Comments on: Meeting Him Where He’s At? Or Letting the Dude Off Too Easy.

By: lolife

lolife — Thu, 29 Jun 2006 23:04:11 +0000

Why in the hell should anyone have to choose between being pretty and dating hot guys and being a feminist?

Man, you are hard to get through to. I’m NOT saying they have to choose, I am saying that some people DO choose. Can you get your head around that? Some women do not choose to be feminists at every stage in their lives and that is OK. I absolutely despise this false dichotomy of either you are a feminist or you are a misogynist. Some women are not feminists. Some men are not feminists. This does not make them rapists or womanizers. Some people just choose a more neutral form of view on gender equality that falls short of the man-hating agenda of extreme feminists.

By: Tom Head

Tom Head — Sat, 17 Jun 2006 23:01:36 +0000

McBoing, I was going to ask what you meant by riding the fence. Then I saw this post.

Let me sum things up for you:

1. Antifeminist named “perplexed” shows up on the forum and bashes feminism as anti-male. Cites, among other things, feminists “lying” about domestic violence statistics.

2. I call perplexed to the carpet.

3. perplexed offers citations.

4. I demand them.

5. perplexed posts a lengthy series of “studies” claiming to document that men are the real victims of domestic violence.

6. Hugo decrees that domestic violence is an “aged debate” and that anyone arguing with perplexed’s most recent post will have their contributions deleted from the thread. Does not take any position on domestic violence. I can understand that the posts were off-topic and need to be deleted. I do not understand why he didn’t delete perplexed’s earlier posts to nip this problem in the bud.

I’ve challenged him on this, and he may backtrack by deleting perplexed’s claims (as I’ve requested), but I see exactly what you mean about “riding the fence.” He seems to be very concerned–as he was in the “Pete” post, as he is in his regular and exuberant statements of what a devout Christian he is, as he is in his title-page statement that he has a “consistent life ethic”–that nobody get the impression that he’s one of “those” feminists. That being the case, he shouldn’t complain if few people do.

Cheers,

By: Reclusive Leftist » Blog Archive » Hugo responds, and in the process makes things worse

Fri, 16 Jun 2006 18:41:27 +0000

[...] Our story so far: Hugo wrote a post detailing the advice on feminism he gave to a student, and a bunch of people objected, including me. In my post I wrote: Apparently Hugo’s approach is to acknowledge that feminism is indeed difficult and unpleasant — he compares it to AA — but nonetheless a noble undertaking that should be attempted once you’re through having fun in life and feel ready for the hairshirt (or turtleneck). This doesn’t strike me as a winning strategy. In fact, I would go so far as to say that perhaps one reason Hugo’s young charges are less than enthused about feminism is because their role model is a turtleneck-wearing youth minister who likens feminism to AA. [...]

By: McBoing

McBoing — Fri, 16 Jun 2006 04:07:52 +0000

heresiarch, I’m with you. Consider this a venting of long-term frustration with a guy who seems to ride the fence far too often for comfort. As I see it, eventually he’s going to have to pick a side. If he is as he writes, I have no doubts that he’ll do the right thing. In the meantime, I am still irritated.

By: Tom Head

Tom Head — Fri, 16 Jun 2006 03:42:29 +0000

I think we’re on the same page in this respect, heresiarch. I’ve made too many mistakes myself to want to throw somebody who is still actively and sincerely engaged in the discussion out of the movement.

Cheers,

By: heresiarch

heresiarch — Fri, 16 Jun 2006 03:17:52 +0000

FoolishOwl said: “Hugo’s a classic liberal academic wanker. It’s no small point that he “does this for a living.””

See, and again you’ve lost me. I don’t see Hugo’s advocacy of “pro-feminism” as evidence that Hugo is insincere and just faking it for the paycheck. I see it as an indication that his understanding of feminism is less than perfect.

I’m not interested in discussing anyone’s failings as a feminist if the end goal is to toss them out of the movement. The goal should always be to move everyone in the discussion, including the person who is at fault, to a better understanding of feminism.

By: FoolishOwl

FoolishOwl — Thu, 15 Jun 2006 23:01:10 +0000

Heresiarch, exactly. Hugo’s a classic liberal academic wanker. It’s no small point that he “does this for a living.” Academics are under enormous pressure to moderate their opinions to be acceptable to the right. Forthrightly expressing radical ideas means enduring threats to your career and your livelihood. It’s much easier to accomodate to the demands of the institution. Hugo does this with gusto. He’s not willing to say anything that would even risk a negative student evaluation.

By: heresiarch

heresiarch — Thu, 15 Jun 2006 22:38:31 +0000

FoolishOwl said: “Hugo doesn’t describe himself as feminist, but as pro-feminist. The idea is that, as a man, he cannot be a feminist, but can only support feminists; feminism is women’s work, and he’s just offering his help.”

Say what? Now that, that is stupid. He can’t really think that, can he? Being a feminist has nothing to do with what you’ve got in your pants–it’s what’s in your head that matters. That’s the whole bloody point of feminism. God, I’ve been wondering why he keeps using the word “pro-feminist” instead of “feminist,” but I would never have guessed it was because of something that boneheaded.

I’m with Tom–we’ve all got a stake in this. Pretending like men are simply passive observors in the struggle against patriarchy is counter-productive and naive. Counter-productive because you are giving men a free out, letting them think that it’s not their fight and they can safely not care. Naive because patriarchy is never going to be seriously challenged with only slightly more than half the population in the fight. Everyone has to be involved–there’s no exceptions for the privileged in this draft.

By: Crys T

Crys T — Thu, 15 Jun 2006 22:26:02 +0000

“Would that still be sexist, just because she is a woman, or a feminist?”

Get real. The guy was flat-out telling us that HE knew best, because he “does this for a living.” Telling that to a group of feminist women IS FUCKING SEXISM. No ifs, ands, buts or maybes.

By: Tom Head

Tom Head — Thu, 15 Jun 2006 21:02:14 +0000

FoolishOwl writes:
Hugo doesn’t describe himself as feminist, but as pro-feminist. The idea is that, as a man, he cannot be a feminist, but can only support feminists; feminism is women’s work, and he’s just offering his help. This is an approach that reinforces gender essentialism. It’s all about gallantly coming to the aid of those alien, unknowable others over there, and not about questioning the entire system of sexism.

I agree, though I wouldn’t necessarily single Hugo out on this point (he describes himself as a “pro-feminist,” but I haven’t heard him say–as some men have–that no man should call himself a feminist). It really irritates me when men describe themselves as “pro-feminists,” or refuse to describe themselves as feminists unless they use the qualifier “male.” Sometimes I describe myself as a “male” feminist, but only in contexts where my gender is directly relevant–e.g. “Male feminists such as myself never actually have to confront the issue of becoming pregnant, but…” I am very careful not to use “male feminist” as a label.

Now, it’s true that one female feminist in 50 (and one male feminist in 2) might say that you’re not supposed to call yourself a feminist if you’re a man. But if you disagree, don’t patronize them by using the “MALE feminist” or “PRO-feminist” label; if you feel like a feminist, call yourself a damn feminist. Stand up for yourself. That’s what feminists–of any gender–do.

The danger of “pro-feminist”–of “allies” language in general, really–is that it paints us as the Belgians, the French, the English, the Benevolent Colonists, when it’s the job of feminists to get down off our parapets and march side-by-side. Not behind, boys, because this is our fight, too. Side by side. We’ve all got a dog in this hunt, and those of us who are male should jump in with both feet and stop acting like friggin’ tourists. Much as I would like to pretend that my motives are purely altruistic, I am probably a feminist because I am working for my own liberation from institutional sexism. This isn’t about charity for me. This is about saving my soul. And I don’t mean my guilty white boy conscience. I mean the essence of who I am.

Cheers,