(Cross-posted from Glenn’s site. Note: Feminist-friendly moderation is in effect.)
Pat Robertson said it best: “”Feminism encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians.” More succinctly put, feminism is a favorite whipping girl. Feminism has become that magical word–”mainstream”–but that hasn’t made it popular or generally regarded in a positive light. And of all the folks out there that really hate feminists, men’s rights activists are probably among the most virulent and vocal about it.
The big difference between hating black people or Jews and hating feminist women–the difference espoused by people who hate the latter and not the former, say–is that black people or Jews are born that way. It isn’t a choice; being a feminist is a choice, a philosophy, not an ethnicity. Very true–but this argument leads to another, conspicuously not followed through upon by those who advocate it. As they say, feminist women are, indeed, not born feminist. But this does beg the question, doesn’t it..? –why do they become feminist?
I can’t speak for all feminist women; no one can speak for all feminist women, all women, all feminists, or all members of any other subgroup of humanity. However, I can state with confidence that many of the factors that drove me from a state of non-feminism approaching active antipathy to feminism, to publicly identifying as a feminist, are shared by a lot of other women. I’d love to discuss all the factors–but in the interests of article space, I am going to focus on just one of them. I believe that if this one specific factor were removed, there would be far fewer new feminist women–all you’d have to do to achieve a world much freer of mainstream feminism would be to outlive all the defanged old ones. (Witness their trouncing during the Democratic primaries as an example of that dynamic.)
The factor: Sexual predation.
Men are uniquely placed, as a group, to help end this problem and rid us forever of lots of future feminists. And it is a real problem, and it is a problem that I think men do not quite understand in its impact upon women in the same fashion that, say, white people do not understand what it’s like to grow up black. Not the day-to-day experience with all its million-and-one little unpleasant episodes, tens and hundreds of greater unpleasantnesses, and the periodic whomper of a crappy one that sometimes alters the entire course of the recipient’s life for the very much worse.
For one, imagine what it would be like to not only be smaller, weaker and slower than almost every male you know, but also that all those males know that you are smaller, weaker and slower than they are. (Men who are on the smaller side are not always automatically assumed to be easily physically dominated by larger men–but all women are assumed to be easily physically dominated by all men, whether it’s true or not). Now, imagine that all your life, from your boyhood onward, there had been a steady stream of males, from boys your own age up through adult men, who had tried to have sexual intercourse of one description or another with you and were often undeterred by your lack of interest, response or enjoyment. Say that, as you grew up, when you were alone with one, while most of the time they didn’t try to forcibly rape you, once in a while one of them did–but you never knew in advance which one it would be. Say that, once you reached adolescence and young manhood, you found that if you drank too much alcohol, other men would not infrequently try to use your inebriated or unconscious body for sex–again, indifferent to your lack of interest, response or enjoyment, and you never knew when it would happen and when it wouldn’t. Say that, as well, you knew many other smaller, weaker, slower men for whom this life situation was commonplace, and while technically every last bit of it was against the law, you didn’t know anybody, yourself included, who had ever actually involved the law. You read the newspapers, though, and saw how the smaller, weaker, slower men who did involve the law got treated and what they were called by prominent spokespersons, lawyers and religious and conservative “values” leaders.
I know that men, especially the smaller, weaker and slower men out there, can empathize with this, as there is one place where this situation is somewhat similar for them, and that’s in prison. Many men are terrified and revolted by the idea of going to prison, and the primary reason for that terror and revulsion is their exposure to, and the knowledge of their own lack of ability both to defend themselves physically from and to get sympathetic aid from the authorities from, sexual predation. Think of prison, in terms of sexual predation, as simply a more violent and concentrated form of the life of a girl and woman in terms of sexual predation–because it is.
No, I’m not exaggerating. As I said, I wasn’t born a feminist, and indeed had an antipathy toward it in its institutionalized form all the way up into my later teens. I can’t say that I fully evolved out of that and into the fully-fledged self-identity of feminist til my early thirties; it was a process, a long one. However, it began around the time my mom kicked me out at age sixteen.
Skipping over the whys and hows of that, it introduced me to something that I was not aware of til that time–that living within the boundaries of one’s family, as a young girl, conveys a great deal of sexual safety in terms of the encroachments of total strangers, and also, that in most instances, it was not boys my age that were the problem–it was grown men, in their early twenties up through, in one memorable instance, early fifties. Especially if one is desperately poor, as I was–it’s hard to survive on a minimum-wage part-time job and attend high school while paying rent and living expenses. There were many men who got to know of my circumstances through various means, and not to put too fine a point upon it, saw a golden opportunity to make a cheap whores out of me, knowing as they did that I was perpetually starving and exhausted and unable to afford medical care and other routine necessities of life. And, of course, there were those, fewer in number, that saw no need to even offer me the use of their washing machines or a ride in their car to the laundromat in exchange for sexual favors–they thought that, since I was smaller, weaker and slower and had no family and not even a phone to call for help, they could simply show up at the door and take what they wanted.
In the town I grew up in, every kid who was “on his own” or “on her own” knew all the other kids who were, so I knew several boys that were in similar situations to my own. The starvation and exhaustion were the same–but the sexual predation was not. It was, in short, a powerful and additional risk that I bore on a continuous basis solely due to my gender. That was the first realization that awakened me to the idea that, perhaps, there was a need for that devil, institutionalized feminism, after all.
The second realization was that de jure equality does not result in de facto equality. All those things were against the law, quite unambiguously–the sexual solicitation, the attempted rapes–but that did not stop the men who attempted to commit those crimes against me. I have no way of knowing how many men were stopped by it, but I do know how many were not, and were at least in appearances completely unconcerned with what the law might or might not think. Was it because they thought I’d never involve the law? Was it because they thought that if I did, nothing would come of it? Again, I have no way of knowing. But certainly they thought something that allowed them to completely disregard it. So my second awakening was that legislation against crimes that overwhelmingly victimize women–sexual solicitation, rape–is not a sufficient deterrent.
Again…my lack of parental support at age sixteen, while not the most common one, is hardly one that’s impossible to find. But anecdotal evidence is, of course, only that–one person’s story. But there are numbers out there to support it. For instance:
The National Runaway Switchboard Statistics on Runaways from Peer-reviewed Journals and Federal Studies reports that 80% of of runaway and homeless girls report being sexually or physically abused. According to R. Barri Flowers book, Runaway Kids and Teenage Prostitution, there are about 650,000 teenaged girl prostitutes in America, and more than two-thirds of all girls who leave home before age 18 will end up as prostitutes. The International Child and Youth Care Network says that “”survival sex” is even more common, according to the task force, volunteers and police:
“It starts with a person offering to share their motel room for a few hours so a kid can clean up and get some sleep,” Gregg,an investigative assistant for the Oceanside Police Department. said from her desk at the Police Department. “Then it becomes, ‘Hey, wasn’t that nice of me? Now give me a kiss.’ The next time it goes further and further and eventually becomes prostitution.”
Imagine you had a daughter, whose mother kicked her out and you didn’t know where to find her. Imagine that she was pretty, and bright, and quite sexually innocent–I was some man’s daughter, obviously; it’s not an imaginary scenario. Do you think that what happened to me could never happen to your daughter, or your sister, or your niece, through no fault of her own (as it wasn’t mine)? Do you genuinely not believe that there are many men out there that there are who are ready to prey on your daughter, your sister, or your niece, should she become homeless and unprotected by nothing save “the law?” Other women can’t save her–if those men aren’t afraid of the law, will they fear just another woman, smaller, weaker and slower than they are?
And what about the majority of girls, who do live at home? Their experiences, are less extreme, but the predator-prey dynamic is still there, and has a long-term psychological effect. Just recently, from Toronto:
A growing number of teenage girls view sexual harassment and even assault as “normal,” says a top Toronto school board official.
Gerry Connelly described the “new normal” phenomenon during her keynote address at the annual Safe Schools Conference in Toronto today.
“A young girl will see somebody being pushed against a locker and fondled inappropriately, or they are being touched inappropriately and they say: ‘Well that’s just the way it is,’” said Ms. Connelly, director of education at the Toronto District School Board.33% of students surveyed reported being sexually harassed in the school over the past two years. Twenty-nine per cent reported being the victim of unwanted sexual contact, including touching or grabbing at their school, and 29 female students or 7% of respondents reported being the victim of a major sexual assault at their school.
Another report on sexual harassment at 23 Ontario schools by the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health showed that 30% of Grade 9 girls and 28% of Grade 11 girls reported having been touched, grabbed or pinched in a sexual way.Ms. Connelly said she was disturbed to learn that 80% of TDSB students said they would not talk to teachers or police about crimes they witnessed or experienced.
According to the US Department of Justice, 17.6 % of women in the United States have survived a completed or attempted rape. Of these, 21.6% were younger than age 12 when they were first raped, and 32.4% were between the ages of 12 and 17. The FBI estimates that only 37% of all rapes are reported to the police. U.S. Justice Department statistics are even lower, with only 26% of all rapes or attempted rapes being reported to law enforcement officials.
My evolution into the feminist you see before you today was only begun by those experiences and realizations–many more, where my gender became a weapon to be wielded against me, were required to truly implant it into my psyche, to make it an intrinsic part of who and what I am. However, due to a need to keep things concise, other than a bare list of what those things were–the military, marriage, engineering school and engineering career–I can’t detail them all here. I wish I could–the story’s not complete. But, perhaps, it’s enough to begin to build an understanding based on empathy. I think, and I hope, that men’s rights activists can understand what it is to have one’s gender, a cornerstone of one’s identity, become the reason one is used and abused by others. It is a terrible thing.
I said near the beginning of this article, that men were uniquely placed as a group to help overcome this particular problem–the sexual predation of girls and women–that results in so many feminists. And they truly are–not because most men are sexual predators–I don’t believe that; I know that’s not true. When I was living on my own, there were many more men who did not try to abuse me than did. But I do know that men often look away from the reality that most sexual predators are men. And not only that–that it is epidemic that any girl who is unprotected by family is considered fair game in not only our culture, but even much more blatantly in many more. People, regardless of gender, do not respect the law if it is not enforced, and even more pertinently on a day-to-day basis, people do not cease behavior that is winked at or simply ignored.
Stop ignoring sexual predation–speak out against it. Don’t stop your efforts to combat false rape accusations–they are evil things. But recognize that one big reason they’re easy to believe for so many is that sexual predation is distressingly common enough that it takes no stretch of the imagination to believe that a rape or attempted rape has occurred. It isn’t just about showing no mercy to false accusers while showing great mercy to real rape and attempted rape victims–that isn’t even the most important thing you can do. The most important thing you can do is something no woman can–speak out among men. Don’t support pornography that shows girls and women used and humiliated like animals or toys, or worse, mock-raped or even raped for real. Don’t pretend not to know who among you likes his girls younger, or laugh or say nothing when the sneering references to girls and women as nothing but targets for use overtakes the conversation. I have spent a fair amount of time in the company of men in traditionally male settings; I know that all these things occur on a regular basis. A woman can’t say or do anything about any of that and be taken seriously, not taken to heart. But a plurality of men can.
This isn’t about tit-for-tat; it’s not about proving which gender has it “better” or “worse”–all this is about is getting rid of feminism. All that I have related here, in terms of the sexual predation experiences of girls and women, is true, and it is also true that they are a driving force in terms of keeping the machine of institutionalized feminism alive, well and healthily thriving. It isn’t “Women’s Studies” classes, nor is it even feminist rhetoric. Most women, like most men, don’t even have a college degree, and most girls, especially those in small and medium-sized towns, don’t ever meet a single, self-identified feminist to talk to while growing up. Until about fifteen years ago, the internet wasn’t a common resource and most of those girls and women prior to that never really laid eyes on a single line of feminist writing.
Feminism will die a natural death if the real, sad reasons young girls and very young women become feminist are taken away–if all that’s left are the cadre of any gender that wants to work the system, feminism will go the way of all scams. But it’s not one now for far too many women, and it won’t end without a majority of men as well as women committing to end the real and sad causes.
Or don’t, and have feminism around, and mainstream as long as women equal or exceed men in numbers, forever. It’s up to you.
That, I haven’t heard about. This, I have.
An example.
I think that’s true, rather along the lines of what Zing was saying earlier. But I think Lisa’s broader point (and, for that matter, Dworkin’s) is that actually eliminating sexual predation of all women would be such a radical shift in society that we can’t really know what kind of problems women as a group would face thereafter. It may in fact be that eliminating sexual predation requires, simply, eliminating oppression. Which would make it, obviously, a pretty ambitious goal. I think there’s still value in that, even if we might never see it accomplished, since the individual steps towards that goal are in themselves valuable social justice achievements, should we chose to make them so.
And should we, y’know, choose to work towards that goal at all.
Also:
Would it be too much to ask that we talk about how men can apply their privilege to act as, I dunno, allies? To work against patriarchal institutions that, y’know, hurt people? Could we talk about the shape of a men’s movement that can actually work towards social justice? And how that movement could be built? Could we talk about how to inspire men to feminist consciousness? Maybe?
As opposed to, say, figuring out how fucked up men could make the world if they all got together and really started raping and assaulting women like they meant it. Let’s just take it as a given that, yes, when that happens, it’s utterly catastrophic.
But it’s not some bullshit pseudo-threat based on “oh-well-don’t-you-think” armchair sociology. It’s not the plot of a cheesy scifi action flick. It’s the actual lived experience of millions of actual women.
So could we please, and I’m willing to beg here, work on that?
Violet,
Do seriously think that’s an example of a feminist standing up for men’s issues???
Excerpted From “Women, Race, & Class”
Paperback – 288 pages (February 12, 1983)
Vintage ; ISBN: 0394713516
by Angela Davis
“The resurgence of racism during the mid-1970s has been
accompanied by a resurrection of the myth of the Black rapist.
Unfortunately, this myth has sometimes been legitimized by white
women associated with the battle against rape. Consider,
for example, Susan Brownmiller’s concluding passage of the
chapter of her book entitled “A Question of Race”:
Today the incidence of actual rape combined with
the looming spectre of the rapist in the mind’s eye,
and in particular the mythified spectre of the black
man as rapist to which the black man in the name of
his manhood now contributes, must be understood as
a control mechanism against the freedom, mobility
and aspirations of all women, white and black. The
crossroads of racism and sexism had to be a violent
meeting place. There is no use pretending it doesn’t
exist.64
Brownmiller’s provocative distortion of such historical cases as
the Scottsboro Nine, Willie McGee and Emmett Till are designed to
dissipate any sympathy for Black men who are victims of
fraudulent rape charges. As for Emmett Till, she clearly invites
us to infer that if this fourteen-year-old boy had not been shot
in the head and dumped into the Tallahatchie River after he
whistled at one white woman, he would probably have succeeded in
raping another white woman.
Brownmiller attempts to persuade her readers that the absurd and
purposely sensational words of Eldridge Cleaver – who called rape
an “insurrectionary act” against “white society” – are
representative. It seems as if she wants to intentionally conjure
up in her readers’ imaginations armies of Black men, their
penises erect, charging full speed ahead toward the most
conveniently placed white women. In the ranks of this army are
the ghost of Emmett Till, the rapist Eldridge Cleaver and Imamu
Baraka, who once wrote, “Come up, black dada nihilismus. Rape the
white girls. Rape their fathers. Cut the mothers’ throats.” But
Brownmiller goes further. Not only does she include men like
Calvin Hernton whose book is unequivocally sexist – but also,
among others, George Jackson, who never attempted to justify
rape. Eldridge Cleaver’s ideas, she argues,
… reflect a strain of thinking among Black male
intellectuals and writers that became quite
fashionable in the late nineteen sixties and was
taken on with astonishing enthusiasm by white male
radicals and parts of the white intellectual
establishment as a perfectly acceptable excuse of
rape committed by black men.65
Susan Brownmiller’s discussion on rape and race evinces an
unthinking partisanship which borders on racism. In pretending to
defend the cause of all women, she sometimes boxes herself into
the position of defending the particular cause of white women,
regardless of its implications. Her examination of the Scottsboro
Nine case is a revealing example. As Brownmiller herself points
out, these nine young men, charged and convicted of rape, spent
long years of their lives in prison because two white women
perjured themselves on the witness stand. Yet she has nothing but
contempt for the Black men and their defense movement – and her
sympathy for the two white women is glaring.
The left fought hard for its symbols of racial
injustice, making bewildered heroes out of a handful
of pathetic, semi-literate fellows caught in the
jaws of Southern jurisprudence who only wanted to
beat the rap.66
On the other hand, the two white women, whose false testimony
sent the Scottsboro Nine to prison, were
. . corraled by a posse of white men who already
believed a rape had taken place. Confused and fearful,
they fell into line.67
No one can deny that the women were manipulated by Alabama
racists. However, it is wrong to portray the women as innocent
pawns, absolved of the responsibility of having collaborated with
the forces of racism. In choosing to take sides with white women,
regardless of the circumstances, Brownmiller herself capitulates
to racism. Her failure to alert white women about the urgency of
combining a fierce challenge to racism with the necessary battle
against sexism is an important plus for the forces of racism
today.”
Vi, I think part of what I was saying, above, is that sexual predation—not necessarily rape, but that too—is so much a part of how some men interact with women that it’s nigh impossible to avoid, unless one simply ignores it, and that it colours every other interaction between men and women, and women and society at large.
i don’t mean that I worry about my boyfriend raping me. I select very carefully for non-predatory men. I mean, though, that “non-predatory” has to be one of the criteria I apply to choosing male partners, in a way that I don’t tend to worry about with female partners.
As for the seduction community, I don’t think much about it. In fact, I had to look it up. Am I correct in my assessment that this is about guys who want to get laid, finding women who want to get laid, and hooking up, using applied communication techniques in order to both indirectly signal their interest, and indirectly ascertain the other party’s interest? I think that if men want to try to improve their pick-up technique, that’s their lookout as long as they take no for an answer, and go away. Hitting on a woman is not a necessarily predatory action—sometimes it’s a perfectly appropriate thing to do. The entire game sounds completely tedious to me.
“The feminist movement doesn’t need male allies to defend women.”
Oh really? The feminist movement doesn’t expect male police oficers to arrest men beating their wives? Doesn’t expect the male-dominated legal system to prosecute male rapists and imprison them in jails run by male guards? Doesn’t expect male UN peacekeping forces to go in and stop atrocities aimed at women? (The feminsts movent is strangely silent on atrocities aimed at men, but that’s another issue.)
Come to think of it, name on victory of feminism, starting with the vote, that didn’t depend, not jusy need but depend on male allies?
“So could we please, and I’m willing to beg here, work on that?”
in total agreement with you there, Violet.
Oh, definitely. And I should have said that I think you’re right that a lot of the discussion—including my comments, here—has sortof conflated rape with the larger issue of sexual oppression, which can be limiting.
I think the broadness you’re talking about is by design. Definitely, sexual oppression is built deeply into the structure of just about every society on earth. Which means that even if we’re just talking about ending rape in particular—or, hell, even if we’re just asking for a one-day truce—then the amount of work required is immense. Radically altering the scripts in relationships between men and women—and, for that matter, deconstructing heterosexuality—are probably, at best, solid first steps. I think the value of saying “stop rape,” (or “stop sexual oppression”) is as a spur, a lattice around which more tangible activism can be built. We’re not going to solve it tomorrow, but maybe tomorrow we’ll build something that steps slightly closer, and is valuable unto itself.
I try to stay pleasantly far away from that, uh, “community,” too, but the critiques I’ve seen are of how nakedly manipulative, and so inherently objectifying, the “techniques” are. This girl won’t fuck you? Get out fast, because obviously, that’s her entire value as a person.
Fair enough. I don’t think that the pick-up scene is any sort of template for a pleasant or sensible relationship. I suspect that it might equitably work in an environment in which most if not all present were on the prowl, as it were.
I can also, upon reflection, see how an environment frequented by members of the community might prove a somewhat hostile environment to anyone who wasn’t on the prowl—the impossibility of simply being permitted to sit and enjoy a drink without someone assuming you’re there as fodder for their pick-up artistry does limit the appeal of a space.
“Can you take the chance? Is not admitting you’re wrong about anything more important than the survival of our society?”
Personally, as a socialist and a radical, I’m really not that interested in the survival of a society as deeply fucked up as our current one. See you after the revolution
Violet,
You’re right that the what ifs etc. aren’t very useful and aren’t important when compared to working to build a men’s movement towards things like eradicate sexual predation. However, when you have men that think a police officer that’s doing his job is being chivalrous as long as a woman is being benefited these men will think that women already get soo many benefits by men, how can they be so ungrateful and ask for more? And this mind set is not going to allow them to join the kind of movement you’re talking about until it’s changed. Though those men are probably a lost cause and we shouldn’t waste our time on them.
Your post doesn’t say it exactly but it implies that the reason we don’t have some of the horrors you link to here is because our men are nicer guys. I don’t think that’s it exactly and I don’t think it’d be easy to get to that kind of state absent unrealistic what ifs. That’s not really on topic though.
I think sexual predation has been decreasing and will continue to decrease, because both men and women are changing, so there’s hope.
Yes.
With the caveat, of course, that through revolution we build something new; this implies very specific things about what the shape of the revolution must be.
This is actually a larger problem that I’m still not sure how to address. Obviously, you can’t awaken feminist consciousness in everyone, even if it’s all you spend your time doing; worse, you can easily spend all your time sparring with brick walls, rather than engaging with people. At the same time, I’m fundamentally not willing to write anyone off, both because they’re, y’know, people, and because they can hurt others. Like, maybe we have an idea of what to do if one of your friends is an abuser, but what about some random guy?
Right now, my approach is pragmatic. I’m going to spend energy on what I can, as best I can. But that doesn’t feel, y’know, whole.
Well, two of those links are how instances of an American woman being raped by a group of American men, so that’s pretty obviously not the case. I do think a series of social justice movements garnering more awareness of and power for oppressed peoples has made sexual violence ever-so-slightly less normalized in places where those movements have taken hold. But it’s delicate—look at the U.S. armed forces. Which brings up another major factor: western societies export violence. We send it elsewhere, where we don’t have to look at it, and where it won’t hurt white people. We send it to marginalized communities within our own borders. Those practices—rape as a weapon of war, rape as a colonial weapon—are the ongoing legacy of colonialism. Which is why even if you decide that all you want to do is end rape, dismantling colonialism is an utter necessity.
From the Wikipedia site on “seduction communities”:
‘The seduction community’s origins date back to Eric Weber’s 1970 book “How to Pick Up Girls.”
End Quote
Hmmm. How many times have I seen a guy on the other site whine about women’s books like “The Rules”??? And the above book pre-dates “The Rules” by at least a decade or two.
This is the stuff I hate. When one side or the other whines about something and it turns out they are guilty of saying or doing the exact same thing.
“Hmmm. How many times have I seen a guy on the other site whine about women’s books like “The Rules”??? ”
Yes, exactly. The two things are close parallels.
The two things are close parallels insomuch as they are both incredibly reductive, shitty books that dehumanize people.
Actually, no. Feminists have spent vast amounts of time and energy creating organizations and networks to support survivors of sexual assault. Since so few rapists are prosecuted and fewer still are convicted, I’d venture to state that most of us are not holding our breaths waiting for the legal system to provide “justice.”
Again, state intervention in cases of domestic violence does not solve the problem, and in fact, can often worsen the abuse.
Feminists are critical of U.N. peacekeepers, since they have been known to rape the people they were supposed to be protecting.
As for feminists “silence” on “men’s issues,” there have been many examples of feminist takes on”atrocities toward men” brought up on this very blog since MRAs came over. I’m not going to re-hash them here, but google Jackson Katz or Michael Kimmel if you want examples. The problem is that MRAs don’t like the solutions feminists propose to these issues, or they conflate reconstructing masculinity with attacking men as people.
That said, institutions occasionally benefit some oppressed groups, some of the time, but these benefits are side effects of anti-oppression movements agitating for change. Some small changes seep into larger social structures through cultural osmosis, not through the benevolence or chivalry of those in power.
You’re begging the question. You state that men control these powerful institutions and that women need these powerful institutions to liberate them from the oppression, but the structure of institutions inherently perpetuates oppression. If we accept the premise that men do, indeed, control these powerful institutions, and that these institutions oppress women, it is illogical to claim that feminists are “dependent” on men. The existence of allies does not imply that movements depend on them. Would you say that the Black Power movement depended on white police officers to stop racially motivated murders, or even to stop committing hate crimes themselves? Women fought for the right to vote for eighty years; it’s not as if men just up and decided that giving women the vote would be the gentlemanly thing to do.
I’m not claiming that allies shouldn’t use their privilege to work for social justice in ways that oppressed people can’t, or that ally work isn’t important, but allies should never obscure the work of people who actually comprise movements.
The two things are close parallels insomuch as they are both incredibly reductive, shitty books that dehumanize people.
And I, for one, blame the patriarchy for both of them ;-P.
“Actually, no. Feminists have spent vast amounts of time and energy creating organizations and networks to support survivors of sexual assault. ”
Wonderful. Think of how much more effective your groups would be if they had the funding currently being wasted, according to you, on the prison-industrial complex. I look forward to your agitation and legislative pressure to defund it.
“Feminists are critical of U.N. peacekeepers, since they have been known to rape the people they were supposed to be protecting.”
Well, good. Then we can expect feminists to form armed groups to go in and protect these vulnerable people?
Nowhere did I say that attempting to legislatively de-fund the prison-industrial complex would be an effective tactic to promote anti-violence organizations. That was your opinion. Using an oppressive institution (politics) to try and rectify the problems caused by another oppressive institution (the legal system) amounts to ineffectual activism. I am more interested in creating radical relationships, communities, and organizations to address oppression within our own communities.
I’m not quite sure what your point is. I merely stated that the feminist movement does not “depend” on U.N. peackeepers, or on men in general, since both men and U.N. peacekeepers are often the perpetrators of violence against oppressed groups. It is easy for those in power to shield harm they commit under the guise of protection.
Absolutely! Was that meant to be sarcasm? Because we’re doing just that.
Well, yes, actually,
But there’s a much more significant problem with your argument: you’re conflating institutions with allies, and none of the institutions you’re talking about—not the police, not the political system, and certainly not the military— are allies of feminist causes or institutions. You’re saying that we needed the blessing of state patriarchs for women to get the right to vote—except, of course, it wouldn’t be an issue if they hadn’t denied women the vote in the first place. You’re saying that we need the police stop violence against women—but our criminal justice system is itself the cause of most of that violence, often very directly. You’re saying that we need military interventions to halt atrocities, but those interventions will be made by the very same armies that created the violence to begin with, and it is not at all a given that they will make things better.
Demanding that these institutions act for social justice instead of the more usual reverse is simply what social justice movements do. That those demands are sporadically, glacially, and incompletely acted upon is hardly evidence that, say, the Birmingham police are anti-racist allies. It’s evidence that the black liberation movements have been, at least in part, successful.
Demanding that individual men—or even male-dominated movements—become allied with feminism is a different manner of thing. We’re demanding it because allies can do important and valuable work, and allies with privilege can use that privilege to work against oppression. We are not demanding it because we need big, strong men to protect us and beat up the bad people and invade, I dunno, Saudi Arabia. To then respond, “well, you wouldn’t have gotten anywhere if not for male allies,” effectively erases the work of all the women in the movement, and is no less problematic than telling a anti-racist activist, “well, you wouldn’t have gotten anywhere if not for white people,” or a queer activist, “well, you wouldn’t have gotten anywhere if not for straights.”
Which is why, if someone asks, “what will you do if no men decide to help?” my answer will be, “nothing very different.” But it’s rather a false question, since men continue to join in feminist activism. Better questions along this line might be: “how can we get more,” and “why haven’t you?”
What bewilders me here, Jim2, is that you seem to think that an individual doing his job to the letter of the law is an example of “male support of women/feminists” if the individual doing his job is (a) male and (b) does it without checking to see what sex the person he is doing his job for is.
EllenBrenna:
Ok, which of the major points MRA’s are concerned about do you think are “whining about loss of privelige”? Would that be the demand for equal reproductive rights? Is the call for shared parenting a sound choice, or another path for abusers to take, in your mind? Have you noticed the massive disparity in sentencing between the sexes (which accounts for more difference than ANY other factor)? How about the institutionalized sexism against men? Notice that?
Which of these issues have feminists been “tackling”?
Since when have child labour, occupational safety laws, and prison reform been a “Men’s Issue” (I thought they affected everyone, not just men)? What, pray tell, does abortion have to do with men, given they can neither have one themselves, nor demand them of another?
If this is “paying attention to” our issues, it’s hardly surprising to be labelled “misogynist” or “homophobe” at every turn. After all, one can hardly deliver a coherent criticism of an argument one has never heard….
Incidentally, the effect I am talking about, far from a “Scary SciFi” scenario, is one like this person is complaining about:
http://simplyanne.wordpress.com/2006/06/19/where-have-all-the-good-men-gone/
Namely, men just stop caring, striving to succeed, competing, trying to win women’s favour at all really, I mean why bother….
How nice would the world be?
You guys are the women, do you think that the world is like that already? Seriously? As in it can’t get worse? Much worse?
Think about it.
Hey Factory and Jim2, if you and your MRA buddies want to go away and stop talking to women or having anything to do with us, I’m all good with that. There are a lot of other men out there who are waking up and becoming allies in building a more equitable, just, and fair world. So why don’t you all take your toys and go home so the rest of us can get on with actually dealing with the problems?
Right, if we can’t play nice and agree with you, we should just go home, or disappear, to make room for more “suitable” men. You know, men that are more pliant and easily controlled….
Real open ideological foundation you have there…
Incidentally, you might just find that there are more men that feel like me than, say, Ampersand.
A good deal more.
“You guys are the women, do you think that the world is like that already? Seriously? As in it can’t get worse? Much worse?
Think about it.”
I think you’re seriously missing the point, Factory. Men not caring about women is nothing new. MRAs didn’t invent misogyny, for fuck’s sake. Men hating women and not giving a damn about us has been the way of things for thousands of years.
Can it get worse? Sure, but threatening to stop playing nice (ha) if the feminists don’t give men what they want is not the solution here.
“Right, if we can’t play nice and agree with you, we should just go home, or disappear, to make room for more “suitable” men. ”
I’m down with that, personally.
Faith, I’ll second that.
The irony here is, of course, the stereotype of women being empathetic and caring….
If that’s your outlook on men, and how they have historically treated/regarded women, if that’s what you think the default position of men is….well, I can’t help you. You’ll see how wrong that perspective is, or not, as time passes.
It’s like the old adage, you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink.
Outright refusing to believe that men care for women FAR more than they care about each other (or women care about each other to be honest), or that men are being mistreated and “punished” for this outlook, does not make it untrue.
What sort of benefits exist for men along the path you advocate? I’d be willing to bet very few that men themselves would actually call beneficial, and in fact would likely result in men that women find unattractive. While that may suit the lesbians among you quite well, I imagine hetero women might take issue.
The issues outlined by men (and women) who self identify as MRA’s are not going to go away. Sticking your fingers in your ears and refusing to acknowledge them, or that feminist policy affected the lives of men in any way (undeservedly) negatively, will not affect the outcome, or the perception.
As I see it, you have 2 choices. If you believe that men just need more “education”, and “guidance” and then they will most certainly be happy with their reduced position in life, well, that’s one thing, and just keep on keeping on. After all, who cares if a second class (fourth in california, behind children and family pets) citizen is miffed, right?
If, on the other hand, you believe all people should be treated with respect, and that all people should have the same rights, and enjoy the same level of acceptance in society, then you REALLY need to rethink your support of feminism.
Because even here, on a feminist blog that houses several “luminaries” of the feminist ideology, no one has shown me one thing feminism has accomplished for men, definitely not something men themselves wanted anyway…
MRA’s exist for a reason. We spent many years trying to influence the direction of feminism, to act sort of as a mitigating force, balance if you will. Feminists universally disregarded us, laughed, dismissed as irrelevant and “bitter” everything we have to say…
I am simply telling you that there is nothing quite so closed minded and dogmatic as a feminist. Lisa, and others, have proved the exception to the rule.
In the face of injustice, with no political support from any side (ESPECIALLY the “defenders of gender equality”), MRA’s have taken it upon themselves to fight for what WE want. I personally am ready to advocate dismissing outright anything a feminist has to say to influence these goals, just like has been done with us (given the utter lack of respect for our position shown by nearly every feminist I’ve encountered).
If you think we have, and will have, no power to influence public opinion, think again. Like I said, I’ve been around a while. I KNOW from whence the Men’s Movement came, and I know how fast it’s snowballing.
Glenn has been trying to get a discourse going on, specifically to influence the men’s movement with some mitigating influence from “the other side”. I see value in this approach, and try to do the same, only I’m not quite so concerned about appearances.
There are a LOT of MRA sites around that think Glenn is a pushover, a pansy, a Fifth Columnist to the Men’s Movement.
The way I see it, you have a choice between the Glenn Sacks’ of the world, or the guys more extreme than me.
Frankly, I’m about ready to stop trying, to “toss you to the wolves”, figuratively speaking.
Let’s be honest, I don’t have a handle on everything, but to deny Feminism itself is headed for a giant cliff is ostrich behaviour of the first order. Feminism has a reputation for being composed of hairy-legged, man-hating lesbians. This stereotype did not emerge from a vacuum, it was not the result of a concerted campaign to “smear” feminism….feminism did that all on it’s own.
And yet, people who point out the facets of feminism that lead to this very stereotype are “misogynist”?
Your movement is dying, mine is growing (exponentially). We’ll see who’s on the “right” side sooner or later….
Incidentally Lisa, you mentioned you got the feeling Glenn thought the Men’s Movement was stalling. I disagree. I think Glenn may be losing hope that we will be paid attention to before more extreme measures are taken by others (for example, while he can’t deny the success of F4J, he denounces their actions every time…).
Keep in mind, he doesn’t like me at all, not one bit (and while I can prove it, I have no desire or willingness to). He thinks I’m extreme and off the handle (which I can be), he thinks I’m a detriment to the men’s movement (quite likely). That ought to give you some idea of how moderate Glenn is. Of course, most of this is conjecture, but let’s just say I wouldn’t be surprised to find it’s true.
In other words, Glenn is easily the most moderate MRA running a blog I’ve come across.
“Here, let me point out one other person who, while not actually agreeing with me, is frustrated with men. Thus totally proving my point.”
A point which, incidentally, would be better substantiated by her blog were she not married now.
Ah, yes. The terrible ennui of privileged men. How completely novel!
Please, not the briar patch.
Shorter Factory: “We will rise again.”
Factory, how would it be bad for men to not be stuck in a narrow, confining role? In a feminist society, men wouldn’t have to worry about not being ‘macho’ enough. Careers would be open to anyone w/ the interest/ability for them. It would be ‘stay-at-home-parent’, w/ no expectation of women being automatically more nurturing. Men would have much wider wardrobe options. If women didn’t feel the need for various ‘safety measures’, men would have a much easier time finding out where they ‘stood’.
But all this has already been said (more eloquently, in greater detail) in other posts on this site. And you’ve made it quite clear, here and in other posts, that you’re not interested in being an ally. Well, that’s your call. Somehow, feminism will soldier on w/o you.
“While [Glenn] can’t deny the success of F4J, he denounces their actions every time.”
Actually, I have praised and promoted F 4 J’s nonviolent protests countless times in newspaper columns, on the radio, and on my blog, going all the way back to 2003.
However, I have stated a tactical difference with them when they protest at judges’ or government officials’ homes. I believe it’s counterproductive, for reasons I explain at http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=2923.
Best Wishes,
Glenn Sacks
(Pushover/Pansy/Fifth Columnist)
Factory, this isn’t a discussion of whether feminism is valuable. There are many such discussions on the tubes that I’m sure would love to hear it.
As usual, decide if you want my words to be seen then. Your blog, your choice.
For what it’s worth, I’m pointing out the need for MRA’s, not the “worthlessness” of feminism.
Pansy Glenn?
lol!
Pushover Glenn? You have to be kidding!
no one has shown me one thing feminism has accomplished for men, definitely not something men themselves wanted anyway…
Ummm … that might be because, while feminists may disagree about exactly what feminism means, or how to go about feminism, most agree that the point of feminism is to advance the rights of women in society.
Some of us do this while at the same time working for the rights of immigrants, the rights of queer people, people with disabilities, people of colour, and socioeonomically disadvantaged people, or other people, because we believe that these people also have rights, and because we’re capable of working for different, but congruent goals.
What some feminists argue is that achieving some things that are good for women also confers good on men. For example, I believe strongly in and advocate strongly for a national subsidized childcare system, so that families in which both parents work can afford to have children. For me, subsidized childcare is a feminist cause. I believe it’s dangerous and demeaning for women to be dependent on men for support, and that children deserve good care while parents are working. I believe that, since women are disporportionately primary caregivers, subsidized childcare will benefit more women than men, but it will benefit all families, including those with single dads.
Subsidized childcare doesn’t represent a feminist victory, because we don’t have it yet. But it’s a feminist cause whose benefits extend well beyond women.
I have yet to find a feminist group whose stated primary goal is to improve the lot of men in society. There’s room in my feminism for a lot of feminisms, but that? That would be doin it rong.
But Zingerella, you are quite eloquently proving my point. Feminism is not about equality, it’s about improving the lot of women. By not taking the male perspective into equal account, the feminist perspective on “reality” is skewed (in my view).
But that is neither here nor there.
My contention is not that feminism isn’t (or shouldn’t be) nearly exclusively concerned with women, my contention is that a movement (or political group, whatever) that at least attempts to speak for the other gender should not be greeted with the hostility and suspicion it has been…in a perfect world.
My contention is that precisely because feminism has deliberately ignored men (as an ideology/area of study) except as oppressors, it has invalidated itself from comment on men’s issues outside the realm of the generic (ie. going to feminist scholars to determine the veracity of MRA claims is like asking the CBS News crew “who is better, CBS News or Fox?”).
Which of course ties back in with the intent of The Feminist Dissident. There is a certain subset of MRA’s that think we will “succeed” when we manage to break our way into popular “feminist” dialog. There are certain MRA’s who frankly believe the Men’s Movement is destined to be a sort of auxiliary to feminism. There are a much larger number of MRA’s who believe appeasement (for lack of a better term) is the way to go (“You’re right, I don’t mean to make you feel uncomfortable, but what about my point?…”).
These people all share a desire for feminist “validation” of their views (to one degree or another).
But in my view, most of us that support the concept of this column do so simply because we see a lot of mischaracterizations, and a lot of missing …perspective?… in the feminist discourse, and an exchange of ideas can only benefit those involved.
Unfortunately, so far it’s been treated as a way to “educate the unwashed”, rather than dialogue on issues. Which is why I wrote it off as a failure until I found out Lisa was on GS’s blog.
She’s a feminist I respect. She investigated and made her (terribly erroneous) judgments based on a good deal of listening and debating. She set a good example of the beginnings of a dialogue. Of course, she’s not all sunshine and roses (she’s a hairy-legged, man-hating feminist after all), but she at least attempts to look like she is trying to get your point…most of the time.
The long and short of it is this…
To use the vernacular, oppressor classes never think they are doing so. In fact, most commonly they believe they bring a “civilizing influence”, or “improve them, even if it’s kicking and screaming”….n’est pas?
You may disagree that feminism, and adherence to it’s precepts, has hurt men and society. MRA’s disagree.
We should talk about it, but after years of saying so to no avail, I ain’t holding my breath…
Actually, Factory, this thread was not only pretty much dead, it was specifically designated as a “feminist-friendly” thread, so I can only construe your post, now Hypnotoaded above, as a deliberate display of obnoxiousness. One more of these, on any thread, and you are banned from PAB. Respect is a two-way street; disrespect can be too.
GOD said: “Feminism will be the apocalypse of mankind”