I remember this guy at Columbia College (I went to Barnard) who was sort of known as "too smart for school." He walked around with his floppy hair and his bemused scowl and started up what began as innocent little conversations about this or that, but quickly turned into all out assaults on the feeble minded person (usually a woman) that he had set his sights on. For a time, I was deeply intimidated by him. Once, I almost cried when we got into a conversation about ethics of one kind or another. Now, when I look back, I realize that he was Bill O'Reilly in a skinny hipster body with post-modern aesthetics. He was a blowhard who got off on making other people feel not as smart, especially if those other people were women.
I thought about him today when I read this Chicago Tribune article about a new group on the University of Chicago campus called Men in Power. Apparently the group evolved when Steve Saltarelli, a third-year in the College majoring in Law, Letters, and Society, wrote a satirical article about starting such a group in the campus newspaper. An excerpt:
next quarter will feature a number of events aimed to raise the profile of Men in Power on campus. Firstly, we will be hosting weekly study breaks/screenings of movement-oriented films, including: A Few Good Men, 12 Angry Men, Men of Honor (and many other Cuba Gooding Jr. masterpieces), All the President's Men, and--of course--X-Men.Additional upcoming events will include an open-mic night on issues concerning body image, a tutorial on barbecuing, and our much-anticipated workshop "Protecting What's Yours: Drafting a Prenuptial Agreement." Given the lack of similar groups on campus, MiP will have to establish a broad base, merging social issues and activities with a pre-professional slant. Through our fishing, hunting, and flag-football retreats, we hope to cultivate close relationships with many individuals and organizations in different sectors of power--including business, politics, and academia.
But then ol' Steve started to get emails from people actually interested in joining and he decided--gosh darn it--there was a need for such a group on his campus. Many of our readers have sent us the article, wondering what we think here at feministing. I can't speak for my co-editors, but I can tell you what I think.
I think Steve would be totally radical if he would spend less time providing networking opportunities for men on his campus (one of the goals of Men in Power) and more time deconstructing what "power" actually means. You see, that was the analysis always missing from that old Columbia blowhard bully's repertoire.
The reality is that a certain kind of power still rests squarely in the hands of a very small number of white people, usually white men, usually Western white men. I'm talking about power that comes in the form of college degrees from fancy schools, inherited wealth, access to other wealthy people who can fund/employ/encourage you, the capacity to walk into a job interview and not have any of the following questions going through a potential employer's mind (Will she have babies and leave the company? Will her looks be distracting? Will s/he fit into this environment given that we don't have many people "like" him/her?), a childhood home far from toxic chemical plants and/or gang violence etc. etc. etc.
Chances are that Steve has a lot of the kind of power I just described. Maybe not, but I'd put money on it. My guess is that Steve doesn't have a whole lot of another kind of power: one born of authenticity, wisdom, humility, empathy.
This whole group seems like a pretty hair-brained scheme to get himself some attention and test out how the world will react to a reactive group. And he's getting attention, indeed. But he's not gaining wisdom if he thinks that putting his energy into organizing networking opportunities for already privileged dudes is where his happiness is going to take root. As those of us who have been around the block a few times, met our share of blowhard Ivy Leaguers, faced them down with tears in our eyes, know: happiness comes from getting to be who you truly are while owning the privilege you come from, and working to dismantle it because you want to be part of a more just world, not a cog in the wheel of the current broken system.
Steve didn't ask for my advice, but if he did, I would tell him to take a step back and use some of that energy, humor, conviction, and creativity to start an organization that gets men and women to think together about ways to make the world more equal, more just, and a more hospitable place for all of us. I'll give my guru Audre Lorde the last word on this one:
The true focus of revolutionary change is never the oppressive situations which we seek to escape, but that piece of the oppressor which is planted deep within us.
Thanks to all the readers who wrote in asking for our take on this issue.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: New Student Group at UChicago: Men in Power.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/13959
wow, wonderfully put
"happiness comes from getting to be who you truly are while owning the privilege you come from, and working to dismantle it because you want to be part of a more just world, not a cog in the wheel of the current broken system."
I love that
Haha, I just clicked on this post to write that exact comment.
Hear, hear.
I'm glad to hear they only engage in manly things like sports and hunting, and come from manly subjects like business and law. I certainly wouldn't want anyone to question their big, hetero, he-man activities like all-male parties and campouts.
*eye roll*
If you're a law major with significant assets and you can't draft your own pre-nup, go to class more and listen to Dane Cook less.
what was quoted at the beginning of this post is not from the Chicago Tribune article, it's from the satirical article penned by the group's founder.
Male empowerment movements are thinly veiled attempts at a recuperative masculinity. Basically, they feel that manhood is on the decline or being threatened, usually out of fear that entitlements are no longer guaranteed. Feminists are typically to blame for this. It is funny how social issues are discussed and the whole empowering males thing, all using common tropes of masculinity: barbecuing, sports, little flag football retreats. There is a sense that men have lost something over the last thirty years and they need to reassert their privileges. Simultaneously, they affirm the same stereotypes that end up repressing them and others even further.
I am a senior at the UofC and know Steve personally and I would like to clarify a few things.
The original article in the Maroon was genuinely satire, after receiving emails about whether or not he would be actually setting the group up Steve decided that there was a place on campus for a MiP group, but one that differs significantly from the ideas and goals put forward in the satire. The current MiP group is focused on community activism and the idea that just because we live in a patriarchal society does not mean that individual men don't face male specific challenges that can be address.
Steve is in no way trying to establish men as the victims of "reverse sexism", rather he thinks that how men interact in a patriarchal society is important, especially if we want to break the cycle and move forward. Most, if not all, of the focus on how to achieve equality in the workplace is directed at women, Women in Business, Women in Power, ect. What Steve is trying to do is create a space where men can talk and learn about what it means to be moving into the world of business. Yes, this will involve networking, but getting the members of this group cushy jobs is not the goal of MiP.
It should also be pointed out that MiP is not just for men, the issues that will be discussed will focus more heavily on the masculine side of things and the mentoring (mentioned in the trib piece but not in the article above) will certainly be geared towards men. But women are welcome in the group.
"The current MiP group is focused on community activism and the idea that just because we live in a patriarchal society does not mean that individual men don't face male specific challenges that can be address."
This is true, forming male support systems is important. However, when a group is formed that reiterates men's dominance (see the name of the group - MEN IN POWER) it merely reproduces the patriarchal systems that dominate women.
"Steve is in no way trying to establish men as the victims of "reverse sexism", rather he thinks that how men interact in a patriarchal society is important, especially if we want to break the cycle and move forward. Most, if not all, of the focus on how to achieve equality in the workplace is directed at women, Women in Business, Women in Power, ect. What Steve is trying to do is create a space where men can talk and learn about what it means to be moving into the world of business. Yes, this will involve networking, but getting the members of this group cushy jobs is not the goal of MiP."
Consciousness raising groups for men are utterly important. If the intent is to establish a safe space where men can discuss their feelings and are free to be outside the gender box, then more power to him, that is very important in dismantling patriarchy - since patriarchy requires men to conform to rigid straitjackets that deny us of our right to be emotional and display both "feminine" and "masculine" characteristics. The fact is, that in a patriarchy men have systemic power and the framing of a group as men needing more power suggests a backlash to feminism, misogyny and reiterates the patriarchal constructs that you claim MIP is trying to disrupt, and that is laughable.
"It should also be pointed out that MiP is not just for men, the issues that will be discussed will focus more heavily on the masculine side of things and the mentoring (mentioned in the trib piece but not in the article above) will certainly be geared towards men. But women are welcome in the group."
Mentoring how? I am genuinely curious. I think it is crucial that boys and young men learn about masculinity. I am a pro-feminist activist who regularly does presentations to high schools and junior highs, as well as after school program, directed at men and boys about masculinity. Is MIP teaching men that it is OK to step outside the gender box? Is MIP telling young boys its ok to want to be stay at home dads? What about men who do not fit the stereotypes of the "real man"? If possible, I would like to talk with you about your education and outreach efforts and see the workshops and exercises you all do with young men and boys. I have an inkling they are damaging and are blatantly anti-feminist. Again, I'm not some nobody, I have been doing this work as a student for several years with both local and national pro-feminist men's groups.
"I have an inkling they are damaging and are blatantly anti-feminist."
Eeesh, give the guy a chance.
Can you come back and report if you find out whether or not they are so damaging as you inkle?
The fact that his group is called Men In Power suggests that men are somehow not in power, so I am understandably weary of what they are teaching the youth about "being a man".
"Can you come back and report if you find out whether or not they are so damaging as you inkle?"
This sounds dirty to me. Yes, I will inkle all over Feministing. Or something.
Do you have any links to the work you're doing? It sounds interesting.
If you click my name, it goes to the Men Against Sexual Violence at UIC page. It's in the process of being updated, and a fellow ally filmed portions of the conference so it will be up on YouTube. When it's done I'll be sure to put it on the Feministing community (if it allows me to post... I got an error message last time, grr...)
D'oh, the real website is here: http://www.uic.edu/depts/owa/trymasv.html
again, still in progress.
So, I was right. Just sayin'. Dude is working with men's rights activists.
http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2009/05/maude-save-us.html#disqus_thread
Figures. How did we EVER guess.
Thanks for some clarification Leigh. I wonder what women who are part of this group are supposed to get out of it? And why such a focus on men getting into business? Men are far less represented in nursing, teaching, and many other wonderful fields?
As to women in MiP, (I agree that MiP is a counterproductive name) they are certainly enthusiastic about the community outreach effort and are interested in learning about a different perspective and contributing ideas. Moreover, men's place in the world/workforce is often in contrast with women and women's perspectives on how men confront certain issues is very important.
The quotation about men being under represented in certain fields comes from Mark Perry, an economist at the University of Michigan in Flint, and not from Steve. Though helping people (men and women) get jobs will probably play some role in the club by virtue of the speakers and contacts the club provides.
Mark Perry, as is usual for him, fails to note that on average occupations dominated by women are always lower paid than those dominated by men. This, he would likely say (and I know this because I've had a "conversation" with him on this), makes perfect sense. Women NATURALLY earn less than men because they are mothers and wives. ZERO critical analysis.
Men are losing jobs in this economy because there are more men with jobs than women - which is why advocacy for women in the workforce is so important in the first place. I'm sure there are many women who wished they could have made the money that those in the auto or financial industry made prior to the collapse of the economy but were unable to because of the glass ceiling.
I go to the University of Illinois-Chicago, about 10 miles from U of C, and am enraged about the fact that the Chicago Tribune and WGN Morning News did a story on this - the mere fact that media outlets are reporting on your "activism" are proof of systemic, white male privilege. I put together a conference in April for men to learn about our role in ending sexual violence, in particular violence against women, and to discuss how to be pro-feminist men. Press releases were sent to numerous Chicago media outlets, including the Tribune, and no one printed anything on it, or a did a story on the conference. This shows how the media chooses which "movements" to display and which to ignore. Additionally, here at UIC we have a groups dedicated to furthering women's roles in the science and engineering fields (WISE - http://www.uicwise.org/) and no one ever discusses them, or other Chicago women's groups like Young Women's Empowerment Project (http://youarepriceless.org/) that are places for women to feel safe and address the sexism and violence they experience regularly (often at the hands of men). It's bullshit. Fuck Chicago media outlets. I'm so pissed off.
Also, myself and a few male allies are planning on writing a response to this article.
Awesome, I look forward to reading it!
Steve & the feminist men on our campus are pretty awesome.
Stephen A,
The reason why you did not get media attention while MiP did is the same reason by "Dig Bites Man" does not get attention, but "Man Bites Dog" does.
I know why we didn't get media coverage. I'm just pointing out the bullshit that groups actively challenging male privilege don't get media attention while those who revel in it (I'm assuming, anyway) get covered by the media.
I don't see what the big deal is. While a networking group for "power" for a demographic that is not particularly underrepresented "in power" seems rather pointless to me, if some men want to do it, as long as it doesn't promote sexism, more power to them.
I do wonder whether the group will do anything specifically though to address the two main justifications the Tribune came up with for such a group: men's higher unemployment rate in the current recession due to their concentration in industries such as manufacturing and construction, which are the most cyclical, and their relative underrepresentation in Education and Health Care, which are relatively acyclical (not a word I know, but bear with me). And also, men's underrepresentation among those with undergraduate degrees. It seems to me that once you've already gotten into an undergraduate institution, particularly one like U of C, you're probably going to be getting at least a bachelor's.
If they want to help men where they really need it, 1) go to outreach to the high schools and get more men to go to college, 2) get more men in traditionally underrepresented fields for men. Now *that* might benefit everyone.
I love the idea of a man going to the meeting of a group called "Men in Power" and being told that he should change his major to nursing. Love. It.
That's what I was thinking! "Men in Power" would be a great name for a men's group that was breaking down oppressive and harmful masculinity and showing alternatives.
I think theres only a 2% difference in men who are attending undergrad schools, but they still outnumber women at Ivy Leagure schools. I dont think its an issue and all you'll get is the 'boys crisis' crap theories. In education, we need to be focusing on women.It snot like guys are suffering under some huge matriarchy to warrant such focus on them.
Wow...your disregard for the fact that not all men have perfect lives and might need a group to promote their well being is sickening.
And yes, women should be aided and encouraged to pursue higher forms of education, but how is it in anyway counter productive to encourage men to do the same??
this reminds me of high school. some jackass got sick of hearing about the activities of the Chicano club and the African-American club, so he started a Caucasian club. i shit you not.
a bunch of fucktards also voted en masse for a severely disabled girl to be named homecoming queen in order to embarrass her. god, the last day of high school was the best day of my life.
in all seriousness, i have no problem seeing how the feminist movement has destabilized comfortable ways of thinking and being for men, and if they want to make a club in order to explore it, more power to 'em. but if they come to the conclusion that those comfortable ways of thinking and being were better than, like, you know, actual equality, then i have a problem.
and i think it would be awesome if they started a networking/fight club. they can give each other job hunting tips and then beat the piss out of each other. FUNNY!
Men in Power. Hmm. You can't just rename something "Men in Power," when actually, its called 'the World.'
Genuine LOL
Oh wow, you just made my day there!
Exactly! I laways loved this webcomic.
After reading the Tribune article, I think that an organisation like MiP could be useful. The name is problematic, yes, but like others have said: if they devote time to disassembling the idea of what it means to be a "real man," if they are open to homosexuals and transpeople, and their outreach involves fighting to end violence against women, etc. I am fully in support of such a group.
Courtney, you nailed it. I am loving this post. I call these punk-ass misfits "The Inheritocracy," in mockery of what they promote - meritocracy.
I quoted you, by the way.
Damn shame. He's kinda cute. :(
I could see this movement being surprisingly helpful, IF the right people get involved and give it the right spin.
The name "Men in Power" could be refreshingly privilege-acknowledging from the right perspective.
We talk a lot about how women should not be responsible for correcting the wrongdoings of men. Classic example being rape- why should we tell women to stop drinking heavily, when instead we can tell men to stop attacking drunk women?
Well the reason that doesn't work is that the people who most need to listen are not engaged.
A group like this could be a great opportunity for someone to go in and say "hey, look at you, YOU HAVE INHERENT POWER, now let's talk about how to wield it respectfully and stop trampling over others just because you didn't notice their tiny insignificant lives for all your shining male glory"
"Steve didn't ask for my advice, but if he did, I would tell him to take a step back and use some of that energy, humor, conviction, and creativity to start an organization that gets men and women to think together about ways to make the world more equal, more just, and a more hospitable place for all of us."
I thought this was really interesting. There are organizations who certainly have this as their goal, but I have a hard time thinking of a forum/organization/group/whatever that consists of both men AND women thinking together on sex and gender issues. Just (sometimes rightly) outraged women in the one corner, and defensive/unengaged men in the other (also, sometimes rightly).
I don't know, I'm kind of hoping this guy takes this and runs with it - that some good discussion will come of it if nothing else.
Before jumping out and throwing this idea down before it even got started, take a time out and see where it goes.
Surprised such a terrible writer was possibly paid to write that trash article.
Do you all have a mission statement that I could read? Are you operating from a pro-feminist framework?
Wait, what? Which article are you talking about? The one linked in the post, the one quoted in the post, or are you talking about the post? Your sentences are confusing.
HAAAAAAAAAAAAH! I just LOVE the films they label as "activism" films. This is hysterical. All potential for credibility gone.
That's from the satirical article written before the group was actually formed.
Damn. Well, same legitimacy.
Men In Power, Way to attempt to belittle the writing and ignore the discussion. Troll.
I personally have the feeling that some people would be pissed if someone were to start a group named "Women In Power".
There might be one that I am not aware of though. I hope not...
Can't we just start a movement called Equalism? Pretty please? Bypass all the bullshit?
Oh that actually came out a lot worse than what I meant..
What I meant to say was that this groups' name is completely ridiculous, regardless of what they are trying to do. And that it's pretty messed up that people are defending it.
The feminists' words are final:
Men do not have issues.
"Simultaneously, they affirm the same stereotypes that end up repressing them and others even further."
Ditto for feminists...
"Can't we just start a movement called Equalism?"
Problem is people have different ideas about equality. There are some (most) feminists who believe there should be a 50/50 gender split in every job. Other feminists believe people should choose jobs they want.
And as a woman, do you really want men to have equal procreative rights? Probably not.
Men do have equal procreative rights. Where is it that he doesnt have equal procreative rights?
Second, you must be a neophyte to feminism because feminists understand that there are ways that patriarchy affects men as well.
The feminists' words are final:
Men do not have issues.
"Simultaneously, they affirm the same stereotypes that end up repressing them and others even further."
Ditto for feminists...
"Can't we just start a movement called Equalism?"
Do women really want equal pay? As in, just as many of you have to work construction, engineering, join the army, and work 80-hour weeks as a CEO. Or would you rather choose whatever job you like?
Do women really want men to have equal procreative rights? I doubt it.
Right - nice strawman. It undoubtedly MUST be true that anyone who points out the systemic privilege granted to men in a patriarchal culture is also saying that men don't have issues and that men and women should be forced to choose occupations in order to fill a 50/50 quota, and that men should be forced to have babies...right. 'Cause that's exactly what we're saying. How embarrasing that someone who's so much smarter and savvier than us came along and demolished our position with one single smirk...
For what it's worth, I've seen much more sophisticated and less obvious strawmen than this. You might step up your game if you intend to keep trolling feminist blogs.
Couldn't this guy just join a fraternity?
Thats what I was windering. Your basic fraternity is already like this.
We have pretty limited Greek life here at the U(C). I mean, we have a few frats, but the weekly "Bar Night" was actually shut down after someone was raped at it earlier this year. It's a reasonably tough place to be a frat-boy misogynist.
Fauxgressive misogyny or gender-blind libertarian misogyny, preferably cloaked in an air of academic mysticism, is much more our style.
Oh. Go Maroon.
I'm a second year student at U of C. One of the school's selling points is that it doesn't have much of a "Greek" culture(maybe 10%), if that's something people are looking for, they should look elsewhere.
I am a man. I certainly think that a man is someone who is strong, doesn't take shit from any one, intelligent, in control of himself (his emotions and actions) and can get things done. A man is also humble in victory and gracious in defeat. A chivalrously gentleman. This is masculinity. This is what being a man is all about.
Feminist movements from circa 1980s have been trying to socially engineer boys at school to be more passive, more feminine, less masculine. Now you have many men who talk about how they feel about their problems instead solving their problems. To some men sensitivity is more important than truth.
This "men in power" is a manifestation of this terrible feminist social engineering project. A real man will not get together with other men and talk about how hard life has become for men. A real man would rise above these petty problems and come out a winner.
Please tell me this comment is meant to be taken as a joke...
Seriously. LOL @ everything he said.
He's keeping it real. Man-real.
"Now you have many men who talk about how they feel about their problems instead solving their problems. To some men sensitivity is more important than truth."
Men talking about how they feel about their problems IS part of confronting and solving their problems! There is nothing wrong with a little sensitivity.
"A real man will not get together with other men and talk about how hard life has become for men. A real man would rise above these petty problems and come out a winner."
Like I said above, men discussing and talking together about problems they face HELPS them rise above those problems. They can discuss solutions and ways to deal with whatever they're going through. They find out that they are not alone and can work together.
You see spetsnaz, you believe in the very skewed and damaging idea of masculinity that harms young men and boys.
How about we just get beyond our genitals and focus on who we each personally are, rather than being tied down by ANY definition of masculinity or femininity?
Yeah!
A real man goes to a Feminist WebSite to promote gender stereotypes! A real man's masculinity is threatened by gender equality! A real man gets to hang on to his privilege without acknowledging it!
Real men are terrified by anything associated with women!
HA HA! Love it! Soooo what the author was REALLY saying!
Woop! *high five* =D
Oh come on.....you know youre being a troll! How far do you really think you'll get with this crap ON A FEMINIST BLOG!! Your post shows that you are not a man even BY YOUR OWN DEFINITION!
What a joke!
"A real man will not get together with other men and talk about how hard life has become for men. A real man would rise above these petty problems and come out a winner. "
Uh...der...like feminists have, which are majoritivily WOMEN. Your definition of a 'real' man is actually a woman. I think youre under the erroneous idea that feminists get together and only talk, or more apptly complain. Your intellectual impotency could've easily been solved by a quick internet search. Guess youre not good at 'getting things done.' I mean, if feminists just sat around and only 'talked' would we have gotten as much as we have? I also think youre seriously undermining the endurance needed to evolve society and dismantle sexist oppression. Of course thats what I'd expect as men have never had to deal with it. Your post is very naive and privileged.
How unsurprising that talk of organizations like Men in Power bring out these bottom-feeding MRA douchebags spewing gender stereotypes like "chivalry" and misleading nonsense propaganda about "feminist social engineering." I think even if this org wants itself to be about community activism, wants to be open to gays, etc., that these bottom-feeding MRAs blathering about the gender dichotomy are the primary type of men it's going to attract anyway, whether the org leaders want it to or not.
How unsurprising that talk of organizations like Men in Power bring out these bottom-feeding MRA douchebags spewing gender stereotypes like "chivalry" and misleading nonsense propaganda about "feminist social engineering." I think even if this org wants itself to be about community activism, wants to be open to gays, etc., that these bottom-feeding MRAs blathering about upholding the gender dichotomy are the primary type of men it's going to attract anyway, whether the org leaders want it to or not.
I just spewed up my fruit loops.
I am an engineer, and let me tell you: REAL engineers just sit down and start bolting things together! None of this sissy sitting around and TALKING about what we're going to do, or working in groups or analyzing problems, and CERTAINLY no listening to each other, no-sir-ee!
This is a real problem in society now-a-days. I once hired a lawyer and do you know he asked me what I wanted him to do and wanted to prepare a case through careful discussion and empathy to my case? Before the evil martian feminists in the 60s, lawyers just walked right in there and won their cases without talking about it at all! In fact, there were no lawyers because people all just punched each other instead of going through all these sissy courts. That's how REAL MEN (tm) do things!
Seriously - this strategy doesn't work in any other aspect of life why should it work with emotions, with society, with a man's (or anyone else's) struggle to grow out of boyhood and into a strong human being?
I'm sort of guessing this group is going to be a white men's thing. So why not a white men's group where the focus is on reading works by radical women of color and then discussing and figuring out how to be a member of privileged group while working to dismantle privilege? That's what's really lacking on college campuses for men.
It seems to me that lot of white men think that white women and men and women of color are getting a free ride somehow because some policies are finally in place to challenge the decades upon decades of affirmative action for white men only. White men need to be talking about and examining privilege amongst themselves, guided by the works of men and women of color and some white women.
Instead of being mired in guilt and anger about a perception that white men are being attacked, there are myriad constructive ways to move forward as a man who recognizes privilege at work. I know this because I'm a white woman who's come to understand that everyday of my life my identity and appearance are things that enable me to be granted privileges that I haven't earned. I'd have greater privilege as a white man, but rather than aspire to attain equal unearned privileges, I'm trying to find ways to work against oppressions based on race and sex.
None of these ideas I'm putting out are originally mine, of course: they're drawn from great thinkers like Audre Lord, bell hooks, Gloria Anzaldua, Cherrie Moraga and many many others.
White men, white women, a lot of men of color, and all kinds of economically privileged folks all have work to do amongst ourselves to understand the ways in which we have privileges. Then we need to be willing to stop taking center stage all the time-- and this is what I'm working on, too-- we have to learn how to be listeners and followers if we want to dismantle oppressions that consistently hold some groups of people down. Many of my opportunities exist because other people are systematically excluded. That's the reality. I'm either working against it or I'm colluding with it. The same is true of this men's group.
you are a radical man hating feminist. Its a mens group. Its not a white mens group. Women have affirmitive action, vawa and quotas. They are the privleged. Work your way in life rather than have a victim mentality.
Seriously, has this thread just been hijacked by some MRA groups today? These comments are just ridiculous.
you say i'm a "radical man hating feminist" who should learn to "work [my] way in life" and that i have a "victim mentality."
here's what i say: i'm a white woman married to a man of color. i do have a job and i'm aware of the way my place in the working world has been made easier by the fact that i'm privileged in a lot of ways: by whiteness, by education, and by access to resources.
i did nothing to earn these things privileges. i was fortunate enough to be born into a family where there was a legacy of middle class financial stability (and my grandparents may have worked for their money, but my grandfathers gained access to education, jobs, and loans at a time when their whiteness made this possible for them. they benefited and accrued financial resources because other groups were being excluded.) i benefit now from a legacy of affirmative action granted to white people.
i think men from various backgrounds-- but especially white men-- in our society have a hard time looking at these issues. it is easier to embrace the anodyne idea that we all make it alone by hard work. in my view, that's just silly. not only have i done some reading from perspectives other than my own, i've also seen what my husband struggles with-- setbacks, racist assumptions, having to work harder to earn "equal" trust and respect. these are things that i, as a white person, don't even have to think about. they seem invisible to me, but they are REALITY. in the same way, i can see the reality of institutional sexism at work, though this same facet of reality may be nearly invisible to a man.
Can we get the "I did not like this comment" button back, because I did not like this comment.
LOL Word.
Uh-oh. Summbody got his feelers hurted. Poor lil MRA - take a minute to cuddle your blankie and recover from your encounter with those angry radical feminists who threaten your masculinity so profoundly.
((BWOOP BWOOP))
!!!M-R-A!!!
Ticket for unlawful posting on a feminist site!
I swear, I wish there was a way of tagging these types, to insure they dont come back.
" So why not a white men's group where the focus is on reading works by radical women of color and then discussing and figuring out how to be a member of privileged group while working to dismantle privilege? That's what's really lacking on college campuses for men. "
At first I thought this would be good for females too, but why not just have one in which its multicultural? Are people of color supposed to be the quest speakers, on a topic that really affects them? I would prefer having a person of color there to voice their opinions and for that matter why make it for just white people? And what constitutes officially white anyways? Cuacasians or people who are full blooded of a European people. I think my racial understanding (I'm Italian) would be different than someone who is a very mixed, not ethnically associated white person.
hi Gopher, these questions you raise are ones i'm going to think about as i do a bunch more reading, too, since i'm in a serious reading and synthesizing place right now. i'm a newbie to posting comments at feministing actually, so thanks a bunch for engaging w/ what i put out there-- i'm learning lots these days, but there are so many questions to continue investigating. as i said, i'm learning a lot from what i think is brilliant writing by women of color, especially from the women i mentioned above. i'm still branching out into the blogosphere, too, and stumbling across so many brilliant young thinkers.
Burn the rich, or eat them raw?
Discuss.
medium-rare.
haha!
Honestly I wouldn't waste a lot (or any) time worrying about this. I believe in organizing and it always kind of makes me uneasy when gets down to "we" can organize and "they" can't even if I disagree with them. I totally believe this is/will be a white guys group. Well so be it. I tend to worry more about what I can do than what someone else is doing.
ack. i go to university of chicago (not for long though! graduating in two weeks!) in one of the grad programs (which is apparently supposed to be less conservative/pretentious) and it is HORRIBLE. none of this surprises me in the least. and the fact that he is getting attention for it too. duh. its classic u of c privilege.
i dont know how productive this comment is but i really really REALLY need to vent about how much i hate my school (not the best place for a queer paki radical feminist...)
Generally speaking, the UofC undergrad population is about as liberal as it gets...outside of Bard or Reed, that is.
It would not surprise me in the least if the group kept the title purely for irony.
Shakesville had a nice post on this:
http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2009/05/maude-save-us.html#disqus_thread
"Well, if there was any doubt (there wasn't) that Whataboutthemenz?!, Inc.—aka Men in Power—was little more than a misogyny club for angsty hipsters to lament being born in an age when men's birthright of undeserved privilege is questioned by uppity bitchez, the appearance of its founder, Steve Saltarelli, on MSNBC earlier today (recorded and uploaded for us by dear Mr. Petulant) pretty much stomps the fuck out of any lingering possibility something good might emerge from its existence."
"Steve Saltarelli"
As an Italian American I HATE that his last name is the same as my ethnicity!!
When men start "empowerment" groups, it reminds of White Christians in America "organizing" against "oppression" by the secularists.
Again, it's like the bully getting angry because he can't bully anymore.
Bullies (metaphors for those with power ALREADY) are not allowed to start support groups once they feel their bullying power is being taken away. End of.
I love how the group listed X-men as one of the movies to watch. Of course!
The movie is an allegory about queer people coming out. How hilarious!
The list of movies to watch was part of the original satirical article.
I feel like giving some comment on the post ifself, rather than debating if a student should create a men's group called "men in power" at campus or not.
I will say that as long as the point of it all is to provide a place for men to connect and talk about issues they face, I'm all for it. But the name could have been better.
On the article though, I particularly disliked the first paragraph. The writer, Courtney, talks about some guy at Columbia College she knew personally, but who has nothing to do with the issue at hand.
She doesn't know anything about 'Steve', other than his MiP creation and that he is probably an MRA. So I must conclude that the only reason this 'Bill O'Reilly in a skinny hipster body' comes into play is to create a false link between that one guy and the actual subject of the matter.
I do find this rather dishonest and off-putting.
For the rest, I was glad to see that some feminists aren't totally against the idea of organisations focussing on man's issues. But I guess we will never get them to think its a worthwhile cause to be putting our energy, humor, conviction, and creativity into.
"the idea of organisations focussing on man's issues."
I don't think anyone has been saying that they don't think there should be organizations focusing on men's issues. They are just taking issue with this particular group, the name of this group, or what they think the purpose of this particular group will be.
I would like to point you to the comment of user "B Atoureta" which, according to its liked count, does get some support here.
------
"When men start "empowerment" groups, it reminds of White Christians in America "organizing" against "oppression" by the secularists.
Again, it's like the bully getting angry because he can't bully anymore.
Bullies (metaphors for those with power ALREADY) are not allowed to start support groups once they feel their bullying power is being taken away. End of"
-----
This response uses an obvious double standard.
And this so that women are allowed all the support groups they can get and are free to call it female empowerment, but because men already have power, they are not allowed any kind of similar support.
I also note that the user clearly infers that men as a group are bullies.
I know most feminists dont have a problem with male support groups. But even clearly misandric statements like the one above get liked here, instead of being put in their place like the misogynistic comments from MRAs who clearly dont know how to behave.
The hostile way some feminists will react to a male focused organisation, and the tacit approval they get from their peers and society at large, who feel that man-bashing is OK, makes for a difficult environment to get one started.
This in turn makes it more difficult for men with real problems to get the support they need.
"Steve didn't ask for my advice..."
This seems to be the bottom line of the entire conversation. If men chose to gather to protect what they percieve to be their interests (just as feminists do), and, if their interests conflict with those of feminists, then these men are unlikely to be interested in seeking feminist approval.
Feminists simply lack the prerogative to dictate how, when, where, or why men may gather to protect their interests.
Your comment makes no sense. There obviously IS something wrong with a group "protecting its own interests" at the EXPENSE of others. Which is what white men in particular have done throughout the history of the U.S. and Europe.
If you're not interested in justice or equality, fine. But at least admit it instead of feeding people some crap about "protecting one's interests."
If there are three people in a room, there will be at least six different opinions as to what constitutes "justice or equality".
"Protecting its own interests" is exactly what the feminist movement does.
Men require neither permission nor approval from feminists for the terms under which they may gather to protect their interests, nor are they likely to seek such permission or approval. This is so, despite your opinion that there is "something wrong" with it.
By the same token, feminists require no approval or permission for the terms of their movement's existence, nor are they likely to seek approval or permission.
Whether or not the feminist movement is protecting its interests "at the expense of others" probably depends on whether you ask feminists, or whether you ask the "others". Whether or not men's advocates are protecting their interests "at the expense of others" probably depends on whether you ask men's advocates, or whether you ask the "others".
I can empathize with feminists' apprehensiveness concerning the recent trend towards men beginning to gather into a proto-movement in advocacy of their own interests. While anyone is entitled to express her or his objections to organized men's advocacy, the feminist movement lacks the authority to prohibit the continuing development of a men's advocacy movement. Organized men's advocates are not obliged to respond to either objections or suggestions from feminists, unless they choose to do so.
All have protected their own interests throughout all of history and across all of geography. At various times and places, sometimes, some have been more successful than others.
Hehe. I just wanted to add that even that very picture you posted of him makes him look like a douchebag. The over-confident, always unflustered guy who pretends he's "open-minded" because it's fashionable.
The fact that this new group was based on a "satirical" article - probably an article making fun of women's groups, African American groups, etc. - makes it a joke before it's even begun.
Yes, what a nice ad hominem to begin with. Lets try to discredit a guy we know nothing about without even listening to what he has to say.
There was a comment early on in this thread from a guy who does know the situation, and he clearly said that the group distances itself from the satirical article that started it all. The article was only what prompted male students to speak out about the need for a mens group.
Your comment is exactly what I was refering to in my previous response. You approve the ad hominem attacks, you enjoy the man-bashing and you dont see anything wrong with it.
This is what I dislike most about feminists.
I do think it's reasonable to talk about the group that this young man is starting as being related to the satire that he authored. Why should a reader have to regard the satirical piece as off-limits? It seems to speak to the thought processes of this young man. The ideas that he finds laughable reflect his way of thinking about the world.
My perception of the original article is that it satirizes the idea that women and minorities need college campus groups to support their efforts against privilege and oppression. To me the satire goes something like this, "women and minority groups are ridiculous, they disadvantage white men, and i'll expose all this by making a joke about forming a group to advance college men's power."
In that regard, I think the satire is based on some assumptions that are easy for anyone, but especially for young white men in our society to hold-- and i'm talking about the idea that we all have opportunities that are relatively equal and we choose to seize them or not solely based upon our individual merit. This is a rosy view of US society, but it really leaves out some critical points that need to be examined about systematic oppression and the ongoing historical legacy of white affirmative action that has worked to destroy and disadvantage communities of color.
I'd like to see a lot of young men think more deeply about this country's history as it relates to minority groups and women-- especially since our collective ability to talk about oppression and create a more just society has not come about because groups in power decided to be nice. It came about because of activism by minorities and women to change the status quo.
Working honestly against injustice requires asking oneself some difficult questions.
I want to see white women like me really pushing ourselves to ask tough questions about why certain aspects of life are routinely so easy for us, but routinely so hard for women and men of color. And I want men to push themselves, too.
For white men, well, I think it honestly is hard for them to see structural oppression at work in our society, but that doesn't mean everyone else is crazy and looking for handouts. I think it means that our institutions are not post-racist and post-misogynist yet.
Because it's true that all feminists are alike. We're all exactly identical to each other, with no variation whatsoever, which is what makes it so easy to dismiss us all out of hand.
I guess I should have said "This is what I dislike most about most feminists."
Still, I do feel it appropriate to make a generalisation of my main point.
Because of history, from both the feminist and general point of view, men are seen as a group that should be able to take whatever is thrown at them. More often than not man-bashing, misandy and personal attacks are condoned.
Both Courtney and allegra show examples of this behavior. I wonder if, rather than accuse me of a generalisation, you have any words to defend both the first paragraph and allegra's reaction to it as anything but an ad hominem attack and a joyfull approval of it ?
I guess I interpreted the first paragraph of the post as a description of a particular man, and a claim that he represents a type - that there are other out there like him that get off on being rhetorically intimidating in support of their privilege. I guess this seems sort of unproblematic to me, because I've encountered many of these types as well. In fact, almost every time I teach feminist theory, at least one of the male students is like this and seems to take the course only for a chance to argue with me. And that's fine - I consistently take on his arguments rather than his ego and after I've calmly and respectfully thoroughly thrashed his arguments and revealed his historical ignorance a few times, he usually backs down and becomes a decent student.
What I didn't see is Courtney claiming that all men are like this. In order to be a hasty or sweeping generalization, she would have had to state or imply that all men are like this. I guess I missed that part.
You didn't miss that part, nowhere did I accuse the writer of making a generalisation. In fact I admit that I am the one making a generalisation, but one I think I'm correct in making. My generalisation is on a general and accepted view of men and consequent behavior towards them.
And while I understand that the example the writer brings up is representative of a certain kind of man, I dont see how it applies to the person who started the MiP group.
If one satirical article is enough to be branded a "blowhard who gets off on making other people feel bad" I find that an unfair accusation towards a person the writer herself admits she knows nothing about.
Its not a relevant argument to open with, and it only serves to discredit the target without adressing anything about the subject at hand. And yes, I obviously do have a problem with this sort of thing. Certainly when other people will openly congratulate it which is why I reacted to allegra's response.
I was born into the right family, inheriting all that comes with it. Like most of my peers I stay very low key, the last thing I want to do is draw attention to myself.
Which is why I disagree with Courtney, Steve was born upper middle class, not wealthy. He got into an elite university hoping to make the right connections so that he could join the "big leagues" - That's the way it works right? I mean he's an up-and-coming *white male*, he's like my ideal mate -swoon-(sic).
We are suppose to embrace him, introduce him to all our our parent/grandparent and all their friends - The people who run pretty much everything...Oh wait, it doesn't work like that any more.
I run into guys like Steve all the time - slightly above average white guys who are anything but exceptional,no reason to look twice at them, and that makes them very angry.
From their very skewed vantage point, they "made it",or would have were it not for all this equality "non-sense".
I for one appreciate Courtney's anecdote about the guy at Columbia, because I know exactly what she is talking about. I even dated one of those types before I wizened up... sigh...
When you're 19 at a pretentious liberal arts college it is really easy to get dazzled by certain ways of thinking that are steeped in privilege and entitlement. In my experience, learning to understand the intellectual status-quo is step number one, and learning to critically evaluate it is step number two.
When you're still in step number one, those "too smart for school" types CAN be very intimidating (and also kind of attractive if you feel like you need to 'beat' them intellectually and 'win' by gaining their approval). Moving on to step two is much harder and a lot of people never really get there, but once you've evolved, people who seemed intimidating before seem kind of pathetic.
I am a recent graduate (08) from a somewhat snobby college, and since I'm still in the area I have been visiting campus to keep up with my friends who are graduating this June. An extremely obnoxious Freshman has attached himself to that group... and whenever he starts mouthing off I just sigh and remember that eventually some professor will probably smash his ego into the ground and he will come out humbled, or he will shrug it off and spend the rest of his life ignorant... no skin off my back either way, really.
So, thank you for sharing your story, Courtney. Everybody who has a problem with the inclusion of personal anecdotes in posts: get over it. This is a blog, not a newspaper.
I think we should open ourselfs up to the thought, that being white does not automatically mean you are part of the power elite.
Oftentimes you are just a number, sometimes even cannonfooder.
If men feel like they need to look out after their best interest let them.
Of course white people can be "just a number" when we're economically or otherwise disadvantaged. However, that doesn't negate race privilege, the way other people respond to us based upon our skin, which is something we can't control.
I always think about my brother, who has a learning disability. That sets him back. But he's white and being white confers an advantage. If he were a young man of color with a learning disability, he would have even greater difficulties.