This comment was from wellokaythen on the post “Five Ways Feminism Helps Men“
It seems like much of the criticism about feminism here suggests an all-or-nothing approach, that you can’t accept any particular aspects of feminist ideas without accepting ALL versions of it. Like, somehow NO part of feminism can be mutually beneficial to men and women because some strands of feminism act at the expense of men. Like all parts of feminism are therefore tainted by the extremists, somehow.
Besides reminding me of a religious point of view (any compromise with Satan is just playing into Satan’s hands), it also reminds me of the anticommunism in the U.S. during the Cold War. There was the duck test – if it looks like a duck and talks like a duck, it’s a duck. Therefore, anything that looked remotely similar to communism in any way was, to all intents and purposes, the enemy. Along the truly reprehensible things that Stalinist-style communism threatened, there were also such horrible party platforms as racial equality for African Americans, equal hourly wages for women and men, and the right to form unions.
So, anything that had any overlap with any of that was communism. Martin Luther King, Jr., calling for an end to segregation? Obviously a commie, because that’s what commies talk like. Give commies an inch and before you know it they will have corrupted your bodily fluids and you’ll be speaking Russian. The AMA was against the government providing the polio vaccine, because that’s what socialized medicine does, and that’s just the slippery slope to communist domination.
I can’t help but notice something similar sometimes when the word “feminism” comes up. By definition, feminism is just the enemy by its very nature. (There’s something to the “-ism” suffix that makes stuff sound especially sinister.) Somehow it’s a monolith directed by Dworkin just like all communism was directed by the Kremlin. Stalin, Dworkin, whatever, same difference. If it’s something I don’t like, then it’s feminism, and if it does nothing to renounce feminism then it is soft on feminism and therefore suspect as well. Any woman suggesting anything that sounds like feminism is a feminist, and as we all know all feminism is essentially anti-male, so the logic is clear.
It’s airtight, coherent, circular logic that dispenses with all criticism. (Ironically, a bit like many forms of Marxist-Leninism.)
But you know, even hardcore anticommunists like Nixon and Reagan could recognize the possibility of mutual benefit when negotiating with the enemy. Perhaps feminism and anti-feminism could use a little détente?
–
photo: ladybug / flickr
About the Editors
I don’t know how I missed this viewpoint, but I think it’s spot on.
I made a similar comment further down the thread, but I used a weaker metaphor, and I believe that this piece really says it all.
There is no question in my mind that there are good aspects to feminism, and that these aspects have benefited out society.
For the purpose of moving the conversation forward, I would like to suggest that the reaction which Wellokaythen aptly describes probably has something to do with the form of feminist arguments.
Let me give a quick example:
Feminist: My point of view is correct, and if you can’t see it’s because you are dripping with privilege
Confused Man: I worked full time to put myself through community college and have tons of student loan debt, I’m pretty sure that I’m not privileged…
Feminist: Haha, caught you! I’m using a non-standard definition of privilege which definitively proves my point! Now I’m doubly right!
I wish this was a gross exaggeration, but it’s really not. I’ve seen this play out almost word for word at Feministe and Jezebel on a regular basis.
I don’t really have a good answer for how to get past this. I’ve read up on theories of privilege, intersectionality, patriarchy, etc. and I’m convinced its entirely wrong. The vast majority of it uses alternative definitions of words to set up un-falsifiable hypotheses.
Nonetheless, I suspect this is the core problem. Until we can figure out a way to communicate past these sorts of issues, where arguments take place entirely around the definitions of words, I think there will continue to be knee-jerk reactions which are both unfortunate and unhelpful.
Very good point here. There are forms of feminism (and many other modern “-isms”) that present very simplistic, attack-format arguments. There are many political ideologies and sub-ideologies that rely on guilt by association, shame tactics, equivocation, and binary thinking. I admit on occasion I have relied on the whole “slippery slope” fallacy myself, because it is just so damn tempting. What’s fascinating to me is how so many political spectra are curved – go far off to the left and to the right and the two mortal enemies begin to resemble each other more and more.
(That conversation is a pretty good approximation of some (SOME!) exchanges I’ve seen on GMP on the questions of race and gender privilege. I’ve read people from all over the political spectrum, on many sides of any particular issue, say, essentially that if you disagree with me then you are in denial of reality or are obviously blinded by your own ____ or ____ or ______. It’s a very useful approach. You can fill in the blanks with anything and win!)
Who knows, it’s so common I may have done this myself without being conscious of it. If I have, I expect now that my attention will be brought to specific instances.
I caution anyone against the very easy conclusion that because some critics of feminism use simplistic arguments that therefore feminism does not. Nor should one draw the conclusion that because some critics of feminism involve overly simple arguments therefore all criticism of feminism is bogus.
Simple solution: Don’t change the definition of common parlance words. If you need a new definition for a word pick a neologism so we don’t waste time playing lawyer. (IE spend 5 pages establishing definition of the payor and payee)
“It seems like much of the criticism about feminism here suggests an all-or-nothing approach, that you can’t accept any particular aspects of feminist ideas without accepting ALL versions of it. Like, somehow NO part of feminism can be mutually beneficial to men and women because some strands of feminism act at the expense of men. Like all parts of feminism are therefore tainted by the extremists, somehow.”
You’re making something vague that isn’t vague at all. I’ll say it again: if you want to see how feminism has harmed men just look at the laws and bills that it has backed. Please point out one law or bill backed by feminists (that passed) that benefits men.
There’s really no comparison to communism needed, just an objective look at actions taken and results as they pertain to men, nothing more.
” If it’s something I don’t like, then it’s feminism, and if it does nothing to renounce feminism then it is soft on feminism and therefore suspect as well.”
And this is belittling the real and honest criticisms that many thoughtful men wrote in that thread. I’ve read other pro-feminist comments from you and understand you’re a staunch supporter but frankly this is just crude and insulting. I thought you were more intelligent than this reply indicates.
Thanks for the thoughtful replies. I love it when comments that appear to be critical help me prove my original point.
First off, let me get this out of the way: I have already stipulated elsewhere that I am a horrible person, and that I will agree with every analysis of my motivations. If someone says I’m pro-feminist, that’s what I am. If someone says I’m anti-feminist, that’s what I am. Whatever label anyone would like to use, I accept it. (May I say, though, I’ve always thought of myself as too lazy and cynical to be a “staunch” anything, but like I say I may not be too disappointingly stupid to know the truth about myself.) I hereby admit to being ashamed of myself and completely without shame at the same time.
I also have to admit that some of my messages have said things about feminism that are non-negative or even positive about some aspects of feminism. I can see that if I looked through the lens of what I am calling a McCarthyist analog that some things I’ve written sound like “quack, quack” and look like “waddle, waddle.” From that point of view, I am therefore staunchly a duck.
What I should have done is offer a different interpretation of the duck test. I see overly simplistic analysis of feminism going on sometimes on the GMP. The real duck test going on is more like “It has feathers and feet, so it must be a duck.” Or, in this case, “it says positive things about ducks, so it must be a duck.” (Instead of a “fellow traveler,” maybe fellow migrator? Fellow waddler?)
In my view, there are multiple variants of feminism, and some are hostile and even dangerous to men, others are somewhat indifferent to men’s interests, and others benefit men. I tend to see my view as somewhat centrist or even wishy-washy, so I was a little surprised to see my messages characterized as pro-feminist. If occasionally saying positive things about some feminist arguments and critiquing some anti-feminist arguments counts as pro-feminism, then by that definition I am a pro-feminist. If thinking that women’s right to vote is a good idea counts as feminism, then you got me, I’m a feminist.
One big piece missing from my Cold War comparison is the “zero-sum” mindset. If something is good for the enemy, then it is bad for us, and vice versa. Anything that benefits the other side cannot really benefit us. (In practice there were plenty of moments of détente in the Cold War where leaders agreed on things of mutual benefit, and they limited the zero-sum thinking.) I don’t think women’s interests and men’s interests are inherently always at odds with each other, and I don’t think feminism by definition is inherently antagonistic to men’s interests. Maybe yes, maybe no.
In one of my earlier posts, I made a very broad definition of feminism that included women’s suffrage as a goal. In my broad definition of feminism, any time women have voted is a moment in which feminism has had an influence. In terms of legislation, therefore, any legislation passed with women as voters has been a product of feminism. Every law passed in the past 100 years or so has been passed by a system influenced by feminism. So, if feminism has not helped men via legislation, then no legislation since 1920 has helped men. (Maybe that’s in fact true, but I find that hard to believe.) Pick any law that one can see as benefitting men in the past century, and there have been women who voted for it, or women voters voted for the representatives who passed the law.
P.S. I almost forgot the most delicious irony. In the U.S. and many other Western countries in the twentieth century, many male political leaders saw women’s suffrage as move AGAINST radicalism. The thinking for many political leaders was that women would naturally be somewhat conservative, especially when it came to dealing with the threat of Bolshevism, socialism, etc. They assumed that women would never support such “anti-family” things as the Communist Party, so therefore granting women the right to vote could prevent the radicals from taking over. So, sort of like feminism as a bulwark against communism.
“I see overly simplistic analysis of feminism going on sometimes on the GMP.”
Here’s where you are waaay off target. No one was analyzing feminism but you. All those men were posting comments explaining their *lived experiences* as a result of feminist backed legislature. We were talking about *real things* (laws that discriminate against us, funding for only women etc.) We were talking about the actions taken by the movement, and you are now talking about the ideas of the movement. You are comparing apples to oranges.
“In my broad definition of feminism, any time women have voted is a moment in which feminism has had an influence. In terms of legislation, therefore, any legislation passed with women as voters has been a product of feminism.”
I hope you realize how fundamentally flawed this logical argument is. You are equating something being “a product of” feminism with feminism supporting it. That is patently false. I could just as easily say that Jewish people traveling on the Autobahn is “a product” of Nazism, but that *doesn’t* mean they supported it.
“If occasionally saying positive things about some feminist arguments and critiquing some anti-feminist arguments counts as pro-feminism, then by that definition I am a pro-feminist.”
That wasn’t why I called you a feminist. It’s your attitude towards men who were being honest about how they have been discriminated against by the feminist movement throughout their lives. Through your writing you characterturized them as childish black and white thinkers who identify anything they don’t like as “feminism”. You belittled them and discounted their perspectives. Instead of trying to level with them and understand them, you set up a straw-man falsely representing what they said and you insulted them. To be honest I’m amazed your comment was allowed by the mods considering the false and demeaning way that it portrays what those men had to say. I’ve only ever seen one type of person treat male grievances with such mocking disdain. So I guessed, and you proved me right.
Use egalitarianism, it’d probably solve quite a few issues. Everyone get together and work to end the rights issues for all humans, everyone equal under law, etc.
For some reason feminist are vehemently opposed to calling themselves humanists or egalitarians instead of feminists.
I for one think that says a lot about them.
Except for the feminists who do call themselves egalitarian and humanists. I, for one, identify with all three labels.
The key phrase was “instead of”
There is a fundamental difference between a humanist and a feminist.
Humanist, feminist and egalitarian are all three distinct terms which are not mutually exclusive, but are separate. You were implying that feminists eschew the labels of egalitarian and humanist. I was pointing out that there are feminists to embrace all three.
“You were implying that feminists eschew the labels of egalitarian and humanist.”
No, I’m implying nothing. I’m directly stating that if a person calls themselves a feminist instead of or in addition to a humanist or an egalitarian I think it says a lot about them.
Humanism is about human rights. Egalitarianism is about equality. Feminism is about women’s rights.
So my comment above is “awaiting moderation”. Can someone please tell me why? It’s civil, no personal attacks , no foul language, and it’s on topic!
Was it long or had multiple links? Sometimes they’re randomly caught up in moderation.
I guess this site is becoming like those other ‘Gynocentric’ sites. Even if you obey all the rules, if the ‘Moderator’ doesn’t like what you have to say, ‘Poof’ , your comment ‘Disappears’
Hello Everyone,
Just letting everyone know that we’re a couple moderators short this week. If your comment ends up in moderation for an extended period chances are that’s the reason. Please have patience. Thanks.
It works the other way too Bob.
“If it’s something I don’t like, then it’s feminism.”
Can you believe this demeaning generalization about the way men talk on this website about feminism was allowed by the mods?
Gynocentric indeed.
Feminism’s concern is for women; as I have pointed out before I do not rail at my baker because he doesn’t sell automotive spare parts, neither do I expect feminism to address men’s issues. Men need something of their own, organisations to attend to men’s issues. I believe some feminists try to make it seem as if feminism is for men because they are worried if men get mobilised, they will draw attention and money away from women’s issues.
I think the real issue here is one that we actually see pretty often from feminists who don’t support men’s rights. They tend to use shaming tactics and logical fallacies in an effort to diminish the grievances of men. WOT has done just that here by painting a picture of men who have no actual grievances against feminism but instead blame everything on it.
I’ll say it again. I’m amazed the mods allowed this comment in the initial thread, let alone created one out of it. This is not a step towards building a bridge towards understanding, this is nothing more than shaming language from a pro-feminist against men with real grievances and sharp criticisms of a movement that has discriminated against them.
Stop building scarecrows and actually listen to us.
I have noticed that many women (and some men) on this website, rather than try to understand why men would criticize feminism and hold grievances against the movement, instead seek to argue with them in an attempt to either convince them that feminism isn’t as bad as they think, or in an attempt to belittle and shame them for holding negative views of feminism.
I understand that some of you hold feminism in high regard. What I don’t understand is what you are trying to accomplish.
1. Without getting into any specifics, it is safe to say that many men here have very real grievances against the movement called feminism. There are actions that the feminist movement has taken to enact, support, and institutionalize discrimination against men. This isn’t up for debate and no amount of arguing with these men is going to convince them that this didn’t happen and that these institutionalized discriminatory laws and procedures aren’t real. They are real, and feminism as evidenced by its support, wants them to stay. You can accept that and engage in a discourse with those men about these issues, or you can continue to argue that feminism has actually benefitted men. On one path lies understanding and progress, on the other lies endless debate and conflicting views. Choose wisely.
2. We understand what we say and what we are talking about. If you don’t, then just ask, we’d be happy to explain. But what I don’t understand is what you’re trying to do when you deliberately misrepresent what we say in an effort to make us sound less credible. It’s not like we are presenting arguments to a judge, we are just people having a conversation. Deliberately misrepresenting what we say isn’t going to convince us that we are wrong. All this is going to do is create animosity. So again you can seek to understand us, or you can deliberately misrepresent what we say and belittle us. On one path lies respect and honesty, on the other lies petty insults and point-scoring. Choose wisely.
So at the end of the day the question is, “What are you trying to accomplish?”
Are you trying to reverse some of the laws feminism has backed and redistribute government funding to level the playing field so that men and women are truly treated equally? Are you trying to address grievances on both sides and work towards building a better tomorrow? Or are you just trying to defend feminism and shame men who criticize it into silence? Are you just trying to prove you’re smart and witty and a clever debater?
What is the goal here?
From our perspective there’s really nothing to defend. We agree that like Marxism, it was a great idea that just didn’t pan out. In theory it was great, in practice it discriminated against men. Time to scrap it and head back to the drawing board.
I believe that I have been helped by writings and advances in psychology on the subject of recovery from rape that would not exist if feminism hadn’t started dialogue on the subject. On the other hand, only recently have I discovered a rape recovery group for men, and have not been able to join women’s only groups. So I do not see it as a contradiction to say that feminism has helped some men in some ways and hurt other men in other ways.
“It’s airtight, coherent, circular logic that dispenses with all criticism. (Ironically, a bit like many forms of Marxist-Leninism.)”
The irony is that is exactly how one would describe your arguments against the criticism of feminism. I mean besides the airtight part. Falsely representing what others have said and using your own definitions for words are not the hallmarks of an “airtight” argument.
Jimmy,
Thank you for your thoughtful and passionate response. You have given me much to think about and explore about myself. Namaste.
What I think is happening is that Jimmy and I are coming from very different assumptions or at least very different experiences with feminism. Or, different perspectives on feminism based somewhat on different definitions. I’d say that is an accurate characterization, and I’d say that there are probably other differences as well. (We may not even agree on what our main difference are.)
(I am using third person language here not to cut anyone off or talk like they aren’t here, but to keep the discussion more open than a two-person conversation.)
For example, in terms of men who feel discriminated against or feel that they have been victimized by feminism, I would accept that that’s the way that they feel. I have no reason to doubt that is what they feel, and no useful reason to argue they don’t feel that way. (It’s impossible to test conclusively what anyone else actually believes, anyway, even if I was interested in testing it.)
I generally approach these kinds of perspectives the same no matter what the ostensible gender or political position is – feeling discriminated against is not by itself good proof of discrimination at work. In that way I have been accused of dismissing the experience of many sorts of people. An interesting political question: if I have ticked off feminists by “my attitude,” am I still a feminist?
I have tried to focus on ideas and arguments because at the level of an online discussion, I really cannot tell anything about anyone else writing in. I can’t come to any reliable conclusions about what is motivating anyone or who they really are. I can say what I notice about the language, what the arguments remind me of, how the ideas relate to my experience, etc. I can’t even assume that someone writing in claiming to be a particular gender really is from that gender. I’ve written onto blogs under all sorts of identities, under multiple genders, so I’ve always assumed I can’t really judge an e-book by its cover. (Only one or two people know whether “wellokaythen” and “Jimmy” really are two different people. At the end of the day, in the online discussion all we have is what’s written there.)
I can see how the *effects* of my arguments could contribute to some sort of benefit to particular feminists. I’m not sure what the solution to that is, if I think I have a valid argument. Never make what I think is a valid point if the valid point could be used by some feminists to attack some anti-feminists?
As I mentioned earlier, there are forms of feminism that have acted against men’s interests. I consider that just one part of the larger, broad umbrella term “feminism,” but not necessarily the central defining feature. If I suggest that some people’s interpretation may or may not be accurate, that does not mean that I am trying to say they don’t feel what they feel. Perhaps to others, my questioning what I see as their apparent assumptions looks like I am denying them their feelings. From my standpoint, I don’t think that is true.
I can see how my language may have been unclear and misleading. I had hoped that comparing forms of feminism to Stalinism would be a clue as to my perspectives on the potential hazards of some forms of feminism. I should have made it more clear by saying that Stalin was a right bastard.
Also, from my perspective, it would be inaccurate for me to say “the feminist movement,” because there have been multiple variants of feminism, not a single movement. Perhaps most of them have some ideas and heroes in common, but “the feminist movement” sounds too monolithic to my ears. Again, others have very strong views on this, and I can see how it could sound insulting to suggest that the enemy is not as monolithic as one feels sometimes.
Also, maybe there is a different threshold at work when it comes to the vocabulary of moderation. When I thought I was being circumspect with my language, it seems to have come across as absolute and rigid generalization. From my perspective, I was assuming that the following words I used throughout would suggest that I was staying away from firm generalizations: sometimes, in some GMP discussions, some people, some men, some interpretations, some definitions of feminism, some critiques of feminism, I get the sense, it seems to me, it reminds me of, I see similarities to, from my perspective, etc.
This is admittedly an incomplete response. I would like to return to the discussion a little later after a little more thought and research. Please don’t take what’s missing from this current message as evidence that I am ignoring or in denial about things I have not mentioned yet. I very well could be, but lack of evidence is not evidence of lack.
I’m loving the mirror-image thing going on here. That’s very bipolar, Cold War like, as well.
That was an incredibly open-minded post. You’re right that I don’t know if you’re a man or a woman or even a committee of people. Regardless, I like the way you write. I like that you ask so many questions and I like that you draw analogies.
My point is that many men believe that we have been and are currently being discriminated against based on our sex. While you are right that just because they believe this doesn’t make it true, it is a heavy indicator. While criticism is a necessary tool for reconsidering our beliefs, criticism without an effort to understand is nothing more than a blind attack.
I believe that our goal here should be one of understanding and progress. We want to be good men, but we also want to be treated fairly. I don’t think that we can expect one without the other. A lot of us feel cheated and taken advantage of, lied to and ignored. No one can expect someone who feels that way to be a good man.
So my question is how do we progress from here? Do we discount the cries for help from men and continue to demand that they “be good?” Do we walk away from the table and leave them to destroy themselves? Or do we strike a treaty and make things right and then help to guide them towards becoming the great men we believe they were born to be?
Thanks for the encouragement. I can see how my messages did not seem all that useful in a practical sense of making specific changes. We probably agree on more things than might be evident in the previous discussion. Excellent points, excellent questions.
(Lesson to others: THIS is how you make me feel bad. Be nice to me after I act like a sarcastic jerkface, so I look like a heel. Then I REALLY feel like a schmuck…. : – ) )
You look like a powerfully creative intellectual, not a heel, and I certainly hope you don’t feel bad at all. I think that what you post is really eye-opening and I look forward to reading more of what you have to say.
I just hope we can find some middle ground.
- Do we discount the cries for help from men and continue to demand that they “be good?”
I see feminism in its many forms is unrelated to goodness in men. Feminism is not about men, and it has no need to be. We don’t generally believe a bricklayer has many insights into neuro-surgery, why would we consider feminism had anything to contribute to men’s issues? Until we stop trying to ram this square peg of feminism into the round hole of “being for all women and men” the dialogue will be stalled.
In a time when men are abjured from telling women how they should behave, what they should think and what they should feel, why would men accept the reciprocal from any brand of feminism? To do so would not be equality but submission.
The problem that feminism presents is that its a polemic. Its unyielding, its viewed as the one truth, will not own up to flaws and problems … I think that’s why the gender debate is in such a stalemate when it comes to feminism.
“will not own up to flaws and problems”
This is false. The difference between second-wave and third-wave feminism, for example, is that a bunch of feminists realized a bunch of flaws in second-wave feminism and decided that should change. Now it might not be owning up to some specific flaws that you would like it to own up to. However, feminism (or rather, feminisms) attempts to correct its problems fairly often.
Heather.
that was internal, and the differing waves are strategic ones. It will not own up to flaws outside of the monolith and engage in fair debate with others on the outside.
Good point. Historically, that’s one reason why there have been waves in the first place. There have been generational changes in feminism and differences of opinion between older and younger feminists. Sometimes the generation gap has been enormous. Sometimes feminism has surged and retreated.
In the U.S., the former suffrage activists in the 1920’s were incredibly disappointed in their daughters’ generation, because their daughters seem to have gone off in the “wrong” direction. “We got you the right to vote, and you spend your time being a flapper, smoking cigarettes and drinking liquor with men in a speakeasy. That’s how you show equality? What happened to the movement? I didn’t raise you like that!”
The cig. smoking suffragette/flapper was a media creation.
A PR company used the image and actors playing suffragettes gaining equality by smoking to market smoking to women.