Courtney's post last week, and the subsequent comments, stirred up some thoughts that a few community bloggers added their opinions on. Since some of you suggested this in comments a few weeks back, here is a round-up of the community blog posts about male feminists.
First, the link to Courtney's original post where she stated that male feminists are underrated (and some commenters disagreed).
Next, Gular, added some thoughts in the post Can anyone be overrated?
I have been closely following the overrated/underrated post that Courtney put up a couple days ago. I find one of the trends rather confounding, and that's the pile on of "male feminists" as overrated. I think it highlights a problem that should be addressed within this, and the entire, community of feminists. It's this: male feminists are important and, more over, vital.There are many men here on Feministing, especially as of late. They are a pretty vocal minority and I am admittedly one of them. I think it's first to start there and work into where the rest of this is going.
Moody Girl shared her thoughts in the post, Some More Thoughts on Men and Feminism.
I think the idea of male feminists as "overrated" which was lately expressed in the comments on the overrated/underrated post reflects less a desire for men to abstain from participating either on this site or in women's movements in general and more an acknowledgement of some of the problems of male participation. To say that something is overrated is not to say that it is bad or even that it is not important, but that too much attention is devoted to it. For instance, here we are, discussing the desirability of men's participation in feminism and the terms on which it ought or ought not to take place, rather than engaging in discourse that some of us might find ultimately more productive.
Last, Marc wrote the post, How men can be better feminists/allies/partners.
I am far from perfect. As a male feminist, I've stumbled, picked myself back up, learned and stumbled some more, and I am still stumbling - that is, to say, I've been in feminist movement for quite a while now and believe that part of being a feminist is about growth. I came to the feminist movement five years ago as a freshman and I am still learning and making mistakes.As such, and in response to recent posts on this site about the involvement of men within feminism and whether they are "overrated," I'd like to make this post about how we, as men, can be better partners and allies to the feminist community.Please feel free to contribute and add your advice. It's the only way we'll learn to be better partners.
If you want to join the discussion, you can comment on any of the above threads. A reminder though: keep the comments clean and refrain from using personal attacks.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Community Blog Round-up: Male feminists.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/13652
I would side with Gular in that he is indeed right that male feminists (or Pro-Women Men) are vital especially in the 21st century. My husband was quick to point on to me one evening that it isn't necessarily that it was men who should be blamed for instituting an unfair system that our generation has been left to live in but rather it was the wrong [i]kind[/i] of men who instituted the 'system' as we know it. A superb example of the right kind of man (ie: pro-woman, male feminist) in an authoritative position is Mr. Barack Obama. He is in a position to enable women rather than hinder them. There are many of the right kind of men out there and as woman we should encourage and support their ideas and correct them when they may have the wrong ones.
Mariam, thank you for this.
My friends back home told me that you visited our college in April (Old Dominion University) to talk about leadership and feminism, and that you were freaking awesome.
I would have liked to have been there, 'cause as I hear, there was also a meeting at a neat little place called the Taphouse afterward!
Aww thanks! It was a fun event and the folks who came out were great. Next time.
Glad to see this issue getting round-up treatment. I think it is unfortunate that when male feminists come up as a topic here, so often it has to do with the validity of their contributions and experiences, rather than what they can do to help women, further feminism, and fight all patriarchy.
Of course, half of this responsibility falls on us male feminists to make sure we present our experiences and contributions fairly, not as a way of co-opting others.
i have a pretty inflated sense of self-importance, but don't think i would say that i am vital to feminism. males might provide some unique insight, i guess... but they are important to feminism only because they are participating members of society.
i'd say that feminism is vital to males, as it is to every member of society.
It seems like in all of these discussions there are a few distinctions that might be helpful:
1) "As important" does not equal "the same." It seems that male feminists can make contributions to feminist causes that are very important, but that's different from having the same experiences as female feminists or understanding the issues in an at-the-gut, experiential way. And this will automatically change the nature of male feminists' contribution, no matter how we feel about it.
2) "Central" may or may not mean "as a leader." In most contexts, it's probably inappropriate for men to lead feminist causes and actions because it reinforces the patriarchal tradition of having those in power speak for and direct those who are not.
3) Central vs. peripheral. Male feminists will never be "central" to feminism in the sense that it will never be about them in the way it's about women. And if it has to be about them, then they're not feminists, and they need to grow up enough to learn how to put their egos second to the cause for which they're working. But that doesn't mean they'll always be peripheral, if by peripheral you mean unimportant and shoved to the side. This strikes me as similar to white people who insist on being "central" to anti-racist actions. As an ally, part of my job is to recognize that the issues of PoC simply aren't about me. I can be very helpful in the cause and make a great contribution, but I'll never be central. And if I'm engaged in every political action I'm engaged in with the goal of being central, then I need to stop right now and go home and think about why I'm doing this to begin with.
YES. Thank you.
I agree with you. Good post.
This sounds about right to me.
I can't hit "Liked" enough on this comment. Really, excellent.
I'd like to bring attention to a comment Mollie made on Gular's post saying that "I try to avoid the term "male feminists" in general. I don't feel the need to differentiate if we're all supportive of the same cause. If anything it just causes more of a divide in the feminist community... another divide that we just don't need."
and:
"I feel that calling men who are feminists "male feminists" basically perpetuates the notion that only women can be "feminists", and men are a whole different sect of feminism"
I agree with this completely and just wanted to get that discussion out of the way first. I do see, however, how in this particular discussion we kind of have to say male feminist for clarity.
We clear? Good.
I think feminists who are men are sometimes overrated in a similar way fathers who stay home with their kids are. People go out of their way to congratulate this dad who's doing something mothers do all the time.
Ok, I guess I will confess that I do, indeed, possess a Y chromosome and am therefore suspect. I got turned on to this site by a cool feminist girl who thought this is a good way to get involved and learn more about feminist thought and what it means for everyone, not just women. I was never even that involved with politics in the past, outside of the healthcare debate. I hate patriarchy in all its forms, from the corporate good-ol-boys network to the gender conforming of our children to there being a Hooter's on every block. I think there's nothing more awesome than a strong female writer or artist who doesn't take off her clothes like Lady Sov. I think that waterboarding is too good for Joe Francis. But can I ever be a real feminist?
After all, I never grew up as a girl, and I haven't lived a single day as a woman. I've never had my dream of being a doctor chuckled at, with someone suggesting that perhaps "princess" would be a better ambition. I've never had to deal with being groped on the subway, or whistled at on the street by construction crews, or being patronized during job interviews by someone who just wanted to see my boobies. I haven't taken any women's studies courses or been involved in any cool feminist circles in college. I haven't ever been in fear of being raped or killed by someone I dated. To confound matters, I am also not LGBT... so how can I ever "get it"?
That isn't a rhetorical question. I honestly don't know if a white straight male can ever be a true "feminist." A fellow traveler, perhaps. A feminist supporter, maybe. A weak-kneed simp enabler dominated by the feminazis, as Rush or Hannity would say... one can only hope. But can I ever get it?
Who knows. What I do know is if being a mere "supporter" is all I can do, then I guess that's all I can do.
Thank you, argon, for your sincere comment. Your experience with being a male feminist has given you just that: an experience with being a male feminist! This is valuable in itself.
To answer your question, can you ever be an authentic feminist without experiencing oppression in your life? By some standards, yes, but others, no. But remember that your compassion for those less fortunate than you and your desire for justice among everyone is far more important than being included in a nominal collective.
It's what you do that matters, not what you're called.
-male
This is one of those times when I feel the term "ally" can be very useful. I am becoming more and more vocal in anti-racist activism, but I am white, so I would term myself an anti-racist ally. I am still in the STFU-and-listen phase of involvement in disability activism/anti-ableism, but once I am engaged enough to begin really participating, I would term myself a anti-ableism ally, since I am not disabled myself.
In the same way, I would consider a man who agrees with the tenets of feminism to be a feminist ally. Allies are absolutely a part of any movement, and I do not mean to disparage in any way the contributions allies make to the movements they are allies to, but to use the term ally draws a critical distinction between those who are involved because it's abstractly the right thing to do, and those who are involved because it is an oppression which directly affects them.
By this definition, then, I am a feminist. You are a feminist ally.
I was going to say this exact thing, except not as well as you did ;)
Wow, I just really disagree. Since when do you have to be systemically oppressed in some way in order to know that such oppression is wrong and to oppose it? Straight male feminists are still feminists! They are also women-allies, but they are fully feminists, not just feminist-allies. A feminist ally is someone who is not a feminist, but supportive of those who are.
Those were my thoughts exactly. Thanks for vocalizing them!
argon said:
Ok, I guess I will confess that I do, indeed, possess a Y chromosome and am therefore suspect.
This kind of bio-essentialism is what transmisogyny looks like.
(101 again - There are many women who have Y chromosomes.)
You can; just use your imagination. When I imagine what it must feel to be steered every day of your life away from certain fields, to be encouraged to be pretty and ignored when you're not, discouraged from showing strength or intelligence, well, I get pissed.
And from a purely personal perspective, when I think of how hard I'll have to work to counteract those forces in my daughter's life, and the work I'll have to do if I have a son to keep him on the side of right, that gets me pretty steamed as well.
Male reader outside the vocal minority checking in.
I truly believe that patriarchy hurts men too and that one of the next vital steps for feminism is to encourage male invovlment. Feminism is the advocacy of women's rights on the basis of sexual equality, right, so maybe men always have to take a back seat when it comes to feminism itself, since it is about women's rights and women's experiences; but surely feminism's underlying theory of sexual equality calls for the development of a space in which men can talk about their experiences and how patriarchy affects them?
Because at the moment, 'men's rights' movements have a distinctly anti-feminist bent to them, as if men's rights and women's rights were mutually exclusive. I think the development of a men's rights movement that was based on feminist principles (i.e real equality) would help end this 'us vs them, men vs women' kind of thinking, encouraging us to look at the ways patriarchy affects us ALL systematically. Just like men cannot truly 'get it' about how patriarchy affects women, women cannot truly 'get it' about how patriarchy affects men, because we have not had that lived experience, so if we are to develop a broad understanding as to the effects of patriarchy, men's voices need to be encouraged.
I know people are going to say that men's voices ARE encouraged - practically everywhere they dominate over women's - but this is not so in the feminist blogosphere. And for good reason, of course; men need to be encouraged to listen more than talk when it comes to discussions about women's experiences. But we also need a space where the focus can be on men's experiences, because the fact is that in mainstream culture men aren't encouraged to think about or acknowledge how patriarchy screws them over, and until men DO acknowledge this, equal rights will continue to be seen in the mainstream as an 'us vs them' issue.
I would agree with you in principle, that there is a space for male-centered, feminist ally* discourse that could be of great help to the cause of feminism in general. However, the way you're talking, it sounds like you want feminists to create that space for them. Rather, I would think that this is a great opportunity for feminist allies to take center stage and create that space for themselves, and work on reaching out to other men in a way they are uniquely situated to do so (since men value other men's voices higher than women's voices, in general, etc). Asking feminists to do it for them smacks of "It's your responsibility to educate me!" which we all know is a classic exercise of privilege display by the majority in entering a minority space.
*I use here the terminology I outlined in response to Argon, above in the comments. In brief, I use "feminist" to refer to a woman who self-identifies or clearly works to further the cause of feminism, and "feminist ally" to describe a man who does the same.
Male. Feminist. Can we move on, please?
Thanks for rounding this up. I've been clicking all over the site to keep track of everything, since I had brought it up in the first place (not that it's entirely gone in the directions I thought it would).
I'm a white man, not that I asked to be. Nonetheless, I am inheritor to the privileges attendant to that accident of birth. We've come a long way in terms of making the very fact that I was born a particular color and gender less relevant in terms of what kind of an "edge" I have in the public sphere, but there is, obviously, still a long way to go. I've spent my life - as I was raised to, by both mother and father - trying to use what advantages I have to ensure that others are not systematically disadvantaged, as I know many others have.
I will never have the "in the gut" experience of either minorities or women. I am, however, extraordinarily sick and tired of being told that my contribution is somehow less important because of that. It may well be that some lack the human empathy to be genuinely moved by the plight of someone else, by a problem that they will never personally suffer from, but I don't understand those people, and I resent being lumped in among them.
As a male feminist, I've spent near on two decades having to defend my interest and involvement in the cause against those who charge that I am (to take a few of the more insulting examples): only in it to "meet chicks"; interesting in taking over any projects or groups, because I'm fundamentally an agent of the patriarchy; a disruptive influence, no matter what I say or do, because of my "male energy"; and - my favorite - not really interested in helping women, because "no man actually is."
Even here, at Feministing, which is probably one of the best feminist forums I've ever seen, it is the case, as a previous poster has noted, that when male feminists come up, there is always commentary on the validity and appropriateness of their contribution. This is not something that ever gets discussed, to my knowledge, when the work of some female feminist is mentioned. It seem impossible for a man to do anything to help the cause and merely have his contribution accepted (praised, noted, whatever is appropriate) in the same way that a similar contribution made by a woman would be.
And it's STILL said that "male feminists are overrated."
So... my motives are constantly questioned, my ability to empathize impugned, my ability to contribute downplayed, my standing to advocate for the cause and to be an ambassador for feminism made light of if not outright dismissed... and a prominent voice on one of the leading forums for feminist thought and discussion STILL thinks that me and people like me are somehow getting too much credit.
Yeah. Okay. I get it.
I give up.
I will never again call any men I know on their misogynist crap.
I will never again raise money for or in any way participate in the building of feminist organizations or projects.
I will never again recommend feminist literature.
I will never again advocate for feminist causes politically or academically.
I will never again identify myself as a feminist, nor will I explain why it's a good thing to want to be called a feminist.
I get the message loud and clear. My contribution is not valued nor is it particularly welcome. Nothing I do or say for the cause is taken at face value, simply because of the gender I was born into. Essentialism, it seems, has carried the day.
I quit.
Imagine if I had that attitude about feminism as an Asian woman, or as a queer woman. How about carrying that attitude into the civil rights movement as a queer woman? Hell, if I had that attitude I would have written off white people altogether a long time ago.
Within any movement there is bound to be division based on difference. If someone writes you off as "overrated," that's a pretty lame attack. That means that someone's rating you highly in the first place. I acknowledge your frustration. I appreciate your contribution. Feminism needs diverse voices.
The reason male feminists may be dismissed as "overrated" is because we're surprised at their presence in the first place. And with surprise comes suspicion. Are transmen who are feminists "overrated"? No. They've lived it, walked in our shoes and sat in sanitary napkins. They benefit from a world without sexism in the same tangible way as cisgender women. For an XY male to understand that HE, too, can benefit from a world without discrimination takes perhaps more intuition and understanding of the way the world works. Hell yeah, it's surprising to hear the worlds, "Male Feminist."
Due to your privilege and gender, your contribution to the cause is important in ways that are different than others. It's useless to talk about value here, because everyone ought to be included. Let's consider who has the money, the political power, and the social leverage in society. For men to consider feminism is something awesome.
I'm going to use an analogy here.
Part of being a white ally is acknowledging that your role and contribution is a controversial one. Often the people you're standing up for have been betrayed, rejected, and mistreated by people who claim to be you - time and time again. Often, because of the ally's comparable privilege, the ally gets more attention, prestige, and interest than the people of color. Often the ally, in an attempt to be helpful, inadvertently or intentionally silences, insults, or speaks for people of color. The list goes on. Invariably, some white ally starts groaning, "Look, I've done all this shit for you, shouldn't you trust me by now? Aren't I 'in' yet? Why is my participation in your movement still up for debate? I've been nothing but awesome!" And the people of color respond with something like:
Gosh. How awful for you. Now if you'll excuse us, we have things to do.
You know, it sucks to actually be a good ally and still have your loyalty questioned. But it sucks even more to be a person of color for whom questioning the loyalty of allies isn't being discriminatory, paranoid or unreasonable - it's being smart. It's learning from the past. It's knowing that reaching out to those allies can mean getting your hands and your heart burned.
Consider that when feminists doubt you, they aren't necessarily being unfair. They aren't necessarily discriminating against you based on gender essentialism. They aren't necessarily getting all hairy-legged and man-hating on you. They might just be treating you like the last male feminist, and the one before that, and the one before that, who wheedled that they're a good guy and then spat in their face.
You're aware that you have privilege, and that's great. The beneficial thing about privilege, as you know, is that you get some preferential treatment from dominant society. The downside is that you'll get the opposite from the underprivileged. Sometimes they can't treat you the same as one of them, even if you make all the right moves, because the fact is that you aren't. You're different. You're privileged. You can't acquire trust from a few posts on the internet, from a few conversations with a few feminists from a few meetings. To assume we can trust so easily is to underestimate the extent to which we get screwed over. Yes. For some of us, it might take years. So if getting our approval is crucial to your feminism, you might want to ask yourself just how committed you are.
Yes, it sucks to have less-privileged people doubt your commitment because of your privilege. But you know what? That's part of the price you pay.
You can write a long diatribe about stomping out of feminism, in hopes feminist women will call after you -- "Wait! Don't go!"
But don't be surprised if some of us say "Gosh. How awful for you. Now if you'll excuse us, we have things to do."
I hope you understand.
EXCELLENT.
Perhaps a paradigm shift would be appropriate here? Calling out misogyny, recommending non-misogynistic literature, advocating for women and donating money are not amazing feats; they are doing the right thing.
NOT calling out people on their misogyny, NOT advocating for people who are oppressed, sitting by on the sidelines and not saying a word when women get murdered and raped and beaten simply because they are women- this is wrong.
If you can decide so easily (after two decades of advocacy, no less) that it's not convenient to be a good person simply because you don't feel included enough, ur doin it wrong.
I doubt he actually meant he would stop doing those things-- I thought the point of his post was that the sense he's getting from some people's reactions is that he should stop.
I had a similar reaction to yours. Quite similar, actually. Had myself a good think about why exactly I call myself a feminist and why I should want to continue calling myself such.
Here's what I came up with -- yeah, being a male feminist is totally overrated.
Of course, so is:
*being a female feminist,
*being a white anti-racist activist,
*being a brown anti-racist activist,
*being a black anti-racist activist, ect.
(I have my suspicions that being a purple anti-racist activist may in fact be underrated.)
I know I'm privileged. I know there are lots of issues in the feminist arena that I should listen to rather than speak about. I know leadership roles in the feminist community may, more often than not, be a bad idea for me and the ideas I'm trying to live by.
But, that's not me trying to be a good feminist. That's me trying to be a good person -- from which, I hope I'm also a good feminist. Listening as opposed to domineering; trying to understand another's perspective; not expecting rewards; and all the other things so many have mentioned that male feminists should do -- we should all be doing those things, regardless of gender or feminist identity.
So yeah, I do get a little ticked off when people talk about being a feminist ally, or present some sort of checklist for the male feminist to make sure their britches aren't getting too big. But that's them. And all I can do is continue to be myself -- slightly egotistical, passive, clumsy feminist male that I profess to be.
I know who I am. That's good enough. And I'm a feminist. I'll continue to do all things that a feminist should do. If someone looks at me funny because I'm a dude and perhaps lectures me about not being "that guy," I'll nod, because they do have a point. I don't want to be that guy. But then I might make a face, because I'm not that guy. And hopefully they'll see that.
Oklahoma Exile,
Maybe, just maybe, even in feminist or anti-racism circles, you may never be fully accepted, or your opinions and contributions will be questioned. That is truly unfortunate.
That is what many women and people of color must go through every day.
Perhaps you could use some reflection on being willing to "quit," for experiencing what is par for the course for many women and people of color, because they do not have the option of quitting.
"for experiencing what is par for the course for many women and people of color, because they do not have the option of quitting."
THIS.
right on.
AMEN
(also, Punchbuggy_green, I just want to say I think you're awesome. It's completely off topic and derailing, but, especially the past couple days, I've come to like you a lot on here [not that I didn't before, mind].)
Thirded! The mere fact that people talk about "quitting" shows that they didn't get it.
Also, I would like to second the fact that your contributions have been awesome.
This.
"for experiencing what is par for the course for many women and people of color, because they do not have the option of quitting."
!!!!
One person in the "How men can be better feminists" post just flat out said that because he gets to CHOOSE which movements to support, us women need to treat him better. (emphasis his).
That's a good example of someone who is NOT a feminist.
I doubt that you were some innocent man, persecuted by the misandrist feminists. Likely, you inadvertently exhibited privilege, and refused to reckognize it and change your ways. I say this because you just quit feminism. It is privilege that allows you (and me, I am a man) to quit feminism whenever we like. It is privilege that allows us to choose to ignore misogynist remarks by other men. It is privilege that allows us to stop caring about feminism.
No wonder male allies are treated suspiciously. We act like you!
I'm curious to know who said your work was less important than the work of female feminists. From what I've read, it wasn't anyone here. Are you perhaps confusing "having a different role" with "not being as important"?
Alas, various groups I've worked with have had this attitude to some degree or another. One organizer in particular - and I won't be so crass as to name names - told me specifically and pointedly that *anything* I did for the cause, whether it be handing out flyers, manning a table, or even just bringing snacks to a meeting (all of which I was happy to do) was less valuable, from her perspective, because I was a man. She held this view rather unapologetically and seemed to think I was irrational for being upset by the fact that my contribution was not appreciated at least as much as a *similar contribution* by a woman would be.
I have NOT seen that attitude here, and I was wrong to bring that particular baggage to this particular forum.
Still. It sticks in one's craw, as it were.
How 'bout this: try to do the right thing, as you have the wisdom to see it and the ability to get it done.
Maybe then you'll stop seeing yourself as doing a favor and deserving some kind of thanks, favor, credit or cookie in return.
"a prominent voice" should read "prominent voices"
I'm a feminist. That I'm a guy has nothing to do with that. I want to be judged on the merits of my ideas, not an accident of birth.
this this this this this this WORD. :)
I was going to reply to OklahomaExile and Citizen Lane, but instead I'm just going to repost what Rachel in WY (whose patience never ceases to amaze me btw) said:
I would put particular emphasis on the portion explaining how being an ally is NOT about you or your ego.
That's the thing. I don't think I'm central, or a leader, or anything. I don't know if I have a place within some greater movement. My ideas and my desires for social justice (through my work as a legal scholar and lawyer) tend to be largely coextensive with feminism (and anti-racism, anti-homophobia, etc.). I know that my experience is fundamentally different from women, and I don't share their experience, nor can I lay claim to it. All I want is to work toward a better world for women, a more just world. I think that my own gender is irrelevant to that work. I would never attempt to co-opt something that isn't mine, and I don't feel I'm being denied "a place" because I haven't really claimed some place within a movement, mostly because I think that if I ever have a place in a movement, it will be out of necessity and not self-selection.
If that makes any sense. I don't know. It might not. It's tied up in my personal philosophical musings on ethics, politics, and subversion. I can expound more in a more appropriate forum (my blog) if there's any interest.
In respectful reply to WheresTheBeef?,
Rachel's post is, indeed, concise and powerful. I agree completely with much of what she says. It is, however, a mistake to dismiss these concerns as being about "ego." It seems to me that a properly central concern of the feminist movement is the issue of respecting people's contributions.
There's a vast difference between feeling slighted if not given the spotlight - something that is definitely not a problem for me - and feeling ostracized from a cause that is important to me not because of any particular word or deed, but simply because of my gender. It is, again, demeaning to have my complaints characterized as a desire to be at the center, or the head, or whatever, of the cause.
I never said that I resented not being a leader - I don't care about that.
I never said that I resented not being able to make "the same" contribution as female feminists - I would be daft to be concerned about something like that.
I never said that I resented not making contributions that are considered "central" in the sense that Rachel mentions - I understand that being an ally is different from being one of the genuinely oppressed.
My complaint was, specifically, that my desire to help is questioned, the effectiveness of my help is downplayed, and what help I offer is attributed to ulterior motives. It is not "ego" to resent this sort of treatment, nor is it unexpected that this kind of response to one's earnest desire to help might sour one on the cause in question.
Rachel's is an excellent post. It does not speak to these particular concerns.
I'm sick of the gender-blind/color-blind people. Identity informs our thoughts, beliefs and decisions. Maleness is not an "accident of birth," it's an identity that you have cultivated all your life.
Amen.
holy shit, thank you. that's been killing me.
"I'm sick of the gender-blind/color-blind people. Identity informs our thoughts, beliefs and decisions. Maleness is not an "accident of birth," it's an identity that you have cultivated all your life."
I suspect I'm with you in intent, but "maleness" as a word refers to one's sex (not identity), so that literally is an accident of birth. Perhaps "masculinity" is more appropriate?
If you're saying that because I was born with sexual organs A, and choose to dress the way society tells me to dress to match said organs, that it's ok to assume and treat me as though I also *think* and *act* the way society tells me to think/act to match said organs, then you lose me. If you get to know me, talk to me, get some serious foundation to understand my actual identity as a person, then great! Inform the crap out of your decisions based on that. But if you choose to write me off based on my perceived gender or color, then you're part of the problem.
This simple statement goes against nearly everything I stand for as feminist. Having been born with a vagina certainly does not inform every aspect of my identity and I'd imagine that the same is true for those born with penises- this is exactly the sort of concept that I fight against as a female feminist.
I disagree with people who've been saying that men are treated with "suspicion" in this forum. I don't see men in general treated with suspicion on this site. I've seen men who use overly forceful language treated with suspicion. And I've seen men who are arguing the minority viewpoint treated with suspicion, but I've definitely seen the same suspicion for women or people with androgynous names arguing the minority position. And I've seen men who throw temper tantrums to be treated with suspicion.
But I really don't think we are mean to men here. Am I wrong? Am I really just missing something?
Oh, to add to my list of *particular* instances that Feministing community members are 'suspicious': when people (male, female, unspecified) ONLY de-lurk to accuse us of being sexist against men. However, I do not see that suspicion against commenters who comment on OTHER things as well.
And I wasn't thinking about anyone in particular with that comment, or a particular instance, so if anyone reads this and thinks I'm talking about them, I'm not, I promise. :)
I acknowledge my obnoxiousness in saying "I quit." I was in a bit of a snit when I wrote that. I formally invite anyone who has never said something regrettable while in a bad mood to throw the first stone.
ALL those who called me out on that are 100% right. I have the option to "quit" feminism, but by no means SHOULD I do so, nor, in all honesty, will I.
I apologize, sincerely, to everyone for my unpleasant display of immaturity. That's not the sort of person I want to be.
I still maintain that a CENTRAL concern to feminism is, in fact, the matter of respect for people's ideas and contributions regardless of gender, and I further maintain that it is a problem when people's ideas and contributions are questioned or, worse, denigrated not because of their content but because of who they come from. I still maintain that lack of respect for what male allies CAN contribute hurts the cause.
I want to make two specific replies:
to questioning?:
I have done no such thing as you suggest. I was habituated into a peculiarly male identity (as understood in our culture) LONG before I had the power to consent to or even resist such habituation.
to ghostorchid:
You make an excellent point that nonetheless makes me uncomfortable. What is the assumption that I will behave like "the last male feminist" except an essentialist one? We have nothing in common but our Y chromosomes. I don't deny that there IS wisdom in previously oppressed groups being cautious - heck, I've made exactly that argument to unenlightened associates who have taken umbrage at being lumped in with racists, misogynists, etc. Nonetheless it... well, it makes me squirm. Should I dump the baggage of previous relationships on my current girlfriend? Should I dump the baggage of being beat up by rednecks on everyone with a farmer's tan and a ballcap? Should I dump the baggage of bad experiences with genuinely man-hating feminists on other feminists? Aren't we about, to a large extent, casting off such intellectual and emotional preconceptions and evaluating people on the basis of who they are, rather than who they resemble?
The prudential and the ideal are in conflict, and I have no clear notion of how to resolve them.
"I apologize, sincerely, to everyone for my unpleasant display of immaturity. "
Thanks.
It was the only mature and appropriate thing to do. I cannot express how MUCH I wished for a "delete" or "edit" option on my post from the moment I saw it come up in the Comments.
I understand where you're coming from, but here's another perspective: Allies from the privileged group need to EARN respect from the oppressed group, especially when they're in a space that's devoted to that oppressed group. It doesn't come easy. To start, it means listening more and maybe taking some flak. But that's the price of privilege, and it's a much smaller price than carrying the baggage of misogyny/racism/homophobia/fat-phobia/ableism etc.
"and it's a much smaller price than carrying the baggage of misogyny/racism/homophobia/fat-phobia/ableism etc."
Well, that's CERTAINLY true. I should note, though, that I wasn't necessarily talking about Feministing exclusively. I've not "said" anything, here, so I wouldn't expect respect or attention from anyone, yet. I was just, well, I was carping. I hate to admit it, but there it is. I've been fighting the good fight for a long time, and sometimes it seems as if I'll NEVER be trusted. It's... disheartening. But, as a previous poster said, that may just be the sad and sorry fact of the matter in some cases. It's not good, but it is what it is. The best I can do it keep on fighting and try to find groups that will accept me for the good I really am trying to do.
Please DO keep on fighting!
I agree with this. Male profeminists do not get any flack when they make agreeable statements. If we disagree with feminists, then we will be criticized, just like a woman would be. Only after making a controversial statement does our maleness come into question. Consider, did male privilege create this disagreement?
If male allies find themselves routinely disagreeing with feminists, then it is likely that privilege is at the heart of the disagreements.
See, I'm not sure I agree with this. It depends a lot on how you interpret "disagree with feminists. "I've been lurking longer than I've been commenting here, and I've lurked in the past. And here's a trend I've noticed:
Say a poster disagrees with a female poster, in a legitimate manner. Not trolling or insulting, just disagreeing. Now, if the disagreer is female or gender is unknown, it is dealt with simply as a matter of disagreeing about a principle. They have conflicting (or seemingly conflicting) ideas, and the discussion goes from there.
If the poster is known to be male, then a non-trivial amount of times, it is not dealt with as such. Rather, they skip all of the above and say that the only reason Bob disagreed with X is because he's a man, and the issue isn't worth any further discussion.
Yes, I realize this is what of life is like for women--not being taken seriously in discourse due to gender. However, the fact that injustice (more often and of much more consequence) happens to women in real life does not mean such behavior should be repeated here.
Does it happen often? Depends how you define often. Enough to be noticeable, not enough to dissuade me from commenting here. And it shouldn't dissuade other male commenters. The majority of the time, the comments made by male posters are acknowledged as aiding the discussion if they do so.
It's a definitely not a huge insult/injury. Certainly more in the pin-prick region. But it is there.
If it wasn't clear, I'm not taking the WOE IZ MENZ stance. This is a pretty minute complaint.
I just don't think it's true that men only catch flak when they've made "objectionable" statements.
"What is the assumption that I will behave like "the last male feminist" except an essentialist one? We have nothing in common but our Y chromosomes."
Au contraire, mon frere.
You have more in common than just your Y chromosome. You also have privilege in common. It's not "essentialist" to say that as a male, you have male privilege. It's math. And it's that privilege that causes problems, not your penis.
"Should I dump the baggage of previous relationships on my current girlfriend?"
Heavens no, you care about your girlfriend. I do not, comparably, care about you. No offense, but this isn't about you, and making you feel comfortable and valued and appreciated within feminism. You aren't owed that.
Don't argue that you should automatically get my trust by virtue of the offchance that you're different from all the other male-feminist-rejects. You can get my trust by proving that you're different from all the other male-feminist-rejects. Why am I obligated to take your word for it?
I'm especially not going to start doling out trust to aspiring male feminists just to massage their conviction that privilege is irrelevant if your heart's in the right place (nope, good intentions don't erase privilege!) or to defend myself against their claims of reverse discrimination and generalizing. I'm not here to make the world a fairer place for male feminists. It's not about you.
"Aren't we about, to a large extent, casting off such intellectual and emotional preconceptions and evaluating people on the basis of who they are, rather than who they resemble?"
You don't resemble a privileged male, you are a privileged male. I see no reason to treat you like an underprivileged female when you aren't one. Again, why are you arguing for automatic trust? Is it so much to ask that you try earning it? Would you like my expectations of privileged males to be that low - they just have to submit a statement of interest, and I accept them to my feminist university and surround them with women, like myself, for whom the presence of aspiring male feminists can be threatening? To be fair?
Who told you that fair = being treated the same?
You're arguing, essentially, that it's anti-feminist to make generalizations, and that therefore I shouldn't generalize you.
Well, that's not my feminism. My feminism isn't the kind of feminism that gives you a cookie for showing up. My feminism isn't the kind of feminism that puts myself out there to get repeatedly knocked down for fear of being unfair to a poor, helpless, aspiring male feminist. My feminism prioritizes myself and other woman over the need of a single male feminist to feel good. My feminism survives.
If you don't want to be generalized, you do something about it. I'm not going to spend my time doing it for you.
First of all, your point that I do not resemble a privileged male, but rather AM a privileged male, is spot on. That is an important disanalogy, and I'll need to consider that carefully in thinking about this matter.
However, I should note that at NO point did I argue that I should automatically be trusted - rather, I argued that I should not automatically be DIStrusted.
The distinction is crucial. If there are genuinely decent male feminists, then it seems the default position should not be one of distrust, but of neutral consideration that, as you suggest, demands action before trust is given - just what would be extended to anyone, in theory.
What I've described as problematic, however, is a continuing DIStrust that is based solely on my gender, and which seems more or less insensitive to any actions I take. I've proposed THAT as a problem.
I also think that anyone invested in a social movement has a stake in making EVERYONE who is similarly committed to that movement feel valued and appreciated qua their involvement in that movement, so long as their actions genuinely merit such positive evaluation. That, however, is probably a simple difference of opinion on our part.
However, I would like to say that it is rather patronizing, not to mention attacking a straw man, to rebut my concerns by telling me that I don't get a cookie for showing up. I never claimed I should. I never, anywhere, argued for automatic trust, and I defy anyone to show me where I have. You make excellent points and clearly have a great deal to teach me on the issue of feminism, but it's counterproductive to tar me with positions I've never advocated and then rebuke me for taking them.
I apologize for misconstruing your request as one for instant trust. However, I still disagree with your request that I rein in my instant distrust.
So, second analogy.
Native Canadians tend to have a terrible history with white psychologists and anthropologists. The white professionals come in, claiming that they're interested in helping the community, and then they refuse to incorporate Aboriginal leadership into their work, give Aboriginal peoples no voice in how they're portrayed and depicted, and regularly infuse their research with racist presumptions. Then the government exploits the terrible research studies, the media latch onto it, and it becomes a massive headache for Aboriginal peoples.
As a result, it is often difficult for white researchers to do work in Native Canadian communities. There's often a strong distrust.
Would you honestly say the Native Canadians are being unfair?
I don't think so. They're being fair to themselves, and they're being smart. They aren't going to shed any tears over some white researcher's project; it's not about the white researcher. They're protecting themselves. They're learning from past experience. I'm not going to pet a wild hyena in hopes that it might not act like that other wild hyena. It's just common sense.
The white researcher might cry, "But I'm trying to help you! By rebuking my efforts, you're damaging the movement toward Indigenous solidarity!"
To which they will respond something like:
Gosh. How awful for us. Excuse us, but we have things to do.
You seem to think I have a choice in whether I distrust you or not, which really underestimates just how screwed over I've been. I can't say, "Oh hey, I'm going to totally be receptive and neutral to this guy!" any more than Native Canadians can say, "Hey, let's lose that sinking feeling we get when some white person wants to research our tribe!"
I know it bothers you that I'm this way, but I assure you that male privilege made me the less-privileged little monster that I am.
Final example. I have had some negative sexual experiences with men. As a result, I start off with an active sexual distrust of most men I become involved with. I don't feel safe and it takes me a long time to build up trust. I have everything from bouts of sadness to nightmares about these negative experiences. I don't walk into an intimate relationship with a male at "neutral", he starts off at negative thirty-nine and has to claw his way up with consideration, compassion, and utmost patience. However, I certainly start expecting him to crash and burn.
Am I being an essentialist?
Do you think I can actively decide to feel safe when I don't?
Should I prioritize their desire to be trusted over my need for personal safety and physical integrity?
What's the "fair" thing to do, and who would it be fair to?
What do you think?
I'm convinced. You cite powerful examples that speak clearly to your point. You cannot *decide* to be neutral and receptive, full stop, although I do not doubt, given your patience in responding to my impertinent inquiries, that you make every effort, within the boundaries dictated by your past experiences.
And, for the record, it doesn't bother me that... well, okay it bothers me that you're caught in this situation, but not necessarily for me. I hate that it has come to this - let me put it that way - and I'm doing everything I can, on my side, to make sure that it doesn't come to this any more.
But, as I said, you've sold me on your argument: this is not an essentialist stance; you cannot *genuinely* decide to feel safe when you don't, and even if you could decide to act that way, it leads us to the next bit, which is; you should *not* prioritize extending trust to particular individuals, whatever the social value of doing so, over your physical integrity or mental security; and whatever "unfairness" there is to this situation is trumped by the unfairness of asking you to act against what you rationally perceive as your safety and security - whether they are *actually* at risk or not, the psychic cost of making that demand is too onerous.
It is unfortunate for everyone involved that men start off at such a disadvantage with you, just as it is unfortunate for both the (sincere and trustworthy) researchers and the Native Canadians that there is such distrust in that situation as well, but in both cases, the distrusted party clearly has to engage in a campaign of persuasion through demonstration of positive intentions, and it is unreasonable to expect that the distrustful party would act otherwise than you depict (although, again, this is an unfortunate fact that, all things being equal, would not be the case). I find the analogy sufficiently robust that I concede, unreservedly, the point with regards to feminism and male participation thereof.
I appreciate your patience with me, by the way. Thank you.
I just want to say the discussion that precedes this comment is one of the best examples of constructive dialogue (my favorite thing ever, except for margaritas and snowshoeing) that I've seen on Feministing. Yay! Warm fuzzy feelings all around.
Wait -- that's it? Just like that?
What I am going to do for the rest of the week :(
Kidding. :)
I just wanted to say thank you to everyone in this thread for your posts and willingness to discuss both your perspective and that of others. After some of the other exchanges with posters on this topic I was starting to worry that the discourse was becoming too tainted to continue. Thank you for reaffirming for me that passionate discussion on the internet can and sometimes does lead to thoughtful changes on all sides.
Native Canadians tend to have a terrible history with white psychologists and anthropologists. The white professionals come in, claiming that they're interested in helping the community, and then they refuse to incorporate Aboriginal leadership into their work, give Aboriginal peoples no voice in how they're portrayed and depicted, and regularly infuse their research with racist presumptions. Then the government exploits the terrible research studies, the media latch onto it, and it becomes a massive headache for Aboriginal peoples.
As a result, it is often difficult for white researchers to do work in Native Canadian communities. There's often a strong distrust.
This is probably the best analogy I've ever seen for this.
Total win.
Ok, I've enjoyed reading your spirited debate here between GhostOrchid and OklahomaExile. OklahomaExile did disappoint me by posting a "woe is me, where's my cookie?" thing at first, but his later responses don't seem too crazy.
Anyway, as a researcher (in bioinformatics, not a social science like anthropology or something, so I don't know about these Canadian studies in particular, (sorry!)) here's what disturbs me about your (ghostorchid's) post: scientifically, there's no valid reason to allow the subject of the study to frame the research how they see fit, even if this leads to an unflattering conclusion. If these papers are reach conclusions via unfounded racial stereotypes or other dubious claims, that's just bad science and should be caught by diligent peer reviewers. If legitimate studies are warped by politicians into some instrument of evil (this happens quite a lot unfortunately) that's the politicians' fault, and stifling of the voice in question is the governing body's fault. In any case, as long as the researcher in question is actually doing valid science (and Canadian scientists I've met have overwhelmingly been quite clever and responsible), it seems totally unfair to automatically distrust an outside researcher, especially on the basis of race. If you do that, you're wasting your effort targeting the wrong people (and creating unneeded animosity to boot!).
Likewise it seems unfair to automatically distrust all men for the same reason. There's plenty of anti-feminist women out there that deserve the same ire and caution that you seem to be automatically labeling men with. If you stick to your claim that it's fair to "distrust" male-feminists, you're just ultimately defending actions based on prejudices, and are quickly sliding downhill. I mean honestly...comparing white men to hyenas?
Do you think I can actively decide to feel safe when I don't?
Should I prioritize their desire to be trusted over my need for personal safety and physical integrity?
No, not at all. As someone who was sexualized abused by a man myself, never in a million years would I say you should do that. That said, it sounds like you might be instantly trusting people a little too much once you "identify" them to be a woman. But that's all about personal safety and your personal interactions with people, not necessarily about policy making. Ultimately I try to not be too much of a hypocrite and try to practice what I preach, but I know it can be hard especially if we have some personal emotional scars. Seemingly incompatible goals, but if I have to choose, I'm going to try to fight to avoid prejudices and admit that when I act prejudiced, it's something I should be working to fix...
I can't shake the extent to which it reads like "I've been mugged by black people, so of course I'm inherently suspicious of black people now."
No it's more like: "As a woman, I've been systematically oppressed by men my entire life. As have other women throughout the past centuries. So of course I'm inherently suspicious of men."
Unfortunate how prejudice doesn't always fit into the nice neat little pigeonholes we want it to, isn't it?
which is basically how I read ghostorchid's post, and I'm saying that while I empathize, those are still prejudices and we should be willing to admit that we're wrong to act based on them, and not try to rationalize them. Did you mean to reply to her rather than me? Or did I not communicate that clearly?
I was saying I think you didn't go far enough. I think there is no fundamental moral difference between Racist Bob saying that he was mugged by black people twice in the last few years, so he doesn't feel safe around them. So, in the interest of his own personal safety and physical integrity, he's going to go live in a gated community in the suburbs and be suspicious of any black people he sees around, and what ghost said. After all, it's Racist Bob's own lived experience - who are we to contradict it? Have we been mugged by black people?
There is, however, a difference between learned psychological response and outright prejudice. Its a blurry line, maybe a continuum, but its a line nonetheless. It exists in a weird vacuum where it is neither okay nor wrong. It is not the fault of the sufferer or the people who suffer resulting prejudice, and it needs to be solved by people on both sides working together. Placing fault and blame is not helpful.
A good example would be PTSD from soldiers coming home from wars. Often, they have a learned response to be agitated or wary around people of the race that their enemy happened to be (in the US, this was asians after WWII, korea and vietnam, and now commonly occurs with arabic people). It causes a lot of regrettable things during wartime--civilian casualties especially. Afterward, it can lead to racism. NPR did a great story two years ago on a soldier coming back from Iraq who couldn't be in the same room with any arabic person, and consequently joined his college's islamic students association to help himself adapt.
I agree to an extent; there are reasons why we have prejudice, and it doesn't make us bad people, but how we choose to look at our own prejudice and deal with it does. There's a difference between something being understandable, and something being acceptable.
Excellent point. My feeling about how this relates to topic is: male feminists owe it to female feminists suspicious of their motives and perspectives to work extra hard to overcome privilege and earn that trust. Its not our fault as individuals, but it is our situation.
But its a social contract. We make this effort with the understanding that naturally distrusting female feminists will also work to try to meet us halfway.
Again I will use a traumatic analogy, as many women feminists have used them here to explain why distrusting male feminists is acceptable: A few years ago I was raped and abused by a woman I trusted. Every time I meet a young woman, I project this on to her. I owe it to that young woman to try to temper this, to minimize it and eliminate it, insofar as I don't jeopardize my safety. I do this for her benefit, because she is not to be blamed. Conversely, she owes it to me--and every other young woman I meet after her--to not to similarly betray that trust.
That's a pretty good example. And when, as a man in feminism, I encounter someone who's hostile to me purely because of my gender, I generally assume that there is something in their past that makes it hard for them to be neutral toward men. It might have been violence, or prejudice, or something else entirely.
That's what I assume, and I try and treat them accordingly, but I don't ask, and don't think they have any right to explain themselves to me. After all, they don't know me, and I'm not a therapist.
Once or twice, I have encountered people who are just flat out abusive toward me because of my gender, but that's a very different thing, and much harder to handle with kindness.
Ah ok. Thanks for the explanation. I can understand why you think that I wasn't going far enough. I'm glad you did realize that I was going that direction though. I agree that ultimately there's no moral difference, and I was trying to say that we should call prejudice when we see and wasn't trying to give ghostorchid a free ride. But I was also trying to say that on a personal/emotional level traumatic experiences are scarring, and it can be hard to get over them, so we shouldn't go demonize people for feeling what they feel like they have no control over. We need some relatively gentle way to help people spot their prejudiced actions, and give them room to re-evaluate and hopefully break down those phobias (maybe with some outside help. Hell, I still might need help...). Simply saying that they're racist/sexist as though it's some fatal character flaw just forces them to dig in their heels and stick to their guns, and doesn't leave them room to improve. So, I'm trying to strike some balance. Thus I said I wouldn't fault you for protecting yourself (ie: you shouldn't be putting yourself into situations where you feel you're in danger just because you're afraid of being labeled prejudiced), though I should have qualified that a little better than "in a million years." Some people could take that statement to stupid extremes. That's not a license to hurt other people. I meant that simply as license to run away. But when you run away, you've got to ask yourself: was that prejudiced? Am I over reacting? Hopefully Racist Bob will realize that he was being prejudiced and try to adjust to eliminate that. When fears like that get perpetuated and entrenched in a society then people start acting purely on stereotypes, and attacking those outlets full force head on doesn't actually hurt anyone, so I do that where I can, but I don't want to demonize people who are simply running away to defend themselves when psychologically they may not have a choice. It's their loss and I want to help, but I don't think attacking harder in those cases helps. I said explicitly that I thought that ghostorchid was being prejudiced, and that she should try to address that. I'm not sure what accusing her of any more than that would accomplish, so I'm rather leary of what going "far enough" would actually mean.
Anyway, I hope that clears up what I said...
ps. looks like dangerfield beat me to a response, but I think sie's on the same page as me.
There is a huge fundamental difference between Racist Bob and what we're saying here. As I pointed out a few posts up it's called systemic oppression and it's gone on for centuries. You cannot just ignore that and all that comes with it. I don't know how you can't see a difference between someone that has been systematically oppressed their whole life being hesitant to trust men outright as the same as Racist Bob saying "well one black guy robbed me once so..."
That makes ghost's attitude more likely. Not more morally acceptable. Prejudice is prejudice, and we (all) need to acknowledge and work on our prejudices, not hide them behind justifications and excuses.
I agree.
I disagree with naught a little bit on this point, with the same conclusion that I find inherent distrust of male feminists problematic, from my feminist perspective, so I'm going to try responding with a different stance:
You're right. There is a world of difference between the Racist Bob analogy and naturally distrusting men. And again, you are right that the major difference is systematic oppression. But one problem with your logic is the assumption that women have been systematically oppressed by men for centuries. That's almost but not quite true. Rather, women have been systematically oppressed by patriarchy for centuries, which means often the oppression comes at the hands of other women. Unless you really believe oppression of women by women is negligible now and in the past (and I think there is a lot of evidence against this--look no further than how mothers instruct their daughters in patriarchal ways), then all people should be reasonably distrusted in a feminist sphere.
i completely second that.
not to mention, this idea that being treated with distrust is "the price one pays for privilege" is complete bullshit, to my mind.
no one *asks* for or *declines* privilege, and i find it insulting to treat someone who one knows nothing about differently than someone else one knows nothing about to be the absolute definition of prejudice.
sharing a personal anecdote about how one was victimized by XYZ person doesn't strengthen the case, either.
I feel bad now because I agree with you and the rest of you supporting Naught. In fact I was trying to say exactly that. I hope that this thread is hanging off of my comment simply by accident, because I really was trying to say exactly that to ghostorchid (that ultimately what she's describing is, as you say, "the absolute definition of prejudice"). I only mentioned my anecdotal experience because she cited her own experience as a reason for her behavior, and I'm saying that I understand personally the gut reactions that traumatic experiences can leave us with, but we should recognize that this is a hurtful prejudice, and try to address it as such, not rationalize it... *sigh* I thought I was on your side! =(
i think you hit the nail on the head here.
yes, some of us have been victimized, and that is horrible. my heart aches for those who have been physically, mentally, and emotionally harmed. people who have been hurt need to heal, absolutely.
however, when we are having a rational discussion rather than an emotional one, i believe that those whose behaviors towards certain groups of people are colored by their healing need to acknowledge that. just as most commenters here would advise someone to "check their privilege".
ultimately, as those who have aligned ourselves with a humanist movement founded on rational principles, we have the responsibility to behave in a rational manner. that means working to overcome prejudice against *everyone*.
From many feminist perspectives, prejudice = systemic. Someone might judge me if I have unusual piercings, and I'll say I was judged unfairly, but I'm not sure I'd characterize myself as a victim of prejudice.
Actually, Wikipedia has a definition of prejudice I consider quite fitting: "Any unreasonable attitude that is unusually resistant to rational influence."
Based on my experiences, I think I've been quite rational. When my good experiences with male feminists balance out my bad ones, maybe my distrust will fade, and then we can take my shame hat off.
Anyway, "overcome the prejudice"? Yes, let's create a support group. Male feminists suffering from prejudice. They can commiserate about all the opportunities they're denied, all the bashing they get in the street, how hard it is to get housing or be taken seriously at work, and all the hypocritical feminists who say they distrust them on the internet. Maybe I'll donate.
Phew! Racist Bob really appreciates your suggestion. He was starting to get a bit worried that HE might be prejudiced - but that's something OTHER people are. But Bob isn't prejudiced, nosireebob, it's only prejudiced if it's unreasonable, and Bob's got his reasons for distrusting black people (not that he hates them or is prejudiced or anything).
I agree with you on this issue very closely, but I think Racist Bob is a bit of a straw man at worst and a weak analogy at best.
Of course, I have many of the same analogical problems with (Racist Bob==feminists who distrust men) as (male feminists==white anti-racist advocates).
Yes, yes, I might as well be a KKK member. Poor male feminists. It's hard enough being privileged, God knows, why do unreasonable hypocrites like me have to behave as though your privilege is likely to affect you? Gosh, what's she gonna say next? That it's okay for black people to be particularly wary of white cops given the history of police brutality in communities of color? That it's okay for Aboriginal peoples to be particularly guarded with government representatives, given the government's role in infiltrating, abusing, and attempting to assimilate-or-annihilate Aboriginal cultures? That it's okay for some trans folks to boycott Feministing just because Feministing's editors let a few transphobic discussions leak through? Gosh, why oh why does she keep defending these prejudiced people? Shouldn't they at least be trying to stop being so utterly unreasonable? They might as well be card-carrying racists! When are these marginalized communities going to learn that they're bad people for distrusting us? I mean Jesus, we shouldn't have earn it if they don't make anyone else do that -- because that's discriminating against us! I mean, come on - when can a white guy catch a break!
This is a pretty mean-spirited mis-characterization of the opposition's position. It's as much of a straw man as Naught's comment was.
Oops! I'm a hypocrite again. And let me assure you that I feel just terrible about it.
Well, I think this discussion has gone as far as it can. You're a hypocrite, you admit it, and you're OK with it.
really? this is antagonistic, not helpful or constructive. Not only does it go against the spirit of the tone and debate we've got going here, but its not far from encroaching on the commenting policy.
I never called you a hypocrite and frankly, I don't believe you are, so that is a misrepresentation of my position now.
This is a really substantive, important issue that we should be able to discuss without derailing into antagonism, which apparently neither you nor naught seems to want. Too much traffic on the high road?
Sorry, I'm commenting in response to several commenters, so I didn't intend my post to be directly a response to just you. I'm kind of flailing my arms out multi-directionally.
In a nutshell, my issue (with everyone in general) is this:
1) I feel like "prejudice = pre-judgment" is a decontextualized and deradicalized understanding of prejudice. I believe that prejudice is both systemic and oppressive. I agree that prejudice includes pre-judgment, but I also think one can be prejudiced without pre-judgment, and I think a radicalized and contextualized definition of prejudice necessitates the inclusion of a lot more than mere pre-judgment. According to my understanding of prejudice, I am not prejudiced against male feminists, which is why I don't feel hypocritical, although I know some view me as such.
2) The sort of feminist - male or female - who calls me "prejudiced" on those grounds is not the sort of feminist I am concerned about apologizing to, proving myself to, or welcoming into my personal feminism. I don't mean that in a hostile way - it simply doesn't matter to me. I'm on a lonely feminist path and it makes no difference whatsoever if some embittered guy is with me on it. I'm not in that headspace of "We should make feminism as inclusive as we can! We should try to bring everyone into the fold!" because I've lost faith in the inclusiveness of feminism and the extent to which it's a fold or a safe space. If some dude just can't stand that I'm going to distrust him at first, I am more than happy to leave him behind.
I had a guy once who wasn't okay with the fact that I distrusted him sexually (as I do all guys I start being intimate with). To him, the fact that I have an awful history with male sexual violence was irrelevant, he hated the idea on principle that I was suspicious just because he's male. And I sympathized with him. It sucks when women are afraid of men. It sucks to be a guy, walking at night, seeing the woman walking several paces ahead keep looking over her shoulder at him nervously, quickening her pace, when he's been nothing but considerate to women. It really sucks.
But you know what? I'm not going to waste my time on that first guy who couldn't accept my distrust. I'm going to be with the guy who respects what I've been through and how I've been oppressed, who says "Yeah, it's okay if you don't trust me yet -- you will!" and then proceeds to be gentle, patient, and compassionate until I can't help myself but to trust him completely.
That first indignant guy might have been a totally good guy, just as trustworthy as the second, but I simply have no time and space for him in my life.
Similarly, I know male feminists might be awesome people. But if they can't say "Yeah, it's okay if you don't trust me yet -- you will!" and proceed to show me just how awesome they are, I just can't be troubled with them.
I have enough on my emotional plate. I'm not expending my precious resources giving people I don't need chances they don't need.
I hope that makes my position a little clearer, even if it's no less offensive to some.
First of all, I want to thank you for tirelessly discussing this point. Your efforts on this thread have gone a really long way with helping a lot of people understand their feminism, for example, OklahomaExile. I understand its easy to get angry when your opposition breaks into straw men and declares prejudice and hypocrisy, and I'm
Now, I am still disappointed with your solution, because it hurts male feminists and by doing that, I think it does a disservice to my feminism and my feminist goals, but then, its your solution, not mine, and your solution doesn't owe anything to my feminism. I have the luxury of caring about male feminists. I also have the luxury of caring about oppressed groups to any extent that I so choose, because of privilege. While I don't think inherent distrust of male feminists over female feminists is OK, I also don't think it's wrong--its stuck somewhere in the blurry middle of regrettable necessities--and its certainly too nuanced to be hypocritical.
I do think we've gotten to the fundamental disagreement in our positions--and I'm really thankful that you have illuminated exactly where you are coming from--so I doubt either one of us intends to pursue this any further. But I'm sorry that before that before we arrived at this point, the discussion descended into something unproductive.
Total Syntax Failure on my last sentence of the first paragraph. Proofread. Lesson learned.
I think there's a positive correlation between the politeness of comments and their physical width.
I appreciate your consideration and patience.
um, if your character was judged because you had piercings, you would certainly be experiencing prejudice. you know...pre-judgment. as in, a judgment made without knowing you. as in pre-knowing you.
and, yes, i would concur that prejudice is systemic. you're a case in point: you've been the victim of it, so you're perpetuating it in turn.
you know, all of your bad experience have also been with carbon-based life forms, as well. i assume you're treating all the people and animals with which you come in contact with equal distrust/hostility?
whatever. i don't really know why i'm bothering to respond; after all, you've admitted your hypocrisy and proven that you're more than happy to make this (previously quite civil) debate quite nasty.
Rats!
Sorry, I didn't mean to say that I completely disagreed with you. I mean to say that I thought you had a good point but were equivocating too much.
Actually, in anthropology there is a move to make sure that your subjects would agree to the way you describe and interpret their practices. The fact is, you'll always be interpreting your observations through your cultural lens (which may include a very racist attitude), and this often leads to a misunderstanding of the significance and meaning of the practices of other social groups. Coming up with an explanation or interpretation and then asking them "is this what you see yourselves as doing?" recognizes the fact that you're not studying an amoeba or a squid, but a group of autonomous human beings.
Hmmm, interesting. I think I don't know enough about anthropology to venture much further into this, but (risking wading a little bit deeper) in general I'd hope that most anthropology work is done with with a lot of interview and feedback like that. Sure it seems irresponsible for the researcher to say "I think that doing A means B!" without actually asking "do you think so too?" But here's what scares me: if the group doesn't like the conclusion, they'll rationalize it away. And while understanding how people rationalize their behaviors can be very valuable, and could very well lead to something new that the researcher would have otherwise missed (so really, that's just being diligent), I don't think the researcher should feel obligated to put the group's own explanation on equal footing with their own conclusions. Otherwise they'd be no better than Fox News. Well, maybe a little better =P
Also, likewise, unless it's a very small group, it's almost certainly possible to find someone who agrees with your conclusions, and if that alone earns you the stamp of "Look! They said so too!" that also seems scientifically dubious. Actually I've seen that trick pulled frequently in linguistics studies sadly...
Anyway, I should probably learn more about anthropology. Thanks for the informative response!
Okay, here we go.
"scientifically, there's no valid reason to allow the subject of the study to frame the research how they see fit, even if this leads to an unflattering conclusion."
You aren't giving Native Canadians enough credit. They're probably more astutely self-critical than anyone else. They aren't begging for an easy ride and a nice airbrushed image - in fact, most want the exact opposite! Research that is honest, accurate and reflective, rather than sensationalistic, culturally biased, and racist. They want to be treated respectfully by the researcher who will get their grant or book deal out of it, and time and time again historically, they haven't been. Don't assume that they're all "OMG science is revealing horrible truths about us!" it's more like "OMG this so-called scientist is using us for their personal prestige and what we get in return is another embarrassingly misconceived research paper in which our agency and autonomy have yet again been violated!"
It's not unfair to assume that a Native Canadian researcher with firsthand experience who is already familiar with the particular tribe's culture is less likely to commit that sort of error than a total outsider. Who do you think has a better understanding of the realities of Swedish life - an American, or a Swede? If I say "The Swede, obviously," am I being prejudiced against Americans? Am I judging Americans before I've "gotten to know" them?
Science is not as clean as you think it is. This isn't about measuring plant growth or making chemical compounds, it means studying, assessing and drawing conclusions about a group of fellow humans. It's easy to get that wrong. Look at psychology's history. At different points we thought that black people have inferior brains, that queer people are sick, that gender inequities in society are because of our genes. It's not remotely unreasonable for Native Canadians to be skeptical of the purity of science. It was research reports, after all, that led to 150,000 of their children being abducted and put into residential schools.
"Likewise it seems unfair to automatically distrust all men for the same reason."
I start from a point of distrust with most men (hetero, cis) sexually. Let's preserve the context please. I am not going around screaming "Aaah! A person with a penis!" as I walk down the street. I have wonderful male coworkers and friends - I even have a male partner! So let's not make this about man-hating, shall we?
"There's plenty of anti-feminist women out there that deserve the same ire and caution that you seem to be automatically labeling men with."
Absolutely. But they generally don't have the power to oppress or sexually victimize me if we become intimate, so I don't feel very threatened by them. You're forgetting that men and women are generally assigned differing levels of power and privilege. That doesn't mean "oh, women are less likely to be assholes", it means "women are less likely to have power and privilege". And having less or more power and privilege can affect how you act, how you see the world, and how you interact with others. I'm not saying disadvantaged lifestyles are morally superior, I'm saying they're more congruent with me, and therefore less likely to piss me the hell off.
If you stick to your claim that it's fair to "distrust" male-feminists, you're just ultimately defending actions based on prejudices, and are quickly sliding downhill. I mean honestly...comparing white men to hyenas?
If you really think I was saying white men = hyenas, we are not going to get very far.
If your working experience of prejudice is a female feminist saying "Male self-identified feminists, because of their power and privilege, tend to accidentally or intentionally screw over female feminists, therefore I distrust them until they give me sufficient indication of trustworthiness" then I must say, you've had quite an easy ride. I think you need a slightly more nuanced understanding of prejudice here.
Equality does not mean, "I, a male feminist, should be treated the same as female feminists" because that version of equality hinges on the the existence of a gender utopia where there's no history of oppression of differential treatment and we really can treat everyone the same.
People make the same argument about affirmative action - how can it be equal if people are getting treated differently? Isn't this just creating more injustice?
No, it's reacting and responding to ongoing and historic injustice.
If there's an ongoing history of inequity and oppression, we can't just jump to an era of "treat everyone the same", as nice as that would be. A black guy can't say, "Well, to avoid being a hypocrite, I should assume this white cop will give me the same treatment as this cop of colour." It's not realistic. We don't stand on the same footing and I'm not going to pretend that we do to preserve some abstract and over-simplified idea of what it means to be equal.
"That said, it sounds like you might be instantly trusting people a little too much once you "identify" them to be a woman.
Let's put it in the "male feminist vs. female feminist" context: yes, I trust female feminists more than I trust male feminists. Not because of penises, but because of privilege. People who live with privilege are less likely to understand what it's like to live with disadvantage, and act accordingly. Again, if that assertion = prejudice to you, you really haven't experienced prejudice. Being egalitarian does not mean treating everyone like they're on the same intersection of rungs in society's matrix of ladders - it means treating everyone with consideration of what rung they're on.
That's why I, as a white "ally", choose to comment less in POC spaces even of a POC is making what I consider to be a stupid comment: because I'm aware of the fact that, as a white person, it's easy for me to start taking up all their space and intruding on their opportunity to talk shit through. Is that less or more prejudiced?
"Ultimately I try to not be too much of a hypocrite and try to practice what I preach"
I think you might be suggesting here that I'm hypocritical for expecting that people with privilege are going to act like people with privilege and that people with disadvantage are going to act like people with disadvantage.
I'm not saying that "having privilege" = "being evil". In the same way a hyena (yes! my favourite animal!) isn't "evil" if it bites me. Male feminists aren't more likely to be assholes. They are, however, operating with an involuntary, permanent blind spot called "privilege" that makes it a little easier for them to screw up, a little easier for their good intentions to go awry. You can infer that I'm prejudiced for being cognizant of that, but I'm not going to believe you.
Neither OklahomaExile nor Crypticfortune objected to sexual distrust. They objected to automatic distrust of the merits of male's ideas within feminism. They are very different things.
Sure. And I never said I distrusted male "ideas". I'm talking about behavior.
Sure. And I never said I distrusted male "ideas". I'm talking about behavior.
Wait a sec, you didn't? I thought this whole discussion was about the role of male-feminists, and therefore you were necessarily referring to male "ideas." If you were talking only about "behavior", that colors what you said in a very different light, and then I think maybe 80% of my argument is moot... I think our disagreement is now much much smaller. =/
Sorry. that makes my response very confusing =(
I don't know what you mean by ideas. I'll quote Zailyn from this thread:
I think one of the things that has been bugging me so much about this conversation is that, frankly, a lot of the men have been talking about feminism from a very philosophical/theoretical/way of thinking type argument and not really accepting that this is something that impinges on women's actual *lives* in a way that it doesn't on (cis) men's.
I'm not talking about what men think of feminism or their "ideas". I'm talking about how they do feminism on a concrete level here, i.e., behavior.
Re: the science bit
Incidentally it would be helpful to see this paper you're alluding to, because at the moment it's kind of abstract. I mean, I know that that they're lots of fishy social science out there, and that it's much harder to do reliable science on social groups like people than it is a nice reliable plant that sits there and just grows for you all day. But it's really not fair to go accusing the researchers of being evil and out for "personal prestige at the expense of group X's agency and autonomy." For the most part, I believe (partly out of necessity, because like I said, I'm a scienctist) that scientists working on peer reviewed research in any field are generally trying to be responsible, work hard to be ethical, produce reliable and useful results. There's no agency or autonomy being "violated" by me writing about you. I can say what you did, I can say what I saw, and that has done nothing to prevent you from doing the same. For your Swede vs. American example, why should I trust a Swede over the American when say, for example, the American has spent years studying Sweden and actually went through the work and peer review process to actually produce a scientific paper on "Swedish Life", or the Swede who (again, for example) sits at home playing Nintendo Wii and says "That paper? Ya, that's a load of crap. I'm a Swede. I know Sweden better than some stupid American." Has the Swede done any work or research to validate that claim? No, sie just knows thinks the paper doesn't fit with the Swedish world that sie's seen sitting at home on hir Wii. Whatever. The two claims might not be mutually exclusive (maybe it's a paper about Swedes who sit at home playing on their Wii?). But if the Swede wants to write hir own paper, sie damn well can!! And if anyone's stopping hir it's not the scientists but the organizations funding the scientists (or rather not funding the Swedes). Attacking the scientists is wasting your time.
Re: distrust
Based on your comment to OaklahomaExile "I apologize for misconstruing your request as one for instant trust. However, I still disagree with your request that I rein in my instant distrust." Up until the point where I'm talking about personal safety (which, thank god, I think we agree on), I was talking about distrust in the "male feminist vs. female feminist" context. You're argument seems to be standing on a couple of key assumptions:
1) people with priviledge screw shit up
Ok, no complaints here. It's silly to try to blame those not in power....
2) people without priviledge don't screw shit up or maybe more in your words are "less likely to piss me the hell off."
You say that this is because "women are less likely to have power and privilege. And having less or more power and privilege can affect how you act, how you see the world, and how you interact with others". You said that you're "not saying disadvantaged lifestyles are morally superior" but I think that you're unavoidably supporting that conclusion. You're granting those of a disadvantaged life style priviledge within the context of "feminism" over those who already had it in some other context. You say that to criticize this is to criticize affirmative action, but I don't think that's necessarily true. What is feminism if not simply a school of thought and an exchange of ideas? Maybe when placing people in positions of power it's necessary to apply some affirmative action to correct pre-existing biases (I don't think affirmative action is about "reparations" as you seem to imply). We're not in a utopia yet. But I don't want to shoot for the middle. Baby steps where necessary, sure, but why, if all we're doing is exchanging ideas, do you think female-feminists deserve a foot-up over male-feminists? It's that idea that I can't get behind, and why I think your anthropology/science analogy is out of place. You're saying that by treating male-feminists the same as female-feminists they're going to fuck everything up, but I see no reason to distrust female-feminists less than male-feminists (see anti-feminist female bit that we agreed on). Since we're only talking about giving people equal voice in a discussion, it seems wantonly prejudiced to bias that decision. There's no reason we can't have a discussion in a (utopian) gender neutral space now (and in general, I think we do. Until a topic like this comes up and forces us to pick sides anyway). Also, what about all the males in the lbgt community? Most lbgt goals are generally aligned with feminist goals, and generally have their own share of "adversity and disadvantage" but you're willing to write them off just because they also fit into the category of "male-feminist?" No. I don't buy that. You're imposing a prejudice where none are necessary. Basically you're fighting to rationalize a way to consider ideas based not on their content, but rather who's saying them. I don't see how that cannot be called anything but prejudice.
Re: my experience with prejudice
You said: If your working experience of prejudice is a female feminist saying "Male self-identified feminists, because of their power and privilege, tend to accidentally or intentionally screw over female feminists, therefore I distrust them until they give me sufficient indication of trustworthiness" then I must say, you've had quite an easy ride. I think you need a slightly more nuanced understanding of prejudice here.
No need to get patronizing. That's not my working experience. I don't have to be female to have a working experience of prejudice. It's probably because I have other experience with prejudice that it so concerns me that you're so nonchalantly supporting one (albeit relatively minor) prejudice without drawing the line where it crosses into something more sinister. Your motivations don't change the fact that it is a form of prejudice.
Re: equality
You said We don't stand on the same footing and I'm not going to pretend that we do to preserve some abstract and over-simplified idea of what it means to be equal.
We don't stand on the same footing, that's true, I won't deny that. But I believe that acting based on prejudice is fundamentally hurtful and something we should strive to avoid. We seem to fundamentally disagree on this point. I don't think being that being cognizant of our differences is a bad thing, but you're supporting making a snap judgment based on these differences (eg. trust the black cop not the white cop! sie gets me!), which breaks a social contract, and I think ultimately hurts people, and stifles progress. You're ok with that. I'm not.
Anyway, thanks for the long, thought out response. It provided much contemplation, and I kept me up way too late writing this. Hopefully it makes some sense, even if we don't reach a happy agreement like you and OaklahomaExile.
"Incidentally it would be helpful to see this paper you're alluding to, because at the moment it's kind of abstract."
Recommended reading - good starting reads outlining the situation, with lots of references to lead you on to more sources:
Nielson, M., & Gould, L. (2007). Non-Native scholars doing research in Native American communities: A matter of respect. The Social Science Journal, 44(3), p. 420-433
D. Mihesuah (editor). (1998). Natives and academics: Discussions on researching and writing about American Indians, University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, NE.
Cochrane, P., et al. (2007). Indigenous ways of knowing: Implications for participatory research and community. American Journal of Public Health, 98(1) p. 22-27.
Thomas, D.P. (2004). Reading Doctors' Writing: Race, Politics and Power in Indigenous Health Research, 1870-1969. Aboriginal Studies Press.
...and of course, the academic classic:
Smith, L.T. (1999). Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples. Zed Books.
But it's really not fair to go accusing the researchers of being evil and out for "personal prestige at the expense of group X's agency and autonomy."
I would never call someone evil. I don't believe in evil. Sometimes "evil" is good people with good intentions screwing up.
"scientists working on peer reviewed research in any field are generally trying to be responsible, work hard to be ethical, produce reliable and useful results."
I absolutely don't doubt that they try.
"There's no agency or autonomy being "violated" by me writing about you."
Depends on your research methods and what you write, right?
"For your Swede vs. American example, why should I trust a Swede over the American when say, for example, the American has spent years studying Sweden and [etc etc etc]"
That's a good point. The hypothetical American could be a total Swede scholar. (I have to say, do you have something against Swedes? I just don't imagine Swedes as that hostile.) But it's hard to study privilege and disadvantage. There are some things that you can only completely learn by living them.
"Attacking the scientists is wasting your time."
When I attack someone there's significantly more pouncing action and gnashing of teeth involved. I'll let you know if I start attacking, and then you can accuse me of it. Although it's sweet that you're concerned that I manage my time effectively.
"2) people without priviledge don't screw shit up or maybe more in your words are "less likely to piss me the hell off.""
People without privilege can absolutely screw up. But it's a lot harder for them to screw up in a privileged or oppressive way, which is the type of screw-up I'm particularly concerned about. I know you've got that gut reaction of "BUT WOMEN DO THIS TOO! BUT DISADVANTAGED PEOPLE DO THIS TOO!" Yes, but it's a little different contextually. Check out the "But That Happens To Me Too!" section at http://www.derailingfordummies.com.
"You said that you're "not saying disadvantaged lifestyles are morally superior" but I think that you're unavoidably supporting that conclusion. You're granting those of a disadvantaged life style priviledge within the context of "feminism" over those who already had it in some other context."
If you think my supposed receptiveness to female feminists = "privilege" then I think we are working from drastically different notions of what privilege is. I am not omnipotent, I can't go around granting people privilege like a privilege tooth fairy.
Also I don't know how your second sentence supports your first sentence.
"What is feminism if not simply a school of thought and an exchange of ideas?"
I have to be honest - that, to me, is the farthest thing from what my feminism is. I'm going to quote Zailyn again:
I think one of the things that has been bugging me so much about this conversation is that, frankly, a lot of the men have been talking about feminism from a very philosophical/theoretical/way of thinking type argument and not really accepting that this is something that impinges on women's actual *lives* in a way that it doesn't on (cis) men's.
Feminism, to me, is not an "exchange of ideas". That's what I call discourse.
"if all we're doing is exchanging ideas, do you think female-feminists deserve a foot-up over male-feminists?"
Again, feminism to me isn't about exchanging ideas. It's about, you know, doing shit.
You, male feminist, do not need a "foot up", from me, female feminist. You are confusing who has the privilege here. And I'm not giving female feminists a "foot up". I'm not, like, the boss of feminism, handing out ladder rungs.
I used an affirmative action example purely to discuss the problematic idea of "equal = same treatment", and now you're discussing it as though I'm practicing affirmative action or as though male feminists are being denied an opportunity or something. Let's be clear here, you don't need me, or anything from me, and I don't need you, or anything from you. Nobody will ever know, generally, whether I trust or distrust them as a feminist. I don't go around telling people, "I trust you, Jane!" or "By the way, John, you've lost my trust." So it's not like female feminists are reaping any benefits here, nor are male feminist losing any. My trust is not a health benefits package.
"You're saying that by treating male-feminists the same as female-feminists they're going to fuck everything up,"
I have no idea where or when I said that or even implied it. Fuck everything up? Feminism is not some precariously organized wedding in which male feminists are the drunk party-crasher swaggering down the aisle. I'm not saying male feminists will fuck everything up. I'm saying that because of the aforementioned privilege blind spot, they're more likely to do something to hurts or offends me personally in a privileged way.
"I see no reason to distrust female-feminists less than male-feminists"
I believe, crazy as it might be, that male feminists are more likely to screw up in a gender privileged way than female feminists. Therefore, I trust female feminists more with respect to their propensity to screw up in a gender privileged way. Female feminists can certainly screw up in other ways, but for the purposes of this conversation, gender privileged screwups are the type that I'm concerned about. (Race and sexuality and everything else is another can of worms.) I don't see what the problem is here.
"Since we're only talking about giving people equal voice in a discussion,"
What?
"...it seems wantonly prejudiced to bias that decision."
Look, I don't know what to tell you here. Your idea of prejudice is clearly very different from my idea of prejudice.
"There's no reason we can't have a discussion in a (utopian) gender neutral space now"
Well, the fact that this utopia doesn't exist is a good start. Yes. Even on Feministing!
"Also, what about all the males in the lbgt community?"
Gay males still have male privilege. It's just a bit wonkier because it's interacting with their considerable sexuality disadvantage. Doesn't mean it doesn't exist. For example, in GLBT events, the hierarchy tends to fall according to the acronym. You're right though, in this discussion I'm thinking primarily of het cis male feminists, for whom male privilege is a greater boon.
"Basically you're fighting to rationalize a way to consider ideas based not on their content, but rather who's saying them."
Not consider "ideas", as mentioned earlier. Consider letting someone into my personal and political life and trusting their behavior regarding issues that are feel quite vulnerable to me. Male feminists often have the same ideas as female feminists. But they are more likely to have certain behaviors that I'm not cool with - such as speaking over me in a gender-privileged way, as one example.
Anyway, this probably shouldn't continue, as your argument hinges on the idea that my behavior is prejudiced and that I should stop it, whereas my argument hinges on the idea that my behavior is not prejudiced. Furthermore, I really don't care if you feel like I'm damaging some abstract movement or ideal - I am, frankly, completely unconcerned with whether a male feminist is wounded or insulted by my distrust.
I gave my good feminist card away a long time ago.
Anyway, this probably shouldn't continue...
I agree. I thought you were arguing something you weren't. My mistake. I also feel bad for coming off sounding like "feminism is all theoretical talk, no action" because I don't believe that, and totally agree with your response to that.
Also, no I don't have anything against Swedes. That was a purely hypothetical (though I don't think too far fetched) example. I want my papers on Swedish Life papers to be written by total "Sweden Scholars" =P
Ghost, thanks so much for your saint's patience throughout this comment section. Seriously, at certain comments steam was coming out of my ears like a tea kettle-- I admire your verve and completely, COMPLETELY agree with everything you've said.
I don't know if you check out other blogs - for all I know you're a regular at these places - but if you're sometimes driven a little nuts by this stuff, I highly recommend Little Light (takingsteps.blogspot.com), BFP (flipfloppingjoy.com), and BlackAmazon (guyaneseterror.blogspot.com). They write things that make me cry, make me defensive, and make me think and think and think. If you're a white feminist, and you spend lots of time lurking with them (and their fellow WOC bloggers), you might have (or already have had!) the same experience I had -- looking in the mirror and noticing that my feminism suddenly looks completely fucked up and broken - and I mean that in a good way. It really gives you perspective.
I've realized that this sense of entitlement - "You should make my experience as a privileged person in a marginalized space one that conforms to my wishes and expectations, otherwise you're being hostile/prejudiced/movement-sabotaging/hypocritical/etc" - is a problem that we all can have. It's scary but it gives me a sense of detachment as I watch the same old tropes play out, over and over. There's a kind of relief that happens when you lose faith, you know?
As Emily Dickinson put it, "After great pain a formal feeling comes...this is the hour of lead, remembered if outlived, as freezing persons recollect the snow-- first chill, then stupor, then the letting go."
Anyway, clearly if I'm waxing poetic it's past my bedtime. I really, really appreciate your support.
Ghostorchid, thank you so much for your patience and articulate description of experiences! I had no words to describe how I felt about this and you have articulated it exactly. And I can't believe how you just keep going! I usually give up eventually because it feels like it never stops, they aren't actually listening (without some sort of defensiveness) and I don't owe it to them. Your ability to take patronizing comments with patience and turn it into discussion is admirable!
Hi all. I haven't had time to read through all comments so forgive me if there's some repetition in what I say. I just want to offer a couple of simple points. I am a male feminist, a very proud one at that. I believe it is extremely important that men can, and do, identify as feminists, and that they take part to whatever degree they can in the discourse that circles around feminism. However, and I think this is crucial, my feminism will always cede to a woman's feminism. I believe I have vital things to contribute to the debate from a male perspective, but I think an important awareness within that contribution should be to never presume to speak for or over women about subjects which at their heart come out of the experience of women, and strike most personally to the feminine, and not masculine, experience. Often a caring act (a man's participation in feminist debate, or just everyday women's issues) can end up performing and reinforcing (inadvertently) those same hierarchies that lie at the base of feminism. This is not always the case, but in my experience I have tried to develop a sort of reflex whereby I recognise that a man's contribution is the last thing that's needed, that the space in which the debate or discussion is taking place would thrive more readily if it were not colonised, however unintentionally or locally, by the male perspective. That was slightly long-winded, sorry, hope it makes sense. What I am essentially trying to say is that I believe men are important to feminism, but that they would do well to subvert past history, in however small a way, by recognising their necessary sub-ordination in this arena to women.
From Stephen Graham:
"...my feminism will always cede to a woman's feminism."
From questioning?:
"If male allies find themselves routinely disagreeing with feminists, then it is likely that privilege is at the heart of the disagreements."
Comments like these set off my alarms - it's this kind of thinking that radical groups use to enforce orthodoxy. Just swap out "male allies" for "bourgeois-born Marxists" and "feminists" for "true proletarians," for instance.
It is the feminist position that just because someone's a woman doesn't mean she's intellectually inferior (pace centuries of prejudice), but that does not automatically imply that just because someone is female means she's right. For *any given group* of feminists, if I find myself in routine disagreement with them, it's conceivable that it's because *they're wrong* (and vice versa, in all fairness). If we write off that option, we've stopped being a rational social movement and crossed the line into the political lunatic fringe. Next come the robes and the Kool-Aid, and I'm not down with that.
Now, finding oneself in routine disagreement with feminist thought as a whole is a different beast altogether, and I think I agree with questioning?'s analysis in *that* case - probably the result of privilege and the desire to retain it. But it's an absolutely VITAL distinction to draw.
Of course, all this turns on the belief that there is some sort of objective, non-gendered reality at play somewhere, which can provide some gender-neutral norm of correctness for the evaluation of *certain* (and only certain) acts/proposals/ideas/etc., and I realize that some people will reject this claim (for reasons both intellectually respectable and not).
Of course being a woman doesn't make her intellectually superior or automatically right. But it does make her lived experience more relevant and central, and it does increase the chances that a male voice will be privileged over hers. Exponentially increases the chance...
I assumed the overrated/underrated post relating to men who are feminists was suggesting they are underrated by society at large, rather than by the feminist community.
As a man who is a feminist, I have actually never felt my maleness has resulted in any unwarranted prejudice towards me in feminist communities. By and large everyone here is a stand-up person.
Of course, I don't feel like I need a 'behaves like a decent human being' merit badge either -- I'm just glad there's somewhere on the internet where I can go to not feel like a crazy person temporarily (in contrast to nearly every other blog on the internet with their 'ten more reasons why men are different from women' news stories).
I took the rating of male feminists as overrated to mean that people often put too much emphasis on male feminists with the overshadowing of the contributions of women..... again. I am sick and tired of the last line of many women rights events being "Men are welcome, too!" I have yet to see an event that says, "Women are welcome!" Not only are most of my professional meetings based around the supposed male-norm, but now even the women's events have to go out of the their way to say that they won't scare off TEH MENZ! Heck, I even heard that the Women in the Law class at my law school started off by thanking the men in the class. All I can think is, "Great, another class that is all about men. I deal with men getting all the attention everywhere else, do I need it in the women's studies classes, too?"
Is this male feminists fault? No.
Do I think people tend to overrate male feminists? YES!
"Heck, I even heard that the Women in the Law class at my law school started off by thanking the men in the class."
Haha, two women's studies classes I took in undergrad pretty much started out the same way.
"Hi class, I'm professor X. Look we have men here! Wow!"
In fact, the TA in one of my small sections (non-feminist identified guy who was getting a master's in masculinity studies or something), started out the first day of class asking us to go around the room, say our names, and the women should tell the class about a strong female role model in our lives and the men should explain why they took a women's study course. The non-feminist identified men laughed, and the feminist-identified men were pissed!
As a male, I can say that I've always felt welcome here in the Feministing community. I think the "overrated" thing is a bit odd, but, oh well. Keep on rockin'...
-Joe
Whenever this topic comes up, I think about bell hooks' idea: instead of saying "I am a feminist," saying "I advocate feminism." The difference is profound, I think, in that it doesn't attach a person to a label, making feminism look like just one thing. It is also more action-oriented; claiming to be a feminist and advocating it are two different sentiments. I dig it. I think this also speaks to the male feminist dilemma: can't we ALL advocate for feminism? Don't we want men to do that? This is perhaps a way to change this conversation: it makes us female feminists more action-oriented, while also allowing our male (and trans, and gender queer, and others that don't readily identify as female/woman) to support feminism, as all of us have a stake in its advocacy.
I feel like I set off an inferno and while I'm happy to see the discussion, I don't know how pleased I am to see the knives come out.
My intention with the post I had made was to call into question why it appeared so much since it appeared to me that men-as-feminists were being thrown under a bus. We are an important part of the movement, but we're not the entire movement. The contributions of men are important, NOW was partially gotten rolling by a man (thanks to Puncbuggy_Green who showed me that) and there have been other men who have contributed a great deal to the feminist movement.
With this in mind, the cookie giving is ridiculous. I never intended to imply or state that I should be rewarded just because I stand up for something. It's cool that I have an opinion, and I am often in a minority opinion when I post (which is WHY I comment, mind), and I love that I get to discuss it with other like-minded people. We're a groovy bunch here and I like it here.
I wanted to take an observation, discuss it a little with myself, share my thoughts and really see if what I thought matched with the greater reality. In some cases, I was right. In others, it appears, I was wrong. I've learned a lot the last couple days, probably more than since Rachel_in_WY and I were discussing Porn a while back.
As for the people who've been questioning the value of this discussion, I think it's important because it's showing where our basic theories lie for feminism. The other issues we discuss are centered, even in part, around how we view feminism itself and how we view feminism with others.
I had keyed into a big discussion about "who can really be feminist" and it's turned into an awesome learning experience.
I really hope everyone comes away from this with positivity like I have. If anything, I'm warmer and fuzzier about this place now than I was before.
For me I think the main issue with the men in feminism debate is not the word men, but the word feminism.
How are we defining the term? Off the top of my head I can think of quite a few different definitions, all of which have different implications about who can be involved and what sorts of roles they can play.
If feminism is about gender equality, then anybody regardless of genders or lack thereof can be involved.
If feminism is about women's rights...then I suppose anybody can be involved, but women would stay central.
If feminism is about women's liberation...then I'm not sure there is any role for men.
If feminism is a philosophical way of parsing the universe...then anyone can learn that way of thinking.
We use feminism as an identity word, (I'm a feminist)...but also a theoretical framework (feminist theory), but also a movement, and any number of other things. And we use it for really different positions. Valerie Solanas and the SCUM manifesto calls herself a feminist. As does Camille Paglia. Sandy Stone and Mary Daly. The radicalesbians and Betty Friedan...and Susan B Anthony...and Madonna.
When it comes to race. People don't see the Civil Rights movement and the Black Power movement as being the same. And there was room for Euro-Americans in the Civil Rights movement as leaders as members...but there was no room for Whitey in the Black Power Revolution. Different words. Feminism has only one. Furthermore, there is no identity noun in race that way. I mean, I suppose you could say, Black Nationalist...but that is really specific and not all that applicable to say Martin Luther King Jr.
In terms of class there is no noun either...maybe Marxist...but that is also really specific, and doesn't include a lot of people dealing with class struggle.
Yet here we have Feminist. In some definitions of Feminism it is more than appropriate for men to identify as feminists...in other it makes no sense. But we are all working on slightly adjacent definitions.
Someone upthread said that feminism is about women's rights. That's one definition. But it could be about female consciousness raising. It could be about Revolution. Or lesbianism or separatism or getting access to running a Fortune 500 company. So many different things. Some people think of Maggie Thatcher as a feminist success...others disagree violently. What to do?
My interest is in gender equity. I always considered myself feminist because of that. But others would disagree.
So, can men be feminist? Depends on one's definition of feminism.
And then the next question becomes, who has the right to decide on that definition?
You touch it with a pin.
Through this whole extended discussion, I'd be searching for a way to articulate this correctly.
Thank you!! I think we've been shouting at eachother about different definitions all week.
When for the longest time your being has been defined by someone who has not experienced whatever you are, then when someone from that same subset comes in claiming they have now joined their arms with yours in order to fight the exact same issues, it causes suspicion and hesitation. I think there is a valid distancing of support vs. the same stake in the fight. How can there be? I don't have the same stake in the fight against racism since I am not a person of color. I don't have the same stake in military issues, not being a military member. As noted, I can walk away from those issues. It doesn't mean I am incapable of caring about these issues, but I think I should also examine why exactly I would expect my experiences as outside of this group to be given equal consideration as from those members, or to be considered a key player or a leader. Is that reasonable of me to expect that? Even after many years metaphorically side-by-side, my experiences are still not the same. I do not think that being considered a great supporter is a poor consolation prize in light of that.
FWIW, I'd say about half of the male students who take my feminist theory course do think they deserve a cookie and/or are motivated by the belief that there will be hot girls in the class just hoping and waiting for a nice feminist man to come in and sweep them off their feet. Many of them even find it appropriate to hit on me. Further, if I had a dollar for every guy who has used the "don't feel threatened by me; I'm a feminist, sweetie" type line on me at the bar I could probably take you and I both out to a movie and buy popcorn with the remaining funds. Sadly, a couple of these were my former students. (may I just say that small college towns suck?)
So I do think the "don't think you deserve a cookie" attitude is merited. That doesn't mean of course, that male feminists who are sincere can't earn the trust of female feminists. But the surprise that some commenters here have expressed concerning the cookie issue probably just reflects the fact that they haven't interacted with the "I deserve a cookie" types and aren't aware of the "wow, a male feminist, let's give him a cookie" mentality that's quite prevalent.
Why shouldn't they find it appropriate to hit on you?
In general, though I agree with what you're saying. I took a couple of Women's Studies courses, many years ago, and I had *exactly* that "Look, a male feminist, give me a bikky" attitude that you describe. It's what makes me so suspicious of men who insist on being called "feminists" now.
In the context they mean it, "feminism" means "feminist culture", and men are NEVER going to be part of feminist culture. Trying to ingratiate themselves into feminist circles by being "super-feminist" is a desire that ought to be psycho-analysed, not rewarded.
I have tried to express what I think men should be for feminism a number of times, andit has come out wrong each time. Basically I think that their role is to be respectful, critical and engaged but always *outside*, and self-consciously outside.
Wait is that sarcasm? Is it ever appropriate for a student to hit on their teacher?
Whoops, I ought to have that more carefully. :P
OH wait sorry I just reread the posts. Should have figured you assumed she was a student.
This is an interesting argument to be having on a largely anonymous/pseudonymous online forum where we really have no idea who is male and who is female. Not that that negates any of what is being said, I just find it kind of intriguing; I imagine there would be a few males out there who would appropriate a female identity in order to participate on a feminist website, or maybe vice versa for the purposes of social experiment.
its certainly happened a lot with trolls here.
just curious- when you say "outside", do you mean outside of Feministing? Just trying to understand what you mean by that phrase.
i just cannot accept this attitude from some in this movement that men need to "earn trust" while women automatically enjoy it until they prove unworthy.
this is the mentality of victims.
yes, some of us have indeed been victimized.
but i don't believe that healing from past injuries teaches you how to avoid them in the future.
as feminists, i don't believe we cannot expect to dismantle a patriarchal structure and find any sort of equality while operating with the mentality that we have been victimized by the other half of humanity. even if it's true. we have to operate as if we have a better proposal for living, and, for me, treating those who have a specific privilege as if they are automatically hostile is just the other side of the same coin that we hate.
after ass, most of us don't automatically assume that those who, say, seek higher education do so with the intent of oppressing those who don't have that education.
sorry that it says "after ass".....i had been typing "after assuming: at some point and then deleted it, but obviously fucked it all up.
i blame finals.
:)
For some of us, trust is a privilege and a luxury and an elusive treasure. Something that is found in others, not nervously given. For some of us, trust is not a political obligation toward a movement that repeatedly rejects my lovers and friends because they aren't white or cis or what-have-you while insisting that because it's inclusive in theory it surely must be inclusive in practice.
Excuse me if I'm not going to put myself on the chopping block in an abstract gesture toward a movement I don't believe in and often don't belong in.
If feminism crumples because of people like me, it will crumple anyway.
to me, this is uncomfortably similar to saying that two wrongs make a right.
Well honestly, baddesign, your replies feel uncomfortably close to "turn the other cheek, otherwise men will feel left out and hate you EVEN MORE". And when your best male friend rapes you, don't act suspicious with all dudes! And when some dude hits you, for gawd's sake don't judge other men for it. And when you find out that your male colleagues are making 25% more than you, just don't make waves! This is about unity!
Totally wack.
I think that is a sensationalist misrepresentation of baddesignhurts's position. It doesn't seem to me like you are attempting a constructive arguement here, especially when you are so dismissive of your opposition's argument with phrases like "Totally wack."
Secondly, as a victim of both rape and domestic violence, I understand how traumatic responses can color interactions with a group. That doesn't make it okay to blame that group. The nuances of this are being discussed quite seriously up the thread, and I think that might be a good resource or area for your input if you disagree.
It is NOT okay to hold an entire group responsible for the actions of one person. I was raped by an outspoken feminist. Does that mean its okay if I judge other feminists for it? Of course not.
I've already contributed upthread, and I think baddesign and yourself are the ones with overly simplistic positions. Oppression occurs at both a systemic and everyday level. I'd encourage you to check out some radfem theory-- some of which asserts that all men ARE complicit in the oppression conferred by male privilege.
I never advocated "blaming an entire group for the action of one individual", I advocated that feminism should accept women who do not feel comfortable around or trust men, for good reasons. You have no right to tell them they are being prejudiced when they are protecting themselves. And FWIW, I think that rapists and feminists are mutually exclusive categories. Your rapist was most certainly NOT a feminist.
"turn the other cheek"? i'm talking about people that have never done anything to me; how can i "turn the other cheek"?
you know, men aren't abusing me with their maleness just by being men.
totally wack.
Ghost, thanks so much for your saint's patience throughout this comment section. Seriously, at certain comments steam was coming out of my ears like a tea kettle-- I admire your verve and completely, COMPLETELY agree with everything you've said.
When people say things like "you shouldn't hold an entire group responsible for the actions of one person" I feel like it is ignoring the power/privilege difference in society. And it devalues systematic everyday oppressions that are happening to marginalized groups.
First of all, systemic oppression isn't the actions of one person. its the actions of a group/system, the patriarchy, in the case of feminism.
But judging all people in one group for the actions of a member of that group is prejudice--thats not ignoring privilege, unless you believe that having privilege automatically makes a person oppressive. By that logic, men rape because of privilege, and therefore all men are complicit in rape because they have that privilege? That, to me, is a simplistic view of privilege, that privilege constitutes the mens rea.
preeeeeee-cisely. :)
But your view is a bit oversimplified. Systemic oppression isn't new and it does still exist, whether you choose to acknowledge it or not. White males do exist with a great deal of privilege in our culture, and this gives them an incentive to retain the misogynistic attitudes and behaviors that they've inherited from their culture. And sadly, most of them do. So not automatically trusting every man you meet is a rational position for a woman, or any oppressed person, and not one that's motivated by emotion, as you suggest. It would be irrational and foolish of me to go around automatically trusting every man I meet when I know nothing about him. I have been attacked and stalked and all that in my life. But more importantly, I fight the "old boys club" every single day, and have to work twice as hard to get my academic work taken seriously, to be seen as an intelligent person rather than just an objectified female body, etc. And many, many other women experience this every day too. So suggesting that we owe it to men to simply trust them all on sight and then withdraw that trust once they've proven they don't deserve it is to require women to behave in an irrational manner. I'm not saying I automatically distrust any man I meet. I'm just saying I don't owe them immediate trust, and if they want to establish their feminist credentials they can do it through their words and actions.
perhaps it IS irrational. but there are plenty of rational behaviors we don't engage in because they're morally reprehensible. for example, it might be "rational" to buy a gas-guzzling car, because gas is relatively inexpensive. doesn't make it the right thing to do, in my view.
and, for the record, i actually think it's wiser to treat everyone's ideas with a healthy skepticism, rather than instant trust.
i've been the victim of prejudice. that means i have the moral charge to stop perpetuating it.
I don't get how not automatically trusting every man you meet is prejudice. I don't automatically trust every woman I meet either. People earn trust through their words and actions. I'm sorry, but I'm with Sartre here: "don't tell me who you are; show me who you are."
Or for those who prefer scripture: "By their works you shall know them..." (I have no idea where that's from).
I believe that the original author of the Overrated/Underrated conversation began with expressing her opinion that male feminists are in fact underrated...I guess I must have missed the rest of the conversation where everyone disagreed. I think male feminists are awesome. I know I need more of them in my life, especially to remind me that this sort of a revolution is not hopeless. But isn't that partially what the feminist movement is about, change? How do we truly make this world a safe place for women if the other gender isn't on board?
And I think the issue was actually a bit more nuanced than that. The responses I saw were critical of the fact that male feminists often get a disproportionate amount of praise because people perceive their identifying as feminist as going above and beyond. One commenter (can't remember who) very aptly compared it to how people fawn over a dad who's not completely detached and incompetent. I can't tell you how many times people have marveled over the fact that my partner is changing a diaper or taking charge of bathtime when I'm busy. Nobody blinks when I do these things. And I think there often is a parallel dynamic here. But feeling irritated by that dynamic does not amount to saying that men have no place in feminism, or should only play a minor, peripheral role, or whatever.
Hm. Is the comparison to a dad who isn't "completely detached" apt? I'm just throwing this out, to see what you think of it, but consider...
If it is the stance of feminist theory that privilege not only makes it hard to notice the plight of the disadvantaged class(es), but that it also provides a powerful disincentive for actively opposing the structure of privilege, isn't it legitimately notable when someone (a) manages to see clearly the problem despite being in an epistemically disadvantageous situation and (b) chooses to go ahead and act against his own (limited-sphere) interests and in accord with what he thinks is the right thing to do?
Dismissing this as "just being a decent human being" is unfairly downplaying the extent to which the patriarchy not only disadvantages women but also punishes men who "defect" from the system of gender roles we have in our society. If we honestly think this occurs - that the enforcement of gender roles affects both genders - then men who support feminism are not only risking censure (albeit possibly less severe than what women would face - but not necessarily), but also giving up a benefit in order to do so, since they would, ostensibly, get to enjoy the advantages of their male role if they just "shut up and went along."
Abstract away from feminism specifically, and I think almost everyone would agree that when presented with cases (a) doing what's right and (b) doing what's right at - possibly great - personal cost, case (b) is the more praiseworthy.
Certainly, when applying this sort of reasoning to class issues, we think it particularly praiseworthy when members of the economic elite are willing to act against their own economic interests and institute social and political policies that are just, precisely because they take a hit in the wallet.
Likewise, when considering cases of corporate malfeasance, is not the "whistleblower" lauded for his or her bravery and willingness to stand up for what's right even in the face of dire consequence?
So, basically, I'm wondering, isn't there *some* ground for thinking that it is, in fact, particularly noteworthy when a man "breaks ranks" and supports feminism, in a manner that is distinct from the way in which a member of the oppressed class would support efforts to dismantle the system of oppression, and thus deserving of particular comment?
Obviously, to the extent that one denies that doing the right thing at great cost is better than doing the right thing tout court, one will likely deny this claim.
Likewise, to the extent that one denies that the privileged class in an inequitable system is at a disadvantage when it comes to *perceiving* said injustice, one will have ground to deny this claim at least in part.
Finally, to the extent that one believes that men do not punish "defectors" from the traditional gender role system in significant ways, one will likely not support this claim.
But I think most feminists, male and female, hold all three of these views - I'll freely admit, I haven't taken a poll and could be mistaken about that.
Anyway, just a consideration.
Look, I've never had a problem with male feminists, and I do agree that it's harder for them to see the issues women face everyday, since they don't experience this themselves. And I'm pleased that most of my male friends are passionate, articulate feminists. Very pleased. But the whole "I deserve a cookie" thing is offensive, and many, many men simply claim to be feminists when they're in the presence of a feminist woman in order to try to get her attention. It really does happen all the time. Further, many female feminists do fawn all over males who claim a feminist position, and I think it's a little overkill.
And I do think the comparison to involved dads is a good one. People rave about how well my partner "babysits" our kids. And I feel like WTF???? They're his kids too. I didn't crank 'em out on my own. I do agree that he's been socialized not to be as engaged in parenting, and that he had to overcome these cultural attitudes to be that way. But I was socialized not to be deeply invested in my career, and not to change the oil in my vehicle, and not to be assertive and strong and confident, but nobody gives me a cookie for doing all these things and being a very engaged parent at the same time...
And I do think the comparison with white allies to PoC is also apt here. I've benefited all my life from white privilege, so it is harder for me to see many instances of systemic oppression involving PoC in my world. But when I do, and when I point it out and critique it and take action to try to bring about change, I don't think I deserve a cookie. Not being a racist asshole doesn't get you a cookie. And not being a misogynist asshole shouldn't get you one either.
Well, I can say I'm foursquare against fawning in general. It's undignified. And certainly the "I deserve a cookie" attitude is offensive, no doubt about it. I'm not sure that's what I'm talking about, here.
I'm just suggesting that it might be the case that there is, in fact, a particular kind of praiseworthy act going on when someone (a) overcomes the barriers of privilege that hinder him or her from even seeing how privilege affects those who lack it and (b) acts in a way that might reasonably cause loss of privilege.
I guess the operative idea here is that it's harder to do the right thing, and correspondingly more praiseworthy when you do, when you have incentive not to. Is that the part you're disagreeing with? It was hard for me to tell from your post.
See, again I agree with you, until you assert that overcoming the barrier of privilege is a praiseworthy act. Praising stepping out of gender roles for men is giving them a cookie. After all, women give up many of their patriarchal benefits when they become feminists, so why do men get cookies instead? Because they overcame more privilege?
Instead of seeing stepping out of gender roles as worthy of praise from feminists, I see it as worthy of a incremental level of respect. We step out of our gender roles, we overcome the undeserved benefits of SOME of our privilege, we have sacrificed a little bit to be a feminist. No praise, no second class status. Just feminist.
Okay, I think I get it. I was missing the part about women also giving up the "benefits" (such as they are) of the patriarchy by becoming feminists. Hm. Okay, yeah, I see what I was missing, now.
Thanks, Rachel and dangerfield!
I cannot express how refreshing your tone and willingness to see multiple sides of arguments and work towards real understanding between the many conflicting viewpoints is on this blog. I hope you continue to comment on feministing for a really long time.