonably be construed as offensive (irrespective of sex or gender) before hitting the ‘submit’ button.
It seems to me that their can only be two explanations for your deference. (1) You feel threatened by Sailorman and the other guys: if you upset them they will retaliate by mobbing or denigrating you. I doubt very much, however, that you have anything to actually fear from them, and it would surely be an indictment of a feminist- and woman-friendly blog like Alas if it allowed (except as an oversight) such misbehaviour on the part of men posting here. (2) Under no duress whatsoever, you choose to be deferential to men’s feelings in a way that you are not to women’s. But in that case you are yourself (along with the majority of women commenters here who are, so you think, probably more careful of men’s reactions than the male commenters are of women’s) the cause of the pro-man bias which prevails here.
My impression is that every poster and moderator on this blog would strongly encourage women to be assertive and to stand up for themselves. Dianne, your words seem to suggest an equivalence between being bitchy and being assertive – but surely you don’t accept the notion that just because a person should refrain from being bitchy that same person should refrain from being assertive? And just as surely you don’t think to yourself when addressing a man on this blog: ‘It doesn’t become me as a woman to be assertive?’
Relieved to hear it! But from what you say it would seem that an important bolster of male power and privilege on Alas (where, though they are less dominant than in society at large, they are still preponderant) are your own attitudes and actions.
Would you like me to desist? Just say the word.
It’s relevant to sexuality because men, like me, who can’t claim to be breadwinners seem to be much less attractive to women than men who can. Does a person who is financially supported by a spouse (or ex-spouse), instead of parents, fall into the category of “responsible for his own welfare”? Saying that one wants to stay home and take care of children while one’s spouse works sounds a lot odder coming from a man than a woman. Like it or not, social status – having the respect and admiration of your fellow humans – is a big part of what women find attractive, and unmarried men who don’t do paid work (and aren’t independently wealthy) aren’t respected. There’s no such thing as a “MRS degree” for men.
When someone asks me what I do for a living, I tell them “I take care of my grandmother”, which is something of a half-truth. I do take care of my grandmother, who certainly needs help, but she’s surprisingly self-sufficient for a 94-year-old whose brain isn’t working so well any more; my help mostly consists of taking her out to dinner every night, making sure she takes the right amount of medication, driving her to the grocery store once in a while, and sleeping on her sofa while she sits on her rocking chair. It’s certainly not as labor intensive as a real, paying job, but it’s enough to satisfy my parents for the time being.
I don’t want a “real” job because, as far as I can tell, jobs are horrible, soul-sucking abominations straight out of Office Space. I imagine there must be some jobs that aren’t, but I wouldn’t be able to get or keep them; the competition for paid jobs in fields such as, say, acting, is really, really stiff. The few times I have had a job, I’ve either been completely miserable or been fired in under a week.
I do admit that a lot of this is just self-serving whining, though; I don’t want to derail the discussion, so if I should drop the subject, let me know.
Hi. Nice to meet you.
Yep.
The stats are clear; men are more likely to be the victims of violence–as well as the perpetrators–in this society, at this time. Damn, there are at least 17 directions I want to go to explore the above or comment on it. I was horrified to find that the numbers show that the creation of avenues for women to escape bad, unhealthy, dangerous relationships (with men) has had the unintended and unforeseen consequence that more women are killed. The reason that the author (James Gilligan, “Violence: Reflections on a National Epidemic”) proposes is not gender-specific, but it makes sense; it’s shame. And I think that gets deep into the core question you’re pointing at, Clarisse.
Masculinity (and femininity) point at what it means–or it is–to be that, to be male, to be female. It’s incredibly fundamental, at least in this (and many) societies. My aunt’s a native of China; she uses “she” almost without exception when referring to others in the third person… and it disturbed me, and disturbed most of us, when it happened speaking of the young male children of the family. The need to correct. It’s true of babies in general though; you get an incredible amount of energy, and it’s perceived as a serious faux pas, to erroneously mis-gender a child in speech (I had someone at work in fact ask me the other day to confirm his assumption about the gender of a coworker’s new baby… he didn’t want to offend the parents).
Truth be told, I don’t think that men know what being masculine really means. Perhaps most particularly those who are overtly very masculine and utterly unwilling/unable to discuss it. There’s no real place or role that belongs exclusively to males that identifies who and what they are.
And you’re right that the social space is safer for women to be. I noticed that in a mall, a woman hauling a shrieking brat out of the place is hardly looked at except with a flicker of sympathy and pity. When a man’s in the same boat, the looks (particularly from women) are very different (of course, if there are two kids being hauled out, no one goes to that place; no predatory male pervert is crazy enough…). Masculinity, in this society, is frequently a lonely place–boys learn early that they’re not to speak of or reveal their feelings, and it’s least safe to do so with other men. To do so is to risk being othered and ostracized from the limited, emotionally amputated tribe of men. It’s possible to open the doors a little, but the social norm is that it requires the application of enough alcohol to justify it all later as having been so wasted…”–and that comes at a serious price, too.
The bitter irony is that feminism’s success has made it even less possible for men to express anything of their sexuality–doing so means, as you observe, being a creep… if not being formally sanctioned by whatever institution for being a harasser, if not legally sanctioned.
Don’t feel they’ve been taught to process their emotions? Um. No. Haven’t been. Sure there are exceptions, but speaking to the vast social norm, the emotional education for boys is that emotions are not to be experienced and processed; they’re to be bottled up and denied, with few exceptions. Anger is marginally tolerated–which is one reason that it’s unleashed when poking at this issue.
Hmm. I wonder… is that true for men as well–that the advantages are the flip of a stereotype?
….
Dianne,
By whom?
I may be in a very different age cohort from your husband, but my personal experience is that there was limited praise. Sure, there was some very vocal approbation from women. But almost exclusively so. And in practice? Ah, a very different creature–taking my young son to park gatherings to be with other little kids… I found no support; the at-home-moms didn’t care to include a male at home parent. Were this not the experience of almost every at home dad I met at the time, I might brush it off as a single anecdotal case. But we were thin enough on the ground that we each experienced this locally, and ended up driven to create a group of at home dads who drove long distances to get together so that our kids got to play… and so that we got to have some adult interaction, too. Vocal praise, but social ostracism–on the ground. And at home moms will already tell you that it’s a very alone experience. Talk is cheap–which is how the praise ended up feeling. Meanwhile, the other messages were utter incomprehension, hostility to the idea, and disapproval. The airy praise was a pretty light-weight compensation.
…
Emily,
Then I would submit that you don’t grasp some of the fundamental assumptions around what being masculine means (at this time, in this society). To be an adult male and to be dependent on one’s parents… grossly violates the meme that males are independent, self-supporting and in fact, other-supporting.
(Basement Dweller, I’m not in your boat, but in a somewhat similar one; I’ve been a full-time parent for 17 years, while my wife’s been working, traveling, and… oh, yeah, supporting us–me–and I know exactly what kinds of triggers there are. Supported by parents. Supported by wife. Oh, yeah.)
Um. Ew? So… you only want people in your life who give to you, rather than who you give to?
Seriously, the cited text precisely manifests one of those cultural expectations about adults and about males, particularly, which is screwy and destructive.
You Are To BE Independent.
Needing others is weak. Bad. Failure.
Particularly if you’re male. Especially. Which is one of the deep, constantly re-opened wounds for men in this society. You’re defined as a failure as a human being, as a male, if you are–at any level. It’s one of the keys to the cliché complaints women express about men; it’s shameful to be in need of support. Basement Dweller expresses it–he’s brave enough to admit that he doesn’t feel much respect for himself–and gets dumped on for it (helping reinforce, no doubt, that sense of self-respect). Heap on shame for being dependent (when in fact, that’s what being fully human is–being dependent, interdependent–on each other), and what you ensure is shut down, another isolated, uncommunicative male whose only communication will likely be inexplicably hostile, even violent… over something seemingly trivial. Which it may be; the proverbial straw that breaks the camel’s back, and the fact that it’s something trivial will only enhance the effect, since ‘losing it’ over something trivial is in itself shameful.
This society is in some ways deeply shame-based. Perhaps particularly for males.
A.W. and Robert. I get what your saying. And yes your right, it is rather counter productive to place negative connotations on masculinity. I suppose in retrospect I was really attempting to say “mainstream masculinity” or something to that affect.
I find this very interesting as a discussion and it’s hardly something I’ve been given space to think about. I have a couple male friends who seemingly have become cynical in regards to masculinity in general. Their critique of other men’s idea of masculinity can be pretty hard hitting and at times loathsome. I can understand their dismay since in today’s culture masculinity is so often intertwined with sexual conquest and sexist demeanor and they wish to have nothing to do with that. But could there be a chance for pro-feminist men to come to terms with masculinity as not itself being the sexist agent.
It reminds me of how I once thought very negatively and harshly about femininity growing up. I became in many ways misogynist in my own thinking and actions. It seems as if I wished to retaliate against femininity, as if it was femininity that gave justification to the rules of society. Femininity was the very reason I could not be a priest or alter server or why I wasn’t respected as much as my brother who was two years younger then me.
So many new things to think about, and I’m not sure it’s my place to be pondering these things.
Briefly (because I don’t want to derail), neither of these claims are true. It’s not “clear” that men are more likely to be victims of violence, because there is no simple measurement that’s accurate for all violence. What about rape, which happens mainly to women and is underreported? But then again, what about violence in prison, which mainly happens to men and is underreported? But then again, what about intimate violence, which most experts believe mostly happens to women and is underreported? Etc, etc.. The comparison isn’t simple or clear.
And second of all, it’s simply not true that more women are killed nowadays than before the domestic violence shelter movement.
To reiterate what others have said: spaces specifically focused on discussing the problems and disadvantages guys face under patriarchy would be useful.
@Doug S., so tangential to the OP:
As a young and not-yet-married woman, I’m attracted to the idea of a non-breadwinning partner and have been for a long time. I think it’s valuable for children to be nurtured and cared for by a parent, especially pre-kindergarten, and I do not think I would enjoy homemaking or be a successful homemaker. I’m really fond of dating guys who can cook well, value children, and are capable of being tidy/organized, in part because I see those as homemaker-y skills. I expect myself to be the primary breadwinner, and I expect my partner to do the “real work” that is feeding, diaper-changing, nurturing, bathing, and otherwise caring for our young children while I am out in an office or whatever.
This is not a typical goal, of course, and I don’t know of guys who are specifically looking for a “MRS” degree. I believe that as a culture we undervalue childcare and the work that homemakers do – but I would say both partners in the symbiotic relationship of homemaker/breadwinner are responsible for their own welfare. I am disinterested in a relationship with an adult who is neither a homemaker, employed, or a full-time higher education student, and suspect that *is* fairly common. I would not be interested in spending much time with someone who is not contributing to society in one of those ways.
Tom writes:
It should be noted that this is an indictment of “Alas” that many female comment-writers have in fact made over the years, as Bonnie (#35) alludes to. And it’s certainly true that male comment-writers tend to write most of the comments here.
It’s true, I assume, that no one here is “under duress” in the sense that someone is pointing a gun at their head and saying “defer to men.”
However, it is true — and I think this is what Dianne was saying, although if I’m wrong she’ll correct me — that “Alas” exists in a larger society, and in that larger society girls are more likely to be taught, from birth or shortly afterwards, to be deferential. Not all women are able to shrug off that lifetime’s training, not even if they find themselves in a particular sub-culture in which being deferential isn’t expected.
Think of someone bowed under a heavy weight, and carrying that weight for years. Then the person wanders into an area where the weight is temporarily made lighter, or even removed. Will they immediately stand up straight? No, of course not; they’ll remain bent over for years. Gender expectations weigh us all down, women and men both, and you can’t solve that problem by creating a blog space.
Going somewhat back to the topic of this post, the weight on me consists, to a great degree, of things I learned and absorbed during my childhood. That was a long time ago, and I’m now living in a situation where no one is going to make me feel inadequately male on a daily basis. But I still feel the weight. I might never be rid of it. And I’m far from unique in that regard.
Of course, that doesn’t mean that all women are doomed to always be deferential, or that men don’t ever feel pressure to defer. It does mean that “you’re under no duress, so stop feeling like you have to be concerned about what the guys feel” is not at all useful advice. Imo.
Another “problem” I have is that I’m a pretty poor homemaker, too. For one, I can’t stand cooking. At all. I’ve eaten tuna out of a can because I can’t be bothered to make myself a sandwich out of it. Perhaps not coincidentally, I don’t have much of an appreciation for food; if I could wave a magic wand and give up both the need and ability to eat, I’d do it. Also, I’m pretty tolerant of messes and dirt; if it’s not in my immediate way, I let it lie. (I’m sure part of that comes from living with my mom the packrat, who gets upset if anyone moves “her stuff” to the wrong place, and “her stuff” covers nearly every flat surface in the house.) So I’m not exactly volunteering myself to be anyone’s househusband, either. I just suck at “real life”, that’s all. :(
Amp
If this is true – and given that Dianne believes her own deferential impulses regarding men to be general, both in society at large and here in a feminist-friendly space – then doesn’t that suggest that an important impediment to the feminist project is women themselves? After all, it’s not Sailorman’s or any other man’s fault if Dianne treats him with more deference than she would a woman saying the same thing – it’s a result of a choice Dianne made. I take your point regarding social conditioning, of course, but I don’t see that it’s an excuse for persisting with sexually discriminitive behaviour (because treating men with kid gloves while laying them aside for women is surely that). If Sailorman – though I doubt he ever would – were to behave in a boorish and overbearing manner to women, I’m sure we wouldn’t write off his responsibility for such behaviour by saying that social conditioning had implanted in him the notion that he, as a man, has more right to be heard than a woman and that such conditioning is hard to shrug off. He has a duty to shrug it off. If on the other hand it is not, or not wholly, overbearing behaviour on the part of men but, as Dianne suggests, women’s own deference which is the problem, then that problem can only be addressed by them.
Ampersand, Gilligan’s citations: on sex ratios of the victims of violent deaths in the USA, 1900-1984, is Paul C. Holinger’s “Violent Deaths in the United States: An Epidemiologic Study of Suicide, Homicide, and Accidents,” New York, Guilford Press, 1987. Also Lewis F. Richardson’s “Statistics of Deadly Quarrels,” Gil Eliot’s “The Twentieth Century Book of the Dead,” and others.
Gilligan’s remark in his notes, “What all these sources document is the overwhelming predominance of males among the victims of every form of lethal violence (homicide, suicide, warfare, capital punishment, haxardous occupations and working conditions, violent child abuse, “unintentional” injuries caused by recklessness and bravado, etc.”) in every nation, every year, and every age group, for which statistics are available. The only exception to this pattern is the apparent excess of girls among the victims of infanticide in certain developing nations in Asia…”
As to rape–which is absolutely a crime of violence–I suspect that it’s a crime directed more at women… but the same author writes “The phenomenon of male rape may be far more common than is revealed by any of the conventional statistics on rape…. rapes in prison are almost never reported… in an exhaustice investigation of “Sexual Assault in the Philadelphia Prison System and Sheriff’s Vans” by the police department and district attorney’s office, in which over 3000 prisoners and 500 staff members were interviewed, the Chief Assistant District Attorney, Allan Davis, after hearing repeated accounts of ‘brutal gang rapes and victimization of young, inexperienced inmates,’ concluded that sexual violence was epidemic.” Davis found that perhaps 3% of the sexual assaults in the Philadephia jails were ever reported to his office. Gilligan cites other studies and accounts as well; Loretta Tofani’s Pulitzer-winning investigation that compared the official 10/yr figure versus more than 600 per year in the Prince George County Detention Center alone; the admission in 1968 that mass rapes were “routine occurrences at Cook County Jail” in Chicago (by jail officials, no less). Similar accounts from CT, CA, etc. An estimate dating to the late 80’s put the (then) figure at 18 adult males raped in prison every minute. And of course, incarceration rates have gone way up….
Gilligan (who used ot be the Director of the Center for the Study of Violence at Harvard Medical Center) writes that men represent 75% or more of the victims of lethal violence in the US; that throughout the world men die at rates of 2-5 times that women do from the same forms of violence, and that WHO documents support this. Women appear to be disproportionately the victims of rape and incest.
Now, it may be that he was incorrect about the ratio of males killed in domestic situations, or I may have garbled it, or stated it badly–or different periods were being looked at. His text reads “Before these changes were introduced, the number of husbands killing wives was about equal to the number of wives killing husbands.” (Citations: “That statistic was found repeatedly and consistently in every kind of study performed…” (both at the city by city level and the national statistics reported to the FBI…–but the dates on those reports are 1958 and 1969) He then writes “Suddenly, a few years ago [early 1990s?], twice as many wives were being killed as husbands.” Numbers may not have changed–but the ratio has. Which the charts you linked to supported. If I confused things there, my apologies.
My point was simply that machismo and hyper-masculinity overlays that deep sense of inadequacy and shame… and that Gilligan makes a superb case that addressing this is very hard, because to get at it, you have to get those men in touch with that sense of shame and inadequacy that they’ve been willing to do almost anything–including kill people–to avoid acknowledging or revealing. To a lesser degree, that’s going to be true of a larger class of men (and a friend sent me an article from a recent Newsweek that observed that the defining characteristic of abusive bosses is that they feel incompetent. Threatened, they lash out… at those who are vulnerable to them).
As you observe in another post:
Far from it. Far, far, far from it.
The absolutely critical male biological roles have all but been dealt with by civilization; the male role of hunter/breadwinner has been made optional. That of protector has become redundant–since about the only thing that human beings need to be protected from are ourselves, and particularly other males, so it’s kind of tautological…. Oh, and biological father….
There’s plenty of data showing that kids who have intact families do better, but I’ll bet that we’ll find (as data becomes available on children of same sex couples) that it’s got little to do with the gender of the parents, and almost everything to do with having an intact family and two parents.
This, I think, is the conundrum; civilization and the changes in our society have expanded the options and opportunities for women. There’s essentially nothing that my goddaughters couldn’t do that my sons could. The converse is biologically not true. And male socialization leaves males in roles that aren’t necessary or central. They’re also not healthy, I think, for the men–or for women around them.
I suspect that the bottom line is that we have to figure out what masculine (broadly conceived) ought to mean in a society which isn’t violent and sexist. Because most of the components of the social definition are riddled with those things.
I would just like to second the value of James Gilligan’s book to any discussion of masculinity and the underscore the importance of his insights about shame–which is such an important element in both the creation and policing of normative/traditional/whatever patriarchal masculinity.
Pat,
Perhaps because he doesn’t respect himself, Doug S described his situation in a particularly unappealing way, which led to my dumping. If Doug had said – My parents support me and I contribute to the family by caring for my grandmother – then I wouldn’t have dumped on him. Caretaking IS a job, and a valuable one. But Doug didn’t say that. He said that he didn’t have a job and that his parents weren’t happy to support him and that he hoped to never have a job (presumably continuing to have his parents, who don’t want to, support him). That’s not a very respectable attitude. Perhaps it’s the attitude rather than the actual living situation that leads to the lack of respect.
I think it is problematic if being in a mutually beneficial family relationship in which a male member does unpaid caretaking leads to that man’s sexuality and worth being attacked. And that’s something that I think feminism strives to counteract.
RE: taker/giver, I think that relationships work best when everyone is a “giver” – when people take pleasure in giving to their loved ones. Of course that involves also being able to “take” what your spouse/family member gives. I wouldn’t want a relationship with a martyr who is never able to take anything for him/herself. But I think in general it’s worth striving to give more than you take. Makes it less likely you’ll end up taking far more than your share.
Well, if I speak to what ends up being offputting about the prospect of identifying as a feminist:
I rarely (if ever) disagree with mainstream feminist positions on what it’s like to be a woman, or how women ought to be treated. (Although maybe I tend towards favouring equality for individuals, rather than classes, which may be a somewhat “masculine” view; this’ll tie together in a moment)
Where I almost always get cranky is in descriptions of what it’s like to be a man, or how men ought to be treated (and the latter usually as a consequence of apparent failure in the former). Men are probably generally much more aware of the penalties and drawbacks of being a man than the advantages thereof (and I’m fairly sure the same is true of women). It may well be the right ethic for feminists to say “We’re not here to work on mens’ problems” but at the “Men have no problems” and/or “Mock people who mention mens’ problems” end of the discussion (which isn’t everyone, but which isn’t printed on hen’s teeth neither) that does make the ideology (rather than the practice) seem threatening, because any vision of a just society that denies men have any problems now, or that women ever experience any preferential treatment, is likely to be one where it’s absolutely terrible to be a man; this is very different from merely “most of the more pressing issues are womens”. Of course, many of these are intertwined anyways, advancing on various fronts to break down gender roles is often necessary; one can’t always (productively) only look at womens’.
Hugo Schwyzer gets mentioned above, and I don’t think it’s his dick that makes his blog appeal to men; it’s that I rarely read something he’s written and then wonder if he’s ever met a man (though that does happen occasionally). But the comprehension of this buy a lot of forgiveness for his misses; similar things like this, say don’t show up very often in other places (and reading the reactions to them, there’s a lot of responders who don’t seem to have a realistic idea of what it’s like to be a man, or than men have any (unique) struggles) It makes a big difference. Yeah, it’s a little “What about the menz?!”, but if you ask about how to speak to men, it’s about the men.
Now, that’s not always very easy. It often becomes clear to me when I step back, discussions about men (generically), or messages aimed at men (generically) aren’t aimed at me; that’s not often an easy realisation (even if it should be). I reacted pretty defensively to this although on further investigation I realised the answer to “Brian, how many times have you approached a strange woman in public with nonplatonic intentions?” is “Ah, well, okay, zero, but” – my own failure, but a common one. A difficult one to address too, because women don’t experience being asked out by men the way men experience doing it (that’s weighted very strongly towards men who ask out a lot of women; those of us who ask out women at nanohertz frequencies, rather than millihertz frequencies just don’t contribute to the signal, but we’re probably the most likely to show up at feminist blogs.
But – uh – right. Acknowledgment of the realities of gender roles for everyone is probably key. Action less so (though in a context like a blog, giving some space to discuss men’s problems is almost free; though it’s a common feminist wisdom that the entire rest of the world is a male space, there certainly isn’t a place for us to discuss gender roles), even in action groups, where goals are compatible; in practice killing of gender roles on either side probably benefits those on both sides (okay, heteronormative).
Since you are addressing “heteronormative men” in your post, I will respond just in order to give my perspective.
I think that the idea that feminists need to appeal to how the patriarchy hurts them is extremely offensive, anti-feminist, and just plain misogynist.
I honestly feel this post should not be in a feminist space at all.
You can’t say you don’t want to be an “MRA asshole” and then just dole out their erroneous, misogynist talking-points. To set up that framework and essentially ask “is this what men need to care about women?” is lunacy.
It’s as if a slave in the time of American slavery said to other slaves, “hey maybe the master and his white friends allow beatings because he feels like that’s the only way he can make money, and that really hurts his feelings! Maybe we should just be more welcoming to his white friends, cause they’ll never actually care about the beatings themselves.”
“I think that the idea that feminists need to appeal to how the patriarchy hurts them is extremely offensive, anti-feminist, and just plain misogynist.'”
That should read “I think that the idea that feminists need to appeal to how the patriarchy hurts men in order to get men involved is extremely offensive, anti-feminist, and just plain misogynist.”
Also, I feel that I need to directly call these men out on their responses. All these men commenting about being uncomfortable in feminist discussion are saying, in essence, that they don’t care about the oppression of women unless it can be shown that they too are affected? That’s messed up. Just shameful.
That should read “I think that the idea that feminists need to appeal to how the patriarchy hurts men in order to get men involved is extremely offensive, anti-feminist, and just plain misogynist.”
But if said feminists are all about dismantling the gender systems as they are today everyone wouldn’t pointing out how patriarchy hurts men (this pharse almost feels like lip service when I say it) come up anyway? If a movement experesses concern for all people then how is it also “offensive, anti-feminist, and just plain misogynistic”?
Also, I feel that I need to directly call these men out on their responses. All these men commenting about being uncomfortable in feminist discussion are saying, in essence, that they don’t care about the oppression of women unless it can be shown that they too are affected? That’s messed up. Just shameful.
Really? Sounds to me like they are saying that simply being male is not a cake walk that some act like it is. Again you can’t say you’re working to make the world a better place for all people and then alienate entire sections of that “all people”.
That completely misses the mark. The moral ground of feminism (in the public consciousness) is equal, or equitable treatment. Someone who denies that men suffer in the gender role isn’t advocating equal treatment. One can argue women suffer more (and I have no metric for this, and really can’t conclude, doesn’t matter) but our gender roles, and their enforcement, is bad for everybody.
I don’t think it even needs to be anything beyond lip service to improving the situation of men, in practice (though an occasional bone, especially free ones, may be nice). But if you’re in a “sexism always benefits men, hurts women, never benefits women or hurts men” place, I won’t trust you to be interested in any kind of equality or equitable treatment. Now it’s possible I’ve misjudged you, and you’re just horribly naive, but that is how it is.
But if said feminists are all about dismantling the gender systems as they are today everyone wouldn’t pointing out how patriarchy hurts men (this pharse almost feels like lip service when I say it) come up anyway? If a movement experesses concern for all people then how is it also “offensive, anti-feminist, and just plain misogynistic”?
I never said any movement was anti-feminist. Of course the patriarchy’s affect on men is part of a feminist discussion (but is not the goal).
What I said was anti-feminist is the notion that men should only feel comfortable addressing feminism or joining feminist discussion when feminists tell them that men have it bad too. All this is is pandering to men that don’t respect women and feminism enough in the first place to listen to them without being constantly validated.
Really? Sounds to me like they are saying that simply being male is not a cake walk that some act like it is.
No, that’s not all they are saying. They are saying, some more explicitly than others, that the fact that feminist spaces don’t make themselves suddenly about masculinity, makes them turned off to feminism.
The framework of this post though, has colored any talk about the expectations of masculinity. So as men pile on with, yeah it’s tough not to be able to cry, or whatever, they are saying more than just “it’s not a cakewalk.” They are saying “yes, you’re right! I have been against feminism and feminist spaces for all this time because they won’t spend time talking about all their advantages over me!”
Again you can’t say you’re working to make the world a better place for all people and then alienate entire sections of that “all people”.
Feminism works to make the world a better place for women and by extension men. But to say that it is alienating to NOT make feminism suddenly focus on men so they finally join the conversation is foolish. It’s as if you saw a man being beat up and saying out loud that you’d only assist him if he made it clear that you might be beat up next. But if he says “what the hell are you doing, just shut up and help,” you feel justified in leaving him to be a victim.
The moral ground of feminism (in the public consciousness) is equal, or equitable treatment. Someone who denies that men suffer in the gender role isn’t advocating equal treatment.
No, the moral ground of feminism is that for thousands of years, women have been oppressed by men.
Also, there are few feminist that deny that men can suffer as a result of patriarchy. Men as a whole, and especially the “heteronormative” men that this post addresses, however are not oppressed by patriarchy.
But if you’re in a “sexism always benefits men, hurts women, never benefits women or hurts men” place, I won’t trust you to be interested in any kind of equality or equitable treatment.
You are reducing what I said to “sexism always benefits men.” I never said that. What I said was that the men chiming in so cheerfully to address their discomfort with feminism because of a lack of and to prescribe a male-focused agenda for feminists are shameful.
I don’t think it even needs to be anything beyond lip service to improving the situation of men, in practice (though an occasional bone, especially free ones, may be nice).
If what you are saying is that in order for you to join and support feminist ideals, feminists need to pay lip service to the plight of men, then that is simply slimy anti-feminism dressed up in egalitarian clothing.
That’s a ridiculous framing. The argument is generally human, not male, in its application.
Go ahead and try it. Pretty much everyone responds better to positive input than they do to negative input. that’s true whether the listener is male, female, white, POC, cis, trans, etc.
Similarly, pretty much every group and individual who is trying to foment change in the person they are addressing needs to constantly balance the competing goals of speaking directly (better match between goals and words; worse reception by the listener) and speaking indirectly or even conceding points (worse match between goals and words; better reception by the listener.) That’s true whether the speaker is a male or a female; whether they are a religious organization or a political party or a friend or a relative or a teacher or anyone else.
A preacher has to balance the competing goals of “change parishioners’ behavior” and “don’t get ignored or disliked by the parishioners.”
I have to balance the goals of “correct my children’s missteps” and “don’t make them too angry or make them ignore me.”
Some people balance “speak truth to power” and “get those in power to listen to you.”
And feminists have to balance (for example) “focus on discussing and improving the lot of women alone” with “getting the assistance of men in doing so.”
This isn’t rocket surgery or brain science. It’s just normal human behavior.
What amazes me is how many people seem to think they are a special exception. Why does everyone think they’re an exception to the rule? Feminism isn’t special; it runs the same balance as everyone else in the world. Feminists can choose to set the balance anywhere they want, of course, including all the way over to “completely ignore and/or work in opposition men; we don’t need to make any concessions in exchange for their help.”
But if you pretend that there’s no balancing act going on at all, you’re a fool. Similarly, if you expect men as a class to “live the exception” and be somehow immune to the different effects of positivity and negativity, you’re also making a mistake.
I might also add that this can be done by reframing as well, or expanding the pie. For example, even though many of the goals of the civil rights movement were in some ways oppositional to white interests, the addition of the “moral gains” aspect made them much more successful.
It’s really Communications 101 combined with Negotiations 101. If you want something from another party, you need to figure out the best way to get what you want. Often the best way is to give a little, even if you’d rather not move an inch. You may hold certain particulars as sacred and keep them secure, but if you hold everything as sacred you will often fail to find the best solution.
There are always going to be groups who don’t recognize that reality, and who take the “we will not negotiate” meme. I am constantly surprised at the high proportion of putatively knowledgeable and educated liberals in those groups. It certainly doesn’t seem to help their overall success.
Pretty much everyone responds better to positive input than they do to negative input.
The next time I have someone’s foot on my neck, I’ll be sure to compliment their boots.
Go ahead and try it. Pretty much everyone responds better to positive input than they do to negative input.
Who on earth is talking about positive and negative input? I’m talking about men who want to shift the focus of feminism away from women to men in order to be interested in feminist issues. That condition is shameful and sad. The minute a man lets the words “I would be more comfortable in a feminist space if they told me they were advantaged by the patriarchy” escape his brain, it should be obvious, to everyone and hopefully himself, this person is no longer interested in feminism. This person is specifically looking to get back at women for a perceived slight.
And feminists have to balance (for example) “focus on discussing and improving the lot of women alone” with “getting the assistance of men in doing so.”
Getting the assistance of men in doing so should not necessitate changing the entire focus of feminism. That’s just insane. It’s as if as some solution you said to your kids “the more missteps the better.” It’s the position you write in defense of that is not balanced. It’s plainly just hijacking.
But if you pretend that there’s no balancing act going on at all, you’re a fool. Similarly, if you expect men as a class to “live the exception” and be somehow immune to the different effects of positivity and negativity, you’re also making a mistake.
The catching flies with honey argument you spent paragraphs repeating has very little to do with why this is offensive. This is not about positivity and negativity. It’s about men taking over feminist agendas as retribution for being called out on their privilege. And if you keep pretending that it’s about some balancing act, you’re a fool.
I might also add that this can be done by reframing as well, or expanding the pie. For example, even though many of the goals of the civil rights movement were in some ways oppositional to white interests, the addition of the “moral gains” aspect made them much more successful.
This is a mischaracterization of the truth. Civil Rights is probably the worst example you could have chosen for your flies with honey arguments. The truth of the civil rights movement’s success is hard fought battles by many black-run organizations, in the streets and in the courts for equal treatment. The “moral gains” pr you speak of amounted to a hill of beans compared to the radical bravery of those involved in civil rights. All of this was in the face of a large majority against equal rights for black people.
The groups in the Civil Rights movement didn’t turn around and say to white people, “how can we make this about your struggles as a while person?” And white people that wanted to remain anti-racists allies didn’t say “oh, well you know white people have it tough too you know cause we get told we can’t jump on the basketball court.”
It’s really Communications 101 combined with Negotiations 101. If you want something from another party, you need to figure out the best way to get what you want. Often the best way is to give a little, even if you’d rather not move an inch. You may hold certain particulars as sacred and keep them secure, but if you hold everything as sacred you will often fail to find the best solution.
It is absolutely distasteful to think that women have to negotiate in order to get men to care about the oppression of women.
What this post addresses, is feminism and feminist spaces. It’s not asking how we can get everyone in the world including male-chauvinists to vote for some legislation that benefits women. If that were the discussion, then, fine, negotiate away.
But to negotiate men into caring about the oppression of women by making feminism male- focused is explicitly anti-feminist.
This statement is flatly false. The general moral reasoning behind the acceptance of (much of) feminism into the mainstream is not revenge, it is that men and women are both sentient being deserving of equal treatment, as fellow human beings.
I’ll keep that in mind the next time I have an aneurysm and decide that whiskey is a better treatment than going to the hospital. I’m sure that was a personal choice unaffected by my instruction in gender role. Or the next time someone strikes me for knitting.
Funny that I didn’t say anything like that, eh? I’m unwilling to sign up for an ideology that requires me to espouse things I know to be false from my own experience. It would be dishonest to do otherwise.
If you ply your attitude, men interested in equality will listen to you and say “That ain’t it.” Clarisse’s original post is pretty reason, I can read that and agree with what she says, say “Here’s someone who seems pretty reasonable, and who I can believe is interested in working towards a society where men and women are treated equitably, and seen as equal moral agents, deserving of equal consideration.” I read what you say, and I can’t say that about you. There are plenty of feminist or feminist-allied identified people I can say it about, but there are plenty I can’t, and plenty where I’m pretty sure it’s not true.
We aren’t talking, actually, about men’s price for allying with feminism, but what keeps away men who’re otherwise already include to so ally. I’m a realist, if men really arrived in feminist organisations in large numbers, they’d almost certainly devote some of their time to attacking men’s gender roles, whatever else. In most cases, this is to women’s benefit anyways, if I could be seen as a valuable parent, rather than just a babysitter, I’d invest more time in caring for my child (hypothetical, I’ve no children, point stands) But it isn’t the sticking point. The sticking point is having to adopt positions I know to be false.
@Danny: Question about your post title. “Questions I want to ask entitled cis het men”. Do you mean to imply that simpy being a cis het man one feels entitled or that out of the entire population of cis het men there are a subset of them that feels entitled.
The latter. I thought it would be obvious that this was a reference to the Thomas Millar quotation at the end of part 3, but given various feedback it seems that it wasn’t.
I do think that almost all men in our culture are inculcated with entitlement and that they ought to keep an eye on it, and try to be careful about it. I also think that almost all white people have the same problem. I am willing to consider the idea that women also tend to have some entitled attitudes that we ought to keep an eye on, as long as the person who’s telling me about those attitudes isn’t also saying that men have no privilege.
@Dianne: Of course, this being the web, there is no way to know whether Clarissa’s real life name is Richard
Actually, in my case, the fact that I’m a woman is pretty easy to verify because I’ve run a number of public sex-positive events in Chicago. You can see those events referenced, for instance, on blogs like La Libertine’s Salon (Aspasia and I have promoted some events together) and SexGenderBody.com (Arvan Reese is a friend of mine). Tangential to your main point, but I thought it might be worth pointing out.
@Richard Newman (sorry for getting your name wrong earlier, by the way): I guess what I am saying–kind of awkwardly, since I am typing fast–is that the questions presupposes that male and female “advantages” within the gender binary are somehow situated equally within that binary despite the fact that men have more advantages than women. In other words, I think the question elides the very nature of male privilege in the first place.
I agree.
I think this is the part of my series that, in retrospect, frustrates me most — I don’t think I made the point that needed to be made. Which is: yes, for women — and for men — the advantages they experience are also the flip side of unfortunate stereotypes. But what’s especially pernicious about male privilege is that every aspect of female privilege can be trumped by male privilege. The classic example of this is that yes, I can gain “privilege” by dressing to look hot, but that “power” can instantly be taken away by a man who decides to call me a slut.
I don’t understand what you said in the last paragraph of your comment, but it sounded interesting and I’d like to hear more. In terms of Toy Soldiers and Feminist Critics, I think I made a mistake by trying to answer their posts quickly and not thinking everything through. Partly because a lot on those pages (especially the comments, eg patronizing male commenters who did things like call me “our dear Claire”) really irritated me and made me lose my cool. At this point I’m going to try and step back, think for a while, and probably write a post to my own blog later that references their posts rather than trying to answer those threads directly. This whole conversation has given me a lot to think about.
All this is is pandering to men that don’t respect women and feminism enough in the first place to listen to them without being constantly validated.
Its human nature for people to get interested in a subject when their own interests come up. Not saying its good or bad but it does happen.
No, that’s not all they are saying. They are saying, some more explicitly than others, that the fact that feminist spaces don’t make themselves suddenly about masculinity, makes them turned off to feminism.
While some may go this way that is not always the case and to say so is untrue. In some cases they are not asking to be the main focus but are asking that if they are going to speak on men then why not include men?
What I said was that the men chiming in so cheerfully to address their discomfort with feminism because of a lack of and to prescribe a male-focused agenda for feminists are shameful.
Even when people of that movement claim to be concerned for all people? You can’t say you want a better place for everyone and then bring up certain groups only when it benefits you. “We should work together….but you stay in the background until you can do us some good.”
But to say that it is alienating to NOT make feminism suddenly focus on men so they finally join the conversation is foolish.
Even when feminists see fit to speak on the experience of men without actually including them?
Men as a whole, and especially the “heteronormative” men that this post addresses, however are not oppressed by patriarchy.
And what makes you so sure about that?
Getting the assistance of men in doing so should not necessitate changing the entire focus of feminism.
Who said anything about changing the entire focus of feminism?
Joel the world is not going to be changed from a vaccum. Its one thing for people to have spaces that they feel safe talking in without being attacked but at the same time it is unrealistic to think that feminism is going to change the world for men without getting input from the men they expect to change. Its like telling them, “We’re going to fix the things that affect you as well and we need your support but we don’t want you actually speak on the things that affect you.”
Clarisse:
I am willing to consider the idea that women also tend to have some entitled attitudes that we ought to keep an eye on, as long as the person who’s telling me about those attitudes isn’t also saying that men have no privilege.
Then we’re all good. I have no problem seeing that male privilege exists just as I have no problem seeing that female privilege exists. Just like you I have a problem with anyone that tries to argue that only one side has privileges and the other one does not (no matter which side they are coming from).
Clarisse:
The paragraph she is talking about:
I am not going to address what I said about Daran or Toy Soldier because I don’t have time and likely won’t have time to return to it for quite a while. What I meant in the first part of this paragraph is simply this: Your post suggests that you think there are two or more classes of men–cis het/normative and non-normative–and that we are all situated differently regarding male privilege. I find that troubling, not because there is no such thing intersectionality or kyriarchy, but because it divides the class of men in a way that allows, or potentially allows, some of us to say, “Well, we’re not like them; we get it.” Or “We deserve some kind of special consideration.” In this, I think, Joel Tyson has a point. Either there are such things as male privilege and patriarchy and sexism that all men benefit from–even those who get it–or there are not.
Sorry not to be more clear and more subtle, but I need to go.
But how do we know whether something is a privilege of only stereotpyical normative cis-het men or a privilege of all men? Isn’t it important to get the input from a wide range of diverse men, in particular those of low visibility to others, to determine whether significant privilege(s) are granted to all men or just the more visible normative ones?
I find it troubling that it seems more important to you to corner all men in the privilege box than to acknowledge the complexity of how societies deal with gender.
I find that troubling, not because there is no such thing intersectionality or kyriarchy, but because it divides the class of men in a way that allows, or potentially allows, some of us to say, “Well, we’re not like them; we get it.” Or “We deserve some kind of special consideration.”
Perhaps its troubling if you presume the division is for the sole purpose of allowing some to say, “Well, we’re not like them.” type arguments. As Desipis says society is complex and its various groups are complex. It is unfair to try to paint men, or women for that matter, as a monolithic entity that gets the same treatment from society.
Such men may not deserve special consideration but trying to lump them in with the other men who “are like that” doesn’t do anyone any good.
So basically, now feminism has to be about men. OK, got it. Even in our own movement, we’ve got to accept that our concerns are secondary and not as important.
Feminism claims that if women achieve a higher social status than we currently have, this will benefit society in general. That does not mean that we have to put concern for men at the forefront of everything (or even some of the things) that we do.
As for feminist discussions about men being off-base, why the hell don’t all of you anti-feminist men do what I do when I read/hear POC discussing white people? I often am surprised at the way they interpret white attitudes, and do not think they are correct. But instead of dismissing their ideas, I take a look and try to understand why they would make that interpretation. And this always gives me better insight into how whiteness is oppressive. Give it a try sometime, why don’t you?
And, as a bonus, it saves me from making a fool of myself by stamping my feet and crying about how “racism hurts white people, too.” No one with an ounce of understanding about racism makes that claim. No one goes on about how ableism hurts the abled, how homophobia hurts the heterosexual, white supremacy hurts whites, anti-semitism hurts Gentiles, transphobia hurts cisgendered people, etc. etc. At least, they don’t go on about how these “isms” hurt the privileged group as much as or more than the oppressed group. I think most people faced with that argument would roll their eyes and suggest the person making that claim refer to an “Xism 101” source. Yet discussion of feminism here has turned into one long lament about how patriarchy hurts men.
How hard is this to understand?: Feminism should no more make men its focus than the anti-racism movement should make white people its focus. Yes, the study of whiteness is useful as a tool for understanding certain mechanisms of white supremacist attitudes, but it is not, AND SHOULD NOT BE, the main focus of anti-racist work. And the same goes for men and/or masculinity.
I manage to get over the fact that in anti-racist theory, discussions and work, as a white person I take second place. And I certainly would never be arrogant enough to claim that in order to be worthy of my consideration, anti-racism needs to make me comfortable, much less centre me. There’s a lot to be learned by being made uncomfortable. In feminism, men take second place. Now you get over it and you get used to being uncomfortable. Maybe you’ll actually learn something, then.
The short answer is that whatever male privilege is, it’s nothing like white privilege, heterosexual privilege, cisgender privilege, able-bodied privilege. Those things are pretty close to the way privilege is usually modelled. I can count the number of times being white has been detrimental to my life without taking off my socks. I can count the number of times being cisgendered has been detrimental to my life without taking off my mittens. Whether or not sexism does net harm to men, it most definitely does gross harm to men, and in this regard it’s simply not comparable to racism, where white people suffer negligible gross harm. And in general, because of this, the kinds of solutions that racism needs are not like the kinds of solutions sexism needs.
No, this isn’t the choice. Sexism is something you may benefit from, or be hindered by, depending on what you want, but it’s not something you opt in to or out of. If I want to be a successful stockbroker, sexism helps me, and I can’t avoid it, regardless of whether I get it or not. If I want to be an affectionate and loving father, sexism harms me, and I can’t avoid it, whether I get it or not. If I get drunk and pass out at a party, sexism is good for me, whether I get it or not. If I want to take up knitting, it’s bad for me, whether I get it or not. The magnitudes might change though, there I’m not so sure.
Why it is so necessary to cling mightily to the concept of always/never? ALL men ALWAYS benefit from privilege; ALL men NEVER get harmed by their sex?
Nobody here is debating the claim that OVERALL AND IN GENERAL men are privileged and receive more benefit than harm (at least I don’t think that anyone is, seeing as Daran isn’t posting.)
But only an idiot would think that every single man in every single situation benefits from being male; that each and every one of them walks through life without incurring any costs. And only a fool could claim that there are NO things which affect men alone, or men worse than women.
So to put it politely: what’s the big ^%$ing deal with simply treating this like the reality it is–no black and white lines, but a big gray scale? Or if you prefer, a couple of normal curves: the men’s curve is father to the right because they’re overall more privileged, but it’s still a curve with long tails for both sexes, and there’s plenty of overlap between them.
It’s not about trying to get feminism to put men on a pedestal. Rejecting the claims of dogmatic feminists is a lot more simple than that: dogmatism is, usually, a fairly stupid way to view the world: both inefficient and a poor description of reality.
The request to make some randomly-chosen and minor concession to the male race is in my experience really a proving point. Do those people who claim to be speaking “truth” actually have a worldview that’s about as far away from truth as you can get, more suited to a limited-class RPG? Do the people who claim to be seeking “equality” have a concept of what that goal is–after all, you need to know both sides to determine relative equality–or are they actually seeing “more for my side” and assuming that all gains, no matter what, are justified?
It’s the same (reasonable) questions, generally put, that are used to (reasonably) discredit many MRAs who claim to be working towards “equality.” But what’s good for the gander is good for the goose here. You can have as exclusive a club as you want, but just drop the BS that you’re open to the public.
@Richard Newman: Your post suggests that you think there are two or more classes of men–cis het/normative and non-normative–and that we are all situated differently regarding male privilege. I find that troubling, not because there is no such thing intersectionality or kyriarchy, but because it divides the class of men in a way that allows, or potentially allows, some of us to say, “Well, we’re not like them; we get it.”
But men are situated differently regarding privilege … the same way everyone else is. In my experience, gender privilege is very much affected by other axes of oppression — the gender issues I experience as a white woman are considerably different from those experienced by a black woman, for instance; they’re probably also very different from those experienced by a woman without a university degree; etc. If some people fail to take responsibility for their privilege (for instance, by saying “Well, we’re not like them,”) then that’s a problem … but I assert that it’s not a problem caused by being honest about the current situation.
@Joel Tyson, Crys T: Sigh. If you really think I am saying that we “ought to make feminism about men” or “ought to open feminist safe spaces up to men” etc. etc. etc., then please read the last three paragraphs of this post over again. Also, I am curious to know if you read the first two installments.
More on this in the followup post I’m working on.
@Clarisse: I was responding to the comments made by others here, in particular those by the regular Alas Anti-Feminist Brigade, not specifically what you wrote in your post.
@Richard Newman (followup): I just realized that you already addressed what I was saying with most of my response by saying, not because there is no such thing intersectionality or kyriarchy …. So, I guess I’m a little confused … if you agree that these differences exist, then do you think that it’s worth ignoring them in order to prevent people from saying things like “We’re not like them?” Put another way — do you think there is there a better way of acknowledging different “types” or experiences of male privilege, which would not allow people to use those differences to gloss over/ignore their own privilege?
There is a huge difference between saying that my personal experience of male privilege–or, perhaps more accurately, my access to the benefits of male privilege–might be different in different situations (kyriarchy/intersectionality) and saying that there are gradations of male privilege, that there are some men who are more or less privileged as men than other men. Once you say the latter, you get into the all the ridiculous hair-splitting arguments about who has more privilege in what situation that get played out here and elsewhere by people, mostly men, who are unwilling to accept that they are privileged. Period. Acknowledging your privilege does not prevent you from talking about the way that you are hurt/damaged by the system that gives you the privilege; it does not prevent you from holding accountable people in the non-privileged group who buy into that system and contribute to the damage/harm that you suffer. It does not stop you from critiquing the ideology that identifies and tries to undo the privilege–hell, I have done all of these things on this blog, and I have done so in terms that are not so different from those articulated by the group of non-feminist (in which I will, for the moment, group MRAs, anti-feminists, feminist critics) and no one has called me out as anti-feminist or an MRA or whatever. This is not about parading my feminist credentials. It is by way of suggesting the degree to which arguments about degree of privilege, etc., definitions of feminism, etc., are red herrings or straw men or whatever the purpose of which–conscious or not–is to distract from discussing the real issues at hand: sexism, patriarchy, whatever.
There is a great deal more that needs to be said about this: Brian’s insistence that male privilege and white privilege are somehow essentially different, for example, creates a specious distinction that I don’t have time to do more than point out. I am running out of battery life on my laptop and I need to shut down.
(Note to Clarisse: The anger in this comment is not directed at you, even though I am responding to the question you asked me. Your question was fair and I think you wrote your posts in good faith.)
That’s not what’s being said. If you want to talk about issues that women commonly face then you can reasonably do that without input from men. If you want to make broad comparisons between men and women (e.g. male privilege) then you need to seek input from a broad range of both men and women; otherwise you’re relying on the gender stereotypes that feminism is so critical of, or just plain making stuff up.
Richard, that was a really great comment (as yours always are). Thanks.
I’m still unclear as to why it’s considered reasonable to insist someone accept an idea as true, in blind faith, when the idea directly contradicts their own experiences and observations.
What exactly does it do?
Desipis:
This is what you fail to understand: Nothing I said contradicts the experience that it sometimes sucks to be a guy, that there are situations in which men are relatively powerless, that there are situations in which women have advantages that men do not because of (what I would call patriarchal) gender roles, etc. and so on. It’s the language that we use to describe that experience that is different and since language shapes culture and politics and experience, the difference between how we describe it matters greatly.
This is a fair and honest question that I wish I had the time to answer. Perhaps someone else would be willing to give it a go.
It would contradict someone who has the experience that women in general are either roughly the same as or better off than men.
Desipis:
This is where I leave the conversation–unless something changes and it does not continue down this track–but I will say this:
1. The idea that slaves did not have it so good would have contradicted the experience of slave owners that, in fact, Black people were better off, and even happy, enslaved.
2. The idea that he was exercising white privilege, and engaging in explicitly racist practice, would have contradicted the experience of the judge in the south (I can’t remember now which state)–who insisted he was not racist–who refused a marriage license to an interracial couple because they were interracial.
Perception and experience are not analysis. One’s own understanding of one’s experience can be limited and inaccurate in analytical terms even if the emotional component of that experience is valid independently of the analytical point of view applied to understanding it. I will say it again: Perception and experience and how they make you feel are not analysis.
Richard Jeffrey Newman :
I’m thinking more that those who lived in societies where black people were the masters or where whites were slaves would contradict the assumption that whites=master and blacks=slaves.
I’m not saying they are. But then assumption and baseless assertions aren’t either. In order to perform comprehensive analysis you need to include a broad range of perceptions and experiences in a way that doesn’t presuppose a conclusion.
*facevault*
Sorry that adds nothing to the discussion but that really is the best I can come up with after reading through these comments and the hair-spilting and and and… just–*faceplant to keyboard*
I’m not sure that this is a valid ‘experience’. Similarly, I cannot, from experience, tell you what food tastes like to you, or whether a certain injury causes you more pain than it causes me.
If your presumption is that from personal experience you can speak to the subjective quality of oppression experienced by others, I think you’re sadly overestimating what your experience is capable of telling you. Even if your claim ended up being analytically true (and to be clear, I believe it is not), it wouldn’t be experientially true.
And, in this situation, since we’re dealing with the subjective experiences of millions or billions of people, analytical truth is all we have. If that analysis seems to contradict your personal experience, it’s worth examining it more closely, certainly, just bear in mind that the fact that it’s currently chilly outside doesn’t disprove global warming … though my personal experience tells me it does.
—Myca
Mandolin:
Sorry, I forgot to say thanks. :)
I know that Barry would like this forum to be a good one for having productive discussions about the kinds of questions Clarisse raises, but unfortunately, I don’t think we’re really getting anywhere. If future discussions of this type are going to go beyond “waaaaaaaaaa, but I was promised I would always be #1 because I have a penis,” and the various (sometimes brilliant) ways that other people contradict this, then I think we’re going to have to look at ways to limit the conversation’s scope or participants.
Is there some analysis of those billions of people (or a representative sample) that objectively demonstrates the existence of a unidirectional privilege? Every explanation I’ve seen has relied on “Well in my experience/from my observations/from my perspective it exists.”
I think that you’re right, Mandolin. Threads like this definitely need a heavier moderating hand than is usual at Alas if they are to actually address the questions raised by Clarisse.
I wouldn’t mind seeing that start right now or having these comments closed since I’m just seeing a rehash of the claim/refutation that men are not privileged. This doesn’t seem like the right place to have this go ’round again since actual questions were raised in the OP that go beyond that.
You know what we need?
Comment threading and “vote up”/”vote down” buttons.
This site has a very good format for facilitating discussion; after using it for a while, the standard WordPress software just feels totally inadequate.
Madolin,
To tie my comments back to Clarisse’s questions:
1) Present feminist ideas in a way that is consistent with a ‘normative male’ perspective’, that begins from a neutral perspective and uses a rational evidence based analysis, as I was getting at in #83. I’ve not seen this done.
2) Don’t have a knee-jerk reaction to ideas that you don’t like and grossly misrepresent them: “waaaaaaaaaa, but I was promised I would always be #1 because I have a penis,”. If you’re not open to others’ ideas, they’re unlikely to be open to yours.
To me that sounds strongly like, “temper your tone and cater to me or I’m taking my ball and going home,” rather than actually engaging and progressing a discourse.
I don’t consider it a virtue to be open to anti-feminism.
Anyway, re: Jakesquid, I’ll ask Barry what his thoughts are, but he’s more interested in the cartooning at the moment than the moderation, so I don’t know if anything will happen.
Would you be interested in taking charge of the moderation for something like that?
(As Mandolin says, I’m just too time-strapped to do something like that myself, although I think it’s a good idea).
I think for comment sections where you want to talk to people with specific types of ideas you should just say so in the body of the post and than kick ppl out when they really don’t agree.
But that’s false. Period.
First of all, some men do experience more or less privilege as men than do other men. This is largely an effect of the fact that male privilege is partially internal and partially external, and the external part varies significantly.
External privilege accrues not from how male you are, but from how male you seem to the others who interact with you. The fact that someone who has never met me and never seen me, and who only assumes my “maleness” through my moniker and some random facts off the internet, would be deferential to me based on my (assumed, unproven) maleness? External privilege. Changing my moniker and facts to Sailorgal would change that privilege quite a bit. (The fact that I am confident typing and having an opinion? Internal privilege, mostly. That wouldn’t change no matter what my moniker was.)
Obviously, there is a fairly wide spectrum of “how male” a given man’s presentation can be. Men who present as significantly less male may possess the same levelsinternal male privilege as do other men (though even that’s a stretch to assert,) but they are certainly likely to have significantly less external male privilege than do other men. That doesn’t mean their male privilege is zero or negative. But it does mean that–contrary to your assertion–they have “more or less [privilege] as men than other men.”
And second of all, to repeat the final part of your argument:
This sort of sums up the general stupidity of it all. You’re not rejecting an argument based on whether or not it is objectively correct. You’re rejecting an argument based on whether it is convenient to discuss. Since when did one of those issues have shit-all to do with the other?
Worse yet, you don’t even seem to accept that this conclusion doesn’t make sense. Perhaps wanting to discuss it would be “ridiculous hair splitting,” (you) or perhaps it would be seen as “waaaa, I don’t get to use my penis” (mandolin) or perhaps it would be
seen as anti-feminist to the extreme.
When you say that, you’re not owning your opinions. Do you not want to discuss something? That’s your right and a fair tactic in any conversation, if you’re open about it. But when you (the global you, BTW) start conflating ‘”I don’t want to discuss it” with “that is not objectively correct or objectively worthy of affecting the ultimate conclusion of the debate…” well, the BS meter climbs. Because what you’re doing is trying to make your illogical behavior seem like someone else’s illogical behavior.
That’s dirty pool. And that type of argument gets bad results: not only lack of converts, but perhaps antagonists. You can’t blame them, frankly.
People don’t like that. And to bring it back to the OP specifically: in my experience, men in particular don’t like that. The male privilege which leads men to question authority and/or challenge things which are illogical? That’s not one of the “bad” male privileges, it’s one of the “most people should have more of that characteristic” ones. Making feminism more open to that sort of discussion in an attempt to respond to the male desires to discuss is a net gain.
Which is fine if you want to have a discussion with people who already hold a feminist view. If you want to try to talk to non-feminists (to convince them of the virtue of feminism) with that approach you risk appearing arrogant and self righteous. Even someone with a mix of feminist/non-feminist ideas would be put off by a response that curtly dismisses some of their ideas or blocks them through moderation.
Sailorman:
I am going to respond to what you’ve written because I take you seriously as a serious reader, but I really am not interested, beyond this, in continuing the discussion. Not because I am taking my cookies and going home, but because I truly have so much else to do that I can’t afford to get caught up in this argument any further. Here is why I think this conversation has been going nowhere and why this will be You wrote:
Your use of the word “privilege” in this paragraph is very different from–and even incompatible with–the way the term is used when talking about how systems (patriarchy, white supremacy, heteronormative, pick one) arbitrarily privilege a given set of characteristics (race, sex, gender, religion, sexual preference/orientation) over another set of characteristics of the same type. According to this thinking, all members of the privileged class within this system are privileged. Broadly speaking, I will define privilege in this sense as meaning that the members of the privileged class are placed by their culture at the center, while other groups are relegated to various and sundry degrees to the margins. This does not mean that all members of that class have equal access to the benefits of that privilege; it does not mean that all members of the privileged class experience themselves as privileged in every circumstance; nor does it mean that there is not, within the system of privilege, a hierarchy and a competition for who gets to have access to the most benefits of privilege.
Here’s the thing: I agree that different men experience privilege differently, that some men will experience themselves as having no privilege whatsoever, that what feminists call male privilege can often be hurtful and destructive in men’s lives. I have said this over and over again, in this thread and in others. I do not agree that we do not live in a culture that does not place men, maleness, masculinity, manhood at its center. You can disagree with me about this, but then our difference is not simply about male privilege in the way people in this thread have been arguing about it; it is about something even more fundamental than that. To put this another way: to argue that patriarchy (or, if you would prefer, male dominance) does not privilege men as men is to argue, essentially, that neither patriarchy nor male dominance–as those ideas are defined within a feminist framework–exist. That is a reasonable thing for someone to argue–though I am not interested in arguing with that person.
You also wrote:
I will leave aside the “general stupidity” comment and simply point out that you are right: I am not rejecting the argument based on whether or not it is objectively correct. “Objectively correct” is an odd term to apply to an argument that is, in fact, based in people’s subjective experiences. I am rejecting the argument based on the fact that its terms are not coherently defined in a way that makes sense to me.
Pingback: Creating a More Attractive Space for Feminists (NoH) | Feminist Critics
I’ll respond minimally as you may elect to read this even if you do not respond.
At heart, our disagreements stem from whether we should be looking at this as a general issue which contains variation (my view) or as an immutable issue which affects everyone (your view, apparently.)
You said:
Here’s mine: Broadly speaking, I define privilege (starting with your definition) as meaning that the members of the privileged class are generally placed by their culture at the center, while other groups are generally relegated to various and sundry degrees to the margins.
I don’t see “centering” as a theoretical effect, I see it as a practical and testable issue. And i see it as something that applies generally and pverall, but which also varies by individual.
This is not so different in words, but critical in interpretation. I use this definition because it seems that any large culture is variable enough that there are very few things which are universal, while there are many things which are accurately stated in terms of general/overall effect. And whether or not I’m correct about “any” large culture, i certainl believe myself to be correct w/r/t U.S. culture.
In that case, you should change your definition to my definition ;)
I also note that you reference the subjective, while I was discussing the objective. I don’t care if Joe CEO “experiences himself” as privileged; I care whether he is, objectively, benefiting from being male. Not everyone who believes themselves to be non-privileged or damaged is experiencing objective reality. (See, e.g., whites w/r/t reverse racism.)
Sure. We agree, and I am confident that we would also agree that men in general experience benefits from male privilege.
But I don’t disagree, generally speaking. I only disagree with the extreme application of that, which pops up with words like “all.”
That’s not the logical conclusion, at all. That is only the extremist conclusion and I am frankly not sure where on earth you get there from insisting that the reality is general, not universal.
I suppose you could make the claim that the “feminist framework” defines privilege as 100% universal, so that anything which attacks universality is against the framework. I disagree with that, though I suppose this would devolve into one of those boring arguments about proper definitions. In any case, it’s certainly possible to define the term any way you like, including in the extremist fashion.
But even if I was to agree–and i don’t–that your definition is right, the extremist definition seems to be so wrong (insofar as it is, as are most extremist/absolutist statements, so different from reality) that I question why it would–or could–be the basis for any useful dialogue.
Sailorman: systems […] arbitrarily privilege a given set of characteristics (race, sex, gender, religion, sexual preference/orientation) over another set of characteristics of the same type. […]Broadly speaking, I will define privilege in this sense as meaning that the members of the privileged class are placed by their culture at the center, while other groups are relegated to various and sundry degrees to the margins
Sailorman, you say privilege happens arbitrarily. You say we place those we like at the center and those we don’t like on the fringe as if it were a matter of mere taste or trendiness. This is one of the ways in which I seem to think differently from the majority on Alas (as well as different from the majority of those who are actually Anti-Alas)
From my perspective, no one is placed at the center. People form a center around which the rest of society is built, and the centricity of those performing those actions is inevitable. Their privilege is inevitable for the same reason that their centricity is inevitable; actions that builds societies create privilege.
Take yourself; you regard yourself as pretty central don’t you? Was that our choice or is it the inevitable result of our actions? You’re a son, a husband and a father. Around you are parents, a wife, and your children, all supporting you and all supported by you. This is society. You are creating it, and were created by it. You cannot help but be central, and these actions are exactly what our society encourages you to do, is it not?
Those I get at loggerheads with tend to complain about being fringe, but go on to suggest the senior Mr. and Mrs. Sailorman had no obligation to include you in their circle, nor did you have any obligation to inlcude your wife and her children in yours. Whether you consider such a choice reasonable or not, oppressive or not, or legal or not, an orphaned, bachelor Sailorman, who is either childless or chooses to orphan his children, does not create much society around himself, and thus unlikely to ever be central or privileged.
Maco, I think you are quoting RJN as if he were me–you may not have also noticed that he is no longer responding in this thread.
I did misquote RJN. Apologies to you both.
I’m a straight, heteronormative man, and I find many of the issues relevant to a progressive discussion of masculinity so inchoate, so embedded in cliché and truism, and so devoid of clarifying language, that even thinking about them tends to go in circles. I understand why feminists would find that aggravating. Y’all have decades of discourse, argument and nuance. We have confused anger and finger pointing.
I think about mens’ issues a lot — not because my suffering is unique, but because I feel we’re again at a historical point where our default clichés and truisms are concealing, even perpetuating, cultural dysfunction. I feel certain that feminism is not to blame for the confused, shitty state of masculinity today, but what is, and how do we get a handle on it?
I see no reason why feminism should be about men, even slightly. At the same time, men clearly need to have these discussions with one another. Would the fair thing be, at this point, for “masculists” to have their discussion elsewhere and refrain from bringing talking points to feminist forums?
“Love your enemies. Pray for those who persecute you.”
“You’re either with us, or your with the terrorists.”
I’m constantly amazed to discover who embraces each philosophy.