One of the problems feminist faces as a group is winning over men. They face this issue with women as well, but the feminist movement as a whole is far more antagonistic towards men than it is towards non-feminist women. This antagonism often results in men avoiding feminists altogether or severely limiting their interactions with them. Among men, feminist concepts and theories garner more eye-rolling and laughing than sympathy. It is due in large part to the latent, sometimes blatant, misandry that is an integral part of feminist ideology.
The misandry plays itself out in a myriad of ways, although it is most often open criticism of anything remotely related to males or masculinity. This can range from feminists criticizing complaints from men about women working in certain places to feminists attacking efforts to raise awareness for male victims of rape and domestic violence. This feminist hostility leaves many men with the perception that have nothing positive to say about men, which in turns leads men to avoid feminists and feminism at all costs.
However, few movements can gain the level of social control feminists hope to eventually have by winning over small pockets of people. Despite all the policy changes (many of which negatively affect males) feminist have achieved, despite the Women’s Studies departments at most colleges and despite the slow seeping of their rhetoric into pop culture, feminists remain a relatively small, largely unpopular social movement. Simply put: they need to win men over to continue to grow as a movement. This is not to say that feminists are particularly concerned with men’s issues or that they would or do support them. The reality is far to the contrary, and one would be hard-pressed to find feminists supporting shared parenting, opening men’s shelters for abused men, granting male rape victims access to rape centers or supporting organizations like Male Survivor or The Domestic Abuse Hotline for Men and Women. Rather, it is simply a matter of practicality. They cannot have the level of impact they want if men do not support them.
One feminist, Clarisse, tries to address the issue of the lack of male involvement in the feminist movement:
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.
I believe the word that best fits what she describes is privilege, in this instance female privilege. Among feminists there is quite often very careful side-stepping to avoid equating anything women do with something feminists have deemed the domain of males. Feminists are very careful not to call female-0n-male physical violence “abuse,” very careful not to call female-on-male sexual violence “rape” or “sexual abuse” and very careful not to call female-over-male advantages “privilege.” This is despite that in every one of those instances the acts or experiences of women meet the feminist definitions of abuse, rape and privilege.
She goes on to explain, despite acknowledging her privilege as a woman, why those advantages are not really positive things:
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.
The same holds true for the advantages men experience. The vast majority of them are the flip side of unfortunate stereotypes. For example, one might say that men get more social leadership positions because we are stereotyped as being stoic and unmoved by emotion. The effect of this is that far more men than women are placed in incredibly dangerous, life-threatening situations with the expectation that they will not be affected by whatever happens. The same false notion helps perpetuate the silence of male victims of rape and abuse, of men and boys returning home from war, of men and boys suffering from depression, of men and boys suffering in toxic relations. As a result of the perception that males are all-powerful, a whole host of issues are created and/or perpetuated.
While she does acknowledge that her privileges as a women, regardless of their cause, do benefit her, most feminists do not. The feminist complaint that men are thought of as stronger, smarter, more logical and more capable never seem to factor in that most are completely false notions based on ridiculous stereotypes. Feminists also fail to acknowledge that they participate in continuing many of those stereotypes, particularly when they frame those who discuss men’s issues like father’s rights, male victimization, male rape and the boy crisis in schools as “whiners” or “MRA assholes.” The message feminists typically send to men, whether they are non-feminist men or anti-feminist men is that as a group males have no valid complaints. The male perspective is one that need not be acknowledged they are the “oppressing class.”
Again, the issue feminists really face is one of universal acceptance, i.e. getting men, who are largely turned off by feminism, to accept the ideology at face value. Clarisse mentions this problem:
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.
Well, firstly, calling the people one would like to be one’s allies “The Oppressive Class” is an excellent way of ensuring they will want nothing to do with you. Generally speaking, people do not ally themselves with those who frequently insult them, even if in (mostly) jest. The main reason feminists cannot win over most men (or women) is because it is very clear what the feminist position is. While Clarisse tries to imply otherwise, it is obvious from her above comments that her position as a feminist is that men’s concerns, men’s feelings, men’s identities are less relevant or irrelevant compared to those of women. Male rage has no place in feminism; it is wholly invalid. Telling men that their experiences will not be given the same weight or value or insight as women’s experiences will simply make men turn away.
Men’s reaction to feminists is reminiscent of a line from the film Fight Club.
Norton’s Character: When people think you’re dying, they really listen to you instead of just…
Marla Singer (Helena Bonham Carter): Instead of just waiting for their turn to speak.
More often than not, when feminists invite men in, feminists are simply waiting for their turn to speak. They do not listen nor do they often appear willing to listen. Part of that is a result of their ideological views which typically place boys and men as lesser than females, both in terms of social and literal value. Part of that is the “feminist rage” which typically gets extended towards all males regardless that the vast majority of men do women no harm. The other part is the privileges afforded women in society and particularly in the feminist movement. Their voices and their concerns trump those of males.
It also does not help that for the most part feminists have nothing positive to say about masculinity, nor does it help that their negative views have seeped into society and pop culture, leaving very few positive portrayals of men or boys, especially fathers.
While Clarisse may be genuinely concerned with discussing masculinity, it is clear that she is not particularly open to actually doing that because it would require her to dial back her political views and the issues on men’s terms. It seems more that, like many feminists, she wants to define the problem, define the terms, define the rules of discussion and define the solution. Her problem, like many feminists, is that most men are not (for lack of a better word) stupid enough to walk into that. The feminist position on masculinity and males is perceived as an attack because it is an attack. If anyone reversed the situation and applied the same principles and views feminists hold against to men on women, feminists would certainly call those people hostile towards women, such as they do with Christian and Islamic faiths.
To answer her question about how to broker discussions about masculinity with men, the best suggestion would be to lose the tone that turns men off. People will be more willing to listen to you if you are more willing to listen to them. If it sounds like you have already made up your mind before men even speak, chances are that none of them will have anything to do with you because they likely will not think you are actually interested in anything they have to say.
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.
This whole thing isn’t about a dialogue, its just another way of women trying to figure out how to use men. The operative word is use.
The funny thing is, they’ve got all the men in power dancing for them.
Exellent post.
This reminds me a bit of the feminism101 blog which states that there is no female privilege, just benevolent sexism. Now, of course when defining this, there is always more than one viewpoint, but you simply do not describe the situation from the viewpoint of the privileged group. You simply do not do this.
An example. When men receive longer sentences for the same crime some feminists call that benevolent sexism (women are seen in a better light than men), yet when people of color receive longer sentences for the same crime, noone would even have the idea to call this benevolent racism against whites.
What annoys me though is feminists who claim that feminsm = gender equality. Tsk….
You might find these posts interesting.
http://feck-blog.blogspot.com/2009/09/feminism-is-not-about-ending-all.html
http://feck-blog.blogspot.com/2009/04/why-dont-more-women-call-themselves.html
(Yes, shamelessly promoting my blog here)
Ps.: One thing I found very confusing is this “Because women aren’t seen as fighters, we stand a lower chance of being mugged than men do.”
Where is the logic in that? So criminals are only mugging those who can fight? Sheesh…..
I noticed that comment as well. I doubt that the reason women are not randomly attacked as men has anything to do with women not being viewed as fighters. Logically, anyone wishing to mug people would mug those less perceived as less inclined to fight back. Likewise, if the notion were true then jocks would be the prey of most bullies rather than geeky or unpopular high school kids. I think the reason women are less likely to be targeted is because society views males as disposable and also because an assault on a woman is more likely to garner attention from the public and the police.
I disagree with a huge number of smaller assertions in your post (for instance: I would like to hear some concrete support for your assertions that feminism is “unpopular” or that feminists refuse to call any kind of violence “abuse”), but I’ll leave those aside for now …. The real question is: Did you read the first two posts in the series? I’d be more interested in having a conversation about this if you did. I understand your problem with my tone, really — but firstly, I think you are cherry-picking from my post, and secondly, I think that if you had read the first two posts you’d see that I kept a much more neutral tone throughout almost the entire piece. True, I made some snippy comments about MRAs, but I also noted that I was basing it on a stereotype and I linked to a piece that illustrates the roots of said stereotype.
I’d also be interested to know what you think about the comments on the series over at Alas, A Blog. Alas reprinted Parts 1 and 2 and will reprint Part 3 on Friday. Currently, there are 30+ comments on Parts 1 and 2 — almost all of them from men. [ http://amptoons.com/blog/ ]
I do not visit that blog due the site owner’s position on male victims of rape and domestic abuse on his site. I only address posts from that blog should they appear in a Google alert and even then only if there is something grossly inaccurate or blatantly one-sided. Since that site is heavily moderated, most likely the comments made by men on those threads were made by feminist-leaning or feminist men. That does not mean their views are not valid, only that they are not representative of most men, and they are most likely in agreement with your position. I did, however, read the posts at your blog.
It is not the tone of posts that I think are problematic (particularly since the tone is rather benign), but the overall theme in which feminism is presented as the end-all solution without examining feminism’s impact on men (whether it is exacerbated or created the problems concerning masculinity) or allowing for non-feminist concepts and theories to enter the discussion. While I am not a MRA, I do think it is terrible that feminists have reduced valid MRA concerns to be nothing more than complaints from misogynists to such an extent that whenever any man or woman brings up men’s issues that their positions are immediately derided as MRA nonsense.
In regards to support for the comments I made about feminists, there is a blog post that sums up the gist of most feminist complaints about the ideology’s position in society and there are dozens of posts about the feminist position on male victimization at Feminist Critics.
Men who post at Alas are a very, very unrepresentative sample. Many of the people commenting here are outright banned there. They do not represent us.
Clarisse:
“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.”
—-
But feminism offers nothing to most men and so the tactic fails, even at the Macchiavellian level.
While most men will not be receptive to Clarisse, they will not go the extra mile and demolish her ideas, as they should. This reluctance to aggressively confront feminist women leads such women to erroneously believe that passive men are ripe for conversion.
I do not think it is a matter of demolishing feminist ideas. It is a matter of men not challenging those ideas. Part of that may be biological. As men we face a far greater risk of confrontation, which can sometimes lead to physical violence. We learn very early on to either try to defuse or avoid the confrontation or bunker down for a fight. The most practical response is to defuse or avoid confrontation, which is what most men do, hence the amount posturing men engage in. However, there is also a social impetus not confront women. It is a mixture of older cultural norms and current cultural norms directly resulting from feminism. To confront a woman is both seen as unmanly and sexist, so most men will avoid the situation. The problem is that ignoring statements does not make them go away.
As for the tactics feminists use, not only do they fail on even a Machiavellian level, they follow no political or social movement tactics that have worked in convincing or converting non-group followers. The most effective feminist tactics simply play on social and cultural norms. This is why most men will support DV shelters or rape centers or breast cancer research. Men are taught to place a higher value on women’s needs and lives. Anything that does not fall into those categories of women as victims tends not to work. Perhaps in an effort to compensate for that feminists framed themselves as wholly “oppressed.” The flaw in that is they accuse all men of being “oppressors.”
TS,
I am all for challenging feminist ideas and my past inclinations were (for the reasons you mention above) to avoid direct confrontation with feminists. However, I disgusted myself with my avoidance and I found that feminists had no interest in a logical discussion.
I decided I’d rather risk being branded a misogynist etc. than let someone get away with anti-male propaganda and that decision has put me at peace with myself. I cannot help but feel that many other men (and women) must feel the same way I do when faced with dealing with feminists.
So she admits that feminists behave in ways that engender hostility, but that’s not a reason to get hostile.
I am not hostile because this woman is going to “strip me of my privileges”. I am hostile because this woman has signaled that she’s presuming guilt upon men and all guilty parties must submit to her superior moral authority.
“What’s wrong with that?” (Wide-eyed innocent look)
Jesus. This individual really is a hoot.
“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.”
And this strikes at a part of why more men don’t embrace feminism. Feminists set themselves up to be the eternal victims and accuse those who don’t agree with them of attacking. On top of that you have feminists who at their core of beliefs think that to be male is to have privilege and power when that is not the norm. There are many more Average Joes out there than Elite Joes. So they are lump the AJs in with the EJs and when men respond to such monolithing they are accused of attacking feminism or a particular feminist (whichever is convenient at the time).
I personally would like to see feminists and MRAs come together but its not going to happen when both sides are slinging mud then crying foul when they get hit by it.
That is probably the major reason why few men support feminism and feminists. Once the generalizations begin, the first thing a person will do is apply those generalizations to his experiences and life. If they do not match up, the person will likely object, which happens time and time again with feminist theories and positions. This is why I think the issue is ultimately about not listening and this is why I also think that despite what feminists say they are not really all that interested in hearing the male perspective. They are interested in hearing men agree with their ideas.
There’s also another factor to consider here.
Feminism is also about the “Feminine” paradigm. It’s not solely about women but advocacy for a viewpoint and way of processing and expressing information.
Men have a feminine side. Just as women have a masculine side. We are all born with two sides, regardless of our assigned gender make-up.
However, feminists only want to seek male “Allies” insofar as they are in touch with their feminine side. The more in touch with their feminine side, the more they smell an oppertunity and how far they are willing to go to convert. So what do they do: Paint the “Feminine” as the solution to the world’s issues while defacing the “Masculine” as the problem.
In short, they don’t want “Male” allies. They want the feminine side of men and their masculine side suppressed through guilt-by-association and priveledge mantra. The only reason they care about these men in the first place is that they are in touch with their feminine side, their emotions.
At the same time, they’ll go to great lengths to diffuse that feminine side when the male is a victim of domestic violence or sexual abuse at the hands of a woman. Throw his priveledge in his face to reduce him to a submissive. The very thing society in general does to silence men who are express their emotions in the first place, suppressing the choice to express anything resembling venerability.
Again, feminism as it is now only wants the “Feminine Side”, not the individual behind it.
TS: You also forgot to mention the fact that it the occasional radical feminist will announce, openly and without shame, that men HAVE NO PLACE in feminism and that men will NEVER be considered full feminists no matter what. And the apparent toleration of these feminists by other feminists show that this sentiment, while frowned-upon by moderates is not beyond the pale.
Since no one has ever been kicked out of feminism for hating men too much, this fact speaks far louder than anything our dear Claire might say.
While I think you are being sarcastic, her name is Clarisse, not Claire.
As for the toleration of misandry within the feminist movement, you have a point. I certainly think that it plays a significant factor in why men do not accept feminist principles. The sad fact that anti-male sentiments are not openly challenged by feminists who do not agree with them does create a situation in which it would appear that those hostile feminists’ opinions are accepted as part of the movement. Granted, every movement has its nutcases and radicals. However, in the end it is perception that matters, and very much like how the extreme right now appears to be the face of the conservative group because the moderate right has said nothing in response, the same holds true for feminists. When there is no open criticism of anti-male sentiments or ideas and when there is a greater focus on the louder, more hostile voices it leaves the impression that at the very least the moderates do not genuinely take issue with the radicals’ positions.
The problem feminists face is convincing men who have been on the receiving end of the more hostile feminists that the interest men’s issues is legitimate. I think men’s response in many instances to gestures like the ones Clarisse extended can be summed up as, “Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.”
Here’s the bottom line for me. I have one issue: raising awareness about false rape claims. My site is the world’s leading site that gives voice to those falsely accused of rape and sexual assault. The victims of false rape claims have special needs that simply aren’t being addressed. Their reputations are destroyed too freely; they are incarcerated too quickly; and their false accusers are excused too readily. Each of these can be addressed with sensitivity to, and without hurting, actual rape victims, but the persons who for 35 years have dominated the public discourse about rape refuse to entertain any such discussions. Hence the necessity for my blog.
Do we suggest that rape isn’t a serious problem? Absolutely not. We’d prefer to have one internet site that deals with the entire rape problem — the horrors of both rape and of false rape claims without trying to compete in a futile and gender divisive Oppression Olympics. The difference between my site and the feminist sites that are devoted to raising awareness about rape is that we freely admit we don’t tell the entire rape story; they won’t.
Sadly, no feminist has ever even responded to my suggestion that we partner on one site to tell the entire rape story in a way that would not be hurtful to any actual victim of either atrocity. I know they read my blog, but they are afraid to be seen in the same URL with me. If they want to gain male followers to their cause, this would be a great way to do it — and they’d also be helping a lot of young men who have been victimized by false rape claims.
Edward Greer writes:
“For at least the last decade, Legal Dominance Feminism (LDF) has been the predominant voice on sexual abuse within legal academia.”
and
“At the core of LDF discourse on rape is the proposition that “women don’t lie” about sexual abuse.”
For a feminist to acknowledge women can and do make false accusations is tantamount to destroying the basis for LDF….which explains why they don’t partner with you.
In the mind of a feminist, if she doesn’t acknowledge X, X doesn’t exist.
Pierce, the problem with getting feminists to join forces with your site is that they’d have to be willing to see that False Rape Accusations are a big deal.
Unfortunatly, many don’t. Nor do they think false rape victims compare to actual female rape victims. It’s an uphill battle to convince them.
So the likely response you’ll get from them is it’s “No Big Deal”.
It is too late for any merger or joining of the sides. The “gender war” has gone on far too long for that.
Women will not, from their position of superiority expect anything except more from men.
Any feminist that thinks men are going to join up now, are fooling themselves. What does feminism offer a man?
Nothing.
You can’t advocate taking more from someone and expect them to happily sing along with you about it.
The feminists have made it clear it is us, and them.
As for discussing things with them, it is like “communication” I learned communication isn’t about dialogue, its about the man listening to the woman and agreeing.
Done with that. No thank you.
Opening a dialogue with a feminist regarding feminism has a predictable outcome:
– Feminist rallies her false statistics together in an attempt at softening a man’s resolve. To disagree with, or dispute any of them is to be branded a misogynist, and thus not worthy of her time and attention.
– Man thusly accused walks away from the non-discussion.
– Feminist claims victory, and posits the righteousness of her position because she beat up some big bad man with her mighty intellect.
– Man returns to the fray and offers one final discussion point asserting his beliefs and truths.
– Feminist counters with accusations of being gay, having a small penis, and posits the notion that the man lives in his mother’s basement and has never enjoyed the inexorable joy of sexual congress with a woman.
– Man pops a beer, reflects on the time he wasted, and simply lives his life away from the enemy.
Guys, the only alliance being sought is inevitably self-serving for her.
Feminism is not, nor has it ever been, an ideal arising out of frank and honest discussion. Don’t fall for the trap of someone seeking rapprochement with you. Live your lives, and don’t let anyone tell you that your values and mode of living is any kind of threat to anyone else.
Go Your Own Way.
Even title she gave it “Questions I Want to Ask Entitled Cis Het Men…” comes across as contemptuous.
@TS:
While I am not a MRA, I do think it is terrible that feminists have reduced valid MRA concerns to be nothing more than complaints from misogynists to such an extent that whenever any man or woman brings up men’s issues that their positions are immediately derided as MRA nonsense.
You know, even though my series got to be pretty snippy in tone, I was specifically trying to avoid doing this throughout. You state in your post that “While Clarisse may be genuinely concerned with discussing masculinity, it is clear that she is not particularly open to actually doing that because it would require her to dial back her political views and the issues on men’s terms”, but if I’m not trying to talk about things on men’s terms, then what am I doing? Yeah, I’m biased by my viewpoint, but I spent most of my three-post series asking questions, not making assertions.
Again, I get your point about the tone thing. The full article was not initially designed to be posted publicly (I wrote it as a contribution to a feminist/gender anthology that fell through), and I ended up posting it without modifying it, which may have been a mistake. I am specifically trying to debate more charitably and less snippily these days (and I have been meaning to write a post about how much feminist/sexuality subcultures particularly suck at debating charitably, in which I’ll link to this: [ http://pdf23ds.net/implications-and-debate/ ]); I’m aware that I failed to do that here. So, your broadest point is correct: I’ll have to speak a lot less sarcastically if I’m writing things intended for an audience that doesn’t already think that (for example) most MRAs are assholes. At the same time, though, there was a lot of intended irony to my original post that I think has been lost in translation here.
When there is no open criticism of anti-male sentiments or ideas …
What am I trying to do here, if not criticize anti-male sentiments and ideas?
I agree with a lot of what you said. I also think a lot of what you’re saying in your post is outright wrong. But the only part that really offends me is the fact that you’re claiming no one is trying to critique current feminism’s hostility towards men, when that is exactly what I just spent 3500 words doing. Sure, give me feedback on why my approach is misguided, but don’t tell me I’m not trying.
@Pierce Harlan:
I am interested in knowing how you frame your approach when you ask feminists to partner with you. If I weren’t currently in Africa with my hands full of anti-HIV work, your project would sound interesting to me, but I can imagine a lot of ways in which it could be phrased that would turn me off.
However,
@Eagle31:
Nor do they think false rape victims compare to actual female rape victims.
Well, yeah. You’re right. I don’t think that actual female rape victims compare to false rape victims; I think that actually being raped is a million times worse than being accused of committing rape, hands down. And if you’re going to frame any discussion around false accusations by claiming that people who actually suffer from serious crimes should be compared to people who are accused of committing crimes, then no wonder you’re getting responses like “No big deal.”
@curiepoint:
I could kinda-almost-sorta see your point, although I thought you were being incredibly hyperbolic, right up until you said this fascinating thing:
Feminist counters with accusations of being gay, having a small penis, and posits the notion that the man lives in his mother’s basement and has never enjoyed the inexorable joy of sexual congress with a woman.
I have never once heard of a feminist making accusations like this. In fact, that sounds a lot like accusations that men make while policing each others’ gender expression.
If you can point to any examples of this happening (e.g. on the internet somewhere), I’d love to see them.
@Beste:
The title is an ironic reference to something said by a blogger that I, in fact, disagreed with. Which would be obvious if you had actually read my posts in their entirety. Just saying.
… So anyway, I think I’ve learned something from this thread, and that’s awesome. Seriously. There were some comments here that irritated me, but I expected it all to be a lot nastier, and was pleasantly surprised. You weren’t really my target audience, but it’s been interesting all the same. Thanks, y’all, for the perspectives.
Talking about them on feminists’ terms.
Your questions are loaded. For example, “How men can be supportive and non-oppressive while remaining overtly masculine?”, implies that there is a problem with men being non-oppressive while remaining overtly mascluline, which in turn implies a view of overt masculinity as something oppressive-by-default. That’s not a view that will necessarily be accepted by the men here.
(See my recent blog post for a quite different subtext to the question implied by your introductory remarks to it.)
To be honest, most political subcultures suck at debating charitably.
Sarcasm and snippiness is only part of the problem. You bring with you a whole lot of assumptions that those you are trying to dialogue with simply do not share.
Again, on your own terms, which means in particular that you get to define what are anti-male sentiments and ideas. For example that idea that men are an “oppressor class” is one of the most anti-male ideas out there. Far from criticising it, you appear to embrace it.
Speaking for myself, I think you are trying. But please bear in mind that a lot of men have been hurt by feminists. To them, you are the oppressor. You start the process hugely overdrawn at the credibility bank for reasons that aren’t entirely your fault. That isn’t fair, but it is reality. And if you’re serious about doing this, you need to recognise that.
Do you not see a similar problem with “swelling our ranks with The Oppressive Class means we can ruthlessly use their power for good.”?
(Quoting curiepoint:)
http://www.feministcritics.org/blog/2009/03/31/fecke-plays-the-small-dick-card-noh/
http://www.the-spearhead.com/2009/10/16/feminist-rantings-for-your-entertainment/
There’s also This post, which, while not engaging in the kind of behaviour we’re talking about (although they do engage in other kinds of abuse) attacks men’s objections to the abuse in the previous link.
I agree, however, that some men (and some women) do “police” other men’s gender, and that some feminists do critique this.
I have read the three posts in their entirety, and it is not obvious. Even if it was, it’s unreasonable of you to expect everyone to read your posts in their entirety, particularly when you give them such an offensive title.
I’ve argued before that if feminists and those who object to it are to have serious engagement, then both sides will have to tolerate views-offensive-to-them expressed by the other. That applies, however, to offensive views that are sincerely held. If you don’t mean it. Don’t say it. Conversely if you do say it, people will assume that you mean it.
Why not? And who was?
I do not think that you specifically targets MRAs in your posts. However, part of engendering a discussion with people who may not be inclined to agree with one’s positions is to avoid saying anything that could be taken as dismissive or sarcastic. So yes, while I do think your intentions were likely genuine, the way in which you presented them would likely rub the people you want to have a discussion with the wrong way. Regardless of that, I found the overall tone of your posts benign.
Perhaps we have a different interpretation of what you wrote because it did not come across as a critique of current feminist hostility towards men. It came across more as an attempt to find ways to attract men to feminism. I suppose I can see your posts as indirect critiques, but they are very indirect and do not specifically address some of the issues related to that hostility, such as the negative perceptions about pre and post World Wars masculinity. More so, the posts themselves contain some of the ideas that many men view as hostility towards men, such as calling men “entitled.” (I understand now that you meant the usage to be ironic, but it does not come across as such.)
Again, I do not think that your intention was to be dismissive. It is that some men will certainly take your posts that way because the posts read as if you have already reached your conclusions about the answers to your questions, with the answer being that men need to embrace feminism. So yes, you are trying, but your posts look more like the typical feminist position on those issues. That is what I meant by “she is not particularly open to actually doing that because it would require her to dial back her political views and the issues on men’s terms.” Obviously you are going to filter your opinions through your political views. However, it is the lack of acknowledging that maybe feminism is not the answer men need, maybe there is another method that does not involve feminism at all that is missing.
Sometimes removing the most contentious element creates a better window into solving the problem. This does not mean the problem will not still exist, only that we may be better capable of addressing it. A good example of this is homosexuality and religion. The most contentious element is religion. If we remove that from the equation, we still have a host of issues, but we can now address them in far less inflammatory manner because we are no longer arguing theory and morality. I think the same could be done in regards to gender issues. By removing feminism from the equation we remove the most contentious element. There will still be problems, but with the theories and the rhetoric would be gone we can address the issues in a far less inflammatory manner.
She made a couple of mealy-mouthed mumbles about anti-male hostility being bad and that’s more than enough to illustrate that she really cares. ENOUGH OF THAT! She’s already proved herself…
You, TS, you must devote yourself to feminism full-time in order to prove yourself.
@Daran: Re: audience, as I noted before, I wrote it as a contribution to a feminist/gender anthology that fell through. Then I posted it without modifying it. I didn’t really expect it to end up cross-posted and quoted in a million places, which was stupid of me, this being the Internet and all.
In general, I don’t know how much I’ll ever be able to seriously make common ground with any men who don’t think that — very broadly and generally speaking — men have it better than women. I’m more interested in men like Mr. Not Into Gender Studies, whom I described in my post — who sees a lot of the same issues that I do, but doesn’t feel comfortable articulating them due to gender policing, etc. There are a lot of guys like him out there.
For what it’s worth, calling men The Oppressive Class was intended to be somewhat ironic (hence the capitals), but I can see why the irony wouldn’t come across to this group. Still, I do think that there are a lot of ways in which stereotypical masculinity dominates the American discourse, and I do think it’s oppressive. For both men and women. And yeah, I do think a lot of guys are entitled, and I’m sick and tired of it. But I wasn’t saying that all of them are.
@TS: What do you mean by “removing feminism”? I really can’t see how it could be done but I’m interested to know what you think such a conversation would look like.
There are a lot of men like that, but they do not represent most men. In fact, most of the men you apparently wish to speak with already identify as feminists or feminist allies. That said, your statement demonstrates exactly what I inferred from your post: you are not particularly interested in hearing things from men’s perspectives. Rather, you are more interested in finding men who will simply affirm your positions. That is the curious thing about your post and many other feminist articles and writings like it. They are framed in a very generalized way that implies that they are meant to apply to all men. However, when some men object to those writings, feminists will say the writings were not specifically meant for those. It is an odd thing because it in effect says that non-feminist men’s opinions and experiences do not need to be factored in or listened to even though the same feminists want those men to factor in and listen to women’s experiences. It is, in essence, a nonequivalent exchange.
What I mean by removing feminism is not making it and its theories part of the discussion. To use my prior example, when discussing issues related to homosexuality, I think it is best to remove the religious notions of homosexuality being sinful or immoral. This would still allow for discussions about homosexuality “destroying traditional values,” but it would keep things in the realm of secular discussion. By doing this it would require people to explain their positions without simply falling back on “It’s my faith” or “It’s in the Bible.”
So in applying this to feminism, it would be removing notions about men being the oppressor class, masculinity being oppressive, men being entitled or any theories such as patriarchy or male privilege. It would still allow for discussions about advantages men and women have compared to one another, but it would keep things in the realm of unpoliticized discussion. This would require people on both sides to explain their positions on certain issues without simply falling back on “Patriarchy hurts men too” or “Feminists are trying to create a matriarchy.” The major problem I can see in this is that few feminists would likely be willing to view men’s experiences as equal to those of women, both in terms of being used as anecdotes and being presented as broad generalizations or representations.
clarisse:
I’m cis het man who gets called “entitled” quite a lot by feminists. So of course I assumed that by the phrase you meant men like me, even though my position is not in fact one of entitlement. I’m also someone who is keen to dialogue with feminists, so responding to what appeared to me to be a strong invitation was, as I said in my first post “almost mandatory“. I’ve made two posts already, in reply to your first two questions, and had intended to carry on for as long as time permitted.
Now it turns out that the invitation I thought was there might not have been.
You’re really hard to keep up with. TS’s post was in reply to your part 3, and you respond by admonishing us to read the first two parts. I start at the beginning of post one, and now you’re pointing to your remarks at the start of part 3 as almost a threshold issue which must be agreed with before we can seriously make common ground.
I think this threshold issue is itself worth exploring, but not here. I’ll make another post on my blog.
…and back to part 2.
I do not agree that guys like Mr. Not Into Gender Studies must necessarily think that men have it better than women. It’s possible that such a guy like him might see all of the same issues that you do plus a whole lot more affecting men that you do not see.
Again, more on this in my forthcoming post.
I’m at a loss as to why you think the irony would come across to a feminist audience. There are feminists who are deadly serious when they call men an oppressor class.
If in an essay intended for an MRA audience, I referred to women as “Lying Sluts”, and that essay nevertheless came to the attention of feminists. How seriously do you think they would take my protestations that it “was intended to be somewhat ironic … but I can see why the irony wouldn’t come across to this group”?
So do I. But gender-entitlement like gender-privilege is a two-way street.
[...] addressed in a response to another of questions.[↩]Former FCB blogger Toy Soldier’s own response to one of her other posts is well worth reading[↩]To be fair to Clarisse, not all of her questions appear to be so [...]
[...] addressed in a response to another of questions.[↩]Former FCB blogger Toy Soldier’s own response to one of her other posts is well worth reading[↩]To be fair to Clarisse, not all of her questions appear to be so [...]
C: I have never once heard of a feminist making accusations like this.
Ever been to Pandagon before, Clarisse?
You’ll notice she didn’t acknowledge anything I’ve said above.
TS, please check the moderation/spam queues for a comment by me.
Clarissa: “Well, yeah. You’re right. I don’t think that actual female rape victims compare to false rape victims; I think that actually being raped is a million times worse than being accused of committing rape, hands down. And if you’re going to frame any discussion around false accusations by claiming that people who actually suffer from serious crimes should be compared to people who are accused of committing crimes, then no wonder you’re getting responses like “No big deal.”
Have you ever been dragged through the mud, Clarissa? Had your reputation sullied by a mere false accussation of rape? Because it’s a big deal to those who’ve never commited a crime in their life to be accused of a crime “A million times worse” then murder.
You can be on top of the world, successful, and have a close-knit community. However, the minute someone yells “Rapist” without any evidence whatsoever, I can guarantee you will lose all three of the above even if you’re proven to be innocent of the accussation. If you haven’t spent time incarcerated during your persecution. Then your name is on the Sex Offender’s Registry.
Rape and False Rape are both big deals. But you won’t know that until you’ve actually experienced being accused of a crime you didn’t commit.
[...] makes a similar remark on Toy Soldiers: In general, I don’t know how much I’ll ever be able to seriously make common ground with any [...]
[...] makes a similar remark on Toy Soldiers: In general, I don’t know how much I’ll ever be able to seriously make common ground with any [...]
“Her problem, like many feminists, is that most men are not (for lack of a better word) stupid enough to walk into that. The feminist position on masculinity and males is perceived as an attack because it is an attack. If anyone reversed the situation and applied the same principles and views feminists hold against to men on women, feminists would certainly call those people hostile towards women, such as they do with Christian and Islamic faiths.”
An excellent point, TS. Especially when coupled with Clarisse’s view that being raped is a “million times worse” than being falsely accused of rape. Reasonable people can acknowledge, and take seriously, both instances of injustice. Only a fanatic would weight the two and consider one almost minuscule in comparison to the other.
At one point I might have responded to Clarisse’s post. Now I know better. With the term “entitled” in the title, I know all she wants is useful idiots … er allies.
As she clarified above, she is not particularly interested in speaking with non-feminist men, but specifically men who already agree with feminism who may not have expressed their position openly yet.
“Well, yeah. You’re right. I don’t think that actual female rape victims compare to false rape victims; I think that actually being raped is a million times worse than being accused of committing rape, hands down. And if you’re going to frame any discussion around false accusations by claiming that people who actually suffer from serious crimes should be compared to people who are accused of committing crimes, then no wonder you’re getting responses like “No big deal.””
This is the sort of trash that causes some men to despise feminists.
Getting accused of rape can end careers, cost tens of thousands in legal fees, make somebody persona-non-grata in their careers and in their lives.
Rape is a despicable act, but being accused of rape is also incredibly damaging. A woman who downplays the severity of false rape accusations is the enemy, hands down.
I do not think people who downplay the severity of false rape accusations are the enemy. I think that what they lack is an up close view of what happens. This holds true for a host of issues males from, from male rape to male victims of domestic violence. Since feminists very rarely have any contact with males victims they end up essentially projecting their own position onto real situations. That is the danger of viewing things through a very specific ideological microscope. A person has a much greater potential to overlook, dismiss or ignore things.