Jesse Kornbluth asks why, with women’s rights under attack in America and around the world, we should argue about who gets to be in the club against these abuses.
This article is a response to “Why Being a Good Man is Not a Feminist Issue” by Tom Matlack.
There’s a summer flu going around, and I’ve got it. Lightly fevered, the world looks different. On Madison Avenue, the people who are healthy seem a little clueless. Inflamed, I’m convinced that I see more than they do.
It was in that condition that I read Tom’s essay. The words had an odd effect — I could not follow the argument. Oh, I think I understood the positions. I got the back-and-forth. What baffled me is how, considering what’s going on around us, anyone really cared about this stuff.
Seriously, is there a more privileged, elite, First World topic than one that has “men” and “feminism” in a single sentence?
Consider all that this conversation requires. Ample food. Decent clothing. Comfortable shelter. A computer. Broadband. Leisure time. In short, enough money and all it buys so you can participate in a conversation that has nothing to do with your short-tem survival.
Most of the world cannot afford this conversation. Most of the world is poor and hungry and isn’t worried at all about the issues that we care about. We know this, of course, as a conversational matter, as a statement of fact, but that’s an inch deep.
What we especially don’t see about poor societies is that they are all organized around pretty much the same idea. The men call the tune. Whatever rights women have are rights that men have granted — and can withdraw at whim. What justification do men have for subjugating women? Over and over, the same answer: God’s will.
As poor societies prosper or when their young people rebel, what happens to patriarchy? It gets stricter. No one likes to give up power, especially men empowered by God. So they double down. Crazy but true: In cities with electricity and plumbing, women can be made to live in the 14th century.
And now we see the rise of patriarchy in our own country. More and more American women are getting an education and getting decent jobs; threatened by a changing world and a shitty economy, more and more religious, low-tech men are asserting power “in the name of God.” Their goal: women, barefoot and pregnant. And, above all, submissive.
When it comes to the status of women, what’s the difference between the Taliban and hard-core Christian Evangelicals?
Here’s a scenario I find worth discussing. Mitt Romney has pretty much signaled that, as President, he’ll have no legislative agenda. Congress — he anticipates, a Republican-controlled Congress — will pass legislation, and then he’ll sign it.
What kind of legislation?
Well, just this week, Rand Paul attached an amendment to the National Flood Insurance Program that would give legal protection to fetuses from the moment of fertilization. It’s not going to happen, but if Romney wins and controls the Congress, there’s your headline for Day 2 of the Romney administration. Kiss choice goodbye.
And Rand Paul is just one brick in the wall. In Louisiana, textbooks that teach “young earth creationism, global warming denial, history that is not factual, and bigotry toward Catholicism, Mormonism, other Protestants, and non-Christian religions” will be on the desks of approximately 380,000 students in 2013-2014. You may be assured that these texts do not challenge the concept of men as lord over the dominion of women and children.
Scary stuff, and there’s much more of it. And I know this may look off-topic given the discussion at hand, but I have to think that women’s absolute right to control their bodies is a bit more crucial than whether men can be feminists, or whatever destination Tom’s original point landed at. I have to think a global effort by threatened, reactionary men to maintain their power by controlling — in essence: enslaving — women is worthy of a global effort by all women and some good men to push them back. And I have to think, in the face of that threat to women, a high-minded, deeply felt conversation taking place about whatever First World hot button Tom pressed is about the most useless, counterproductive exercise I can imagine.
Photos by tinou bao and Elvert Barnes on Flickr
About Jesse Kornbluth
My god, I’m sick of the phrase “first world problems.”
While I’m still processing Tom’s original post, the examples he gave -of men in prison, of men growing up with physical and emotional abuse – are not “first world problems.”
Ditto. “Quit talking about problems YOU care about, I want to talk about problems _I_ care about, which are so much more important than yours!” It’s not just a dodge, it’s a logical fallacy.
“Arguing that expressing concern about a (relatively) small problem means that the person doesn’t care about any larger problems. A type of Strawman, this fallacy takes the opponent’s claim and appends to it the following additional claims:
1.That it is not possible to care about big and small problems simultaneously.
2.That venting a minor complaint is sufficient proof that the major problem is considered unimportant.
3.That if the person irritated over the minor problem did help solve or even cared about the big problems, he would then not mind at all that his car broke down or whatever the frustration was…or because there are people with worse problems, that person shouldn’t complain about a frustration.”
“Consider all that this conversation requires. Ample food. Decent clothing. Comfortable shelter. A computer. Broadband. Leisure time. In short, enough money and all it buys so you can participate in a conversation that has nothing to do with your short-tem survival.
Most of the world cannot afford this conversation. Most of the world is poor and hungry and isn’t worried at all about the issues that we care about.”
All quite true, and to me this is all the more reason that those of us who benefit from all these things are obligated to engage in this discussion.
When it comes to women, modern feminism has a viable version of what it means to be a woman which can be presented as an option to women in the third world. This allows women in complete subjugation to see that theirs is not the only way things can work, and it gives female activists a model to use for social and cultural change in their society. Obviously they can take or leave whichever parts they choose as we have a strong (and justified) taboo against simply imposing our ideas on other cultures, but the presence of the model is helpful to the women in a repressive culture, and to the men who wish to help said women. As an example, let us look at Saudi Arabia, probably one of the most repressive cultures for women on the planet. Women’s rights there are progressing very slowly, but they are progressing.
What about the men in those same cultures? It is far too easy to simply say that they have all the power and don’t need any help. This may be true, but when they see the women in their culture beginning to adopt some of the ideas of the west regarding what it means to be a woman, their natural response is to fight against this reduction in their own power. It is easy for them to see the western model of a man to be in subjugation to women (even though I would argue that perception is flawed), and so it is only natural for them to reject that model out of hand. Perhaps they would have an easier time with reforming their society if we were develop a better western model of masculinity – that men can still be worthwhile human beings without needing to be in control of women – and offer it to them for their consideration.
Obviously you can argue that this conversation is less important than many other issues, and I would agree, but the existence of larger problems does not negate the value in additionally dealing with small ones.
For clarity, I don’t think that the conversation of masculinity need be (or should be) against or in opposition to feminism. I think that it needs to take feminist critiques and opinions into consideration, but I don’t think it should necessarily be defined by or entirely within feminism.
That’s another good point. “There are starving people in Africa” is an argument that could have just as easily been used against the first feminists–and with equal effectiveness.
My initial response was to read this as “Tom is wasting time with this conversation because patriarchy.” As in women have it so bad that we should not be talking about how men and women interact because men are trying to oppress women.
But beyond that I do seem to see something missing here. There seems to be a bit of a skip from saying that the discussion of men and feminism to how men in power are treating women. When it comes to the gender discourse its not as if the only men that exist are the ones in power.
Of these points:
“Whatever rights women have are rights that men have granted — and can withdraw at whim.”
“Mitt Romney has pretty much signaled that….”
“And Rand Paul is just one brick in the wall.”
All point to men that are in power and frankly that’s only a small portion of us, no matter how badly some try to prop them up as sole representation of all of us.
…but I have to think that women’s absolute right to control their bodies is a bit more crucial than whether men can be feminists, or whatever destination Tom’s original point landed at.
It’s all a part of the same puzzle.
What I’m seeing in this debate is an almost entitled call for men to surrender autonomy for the greater good of women’s causes even when said causes are detrimental to the needs of men. Like the passing of the health care act. Here we have a piece of legislation specifically designed to force (ME!) into paying for a program that
A) I can’t afford,
B) Wont be equally represented in the allocation of services,
C) will most likely put me at odds with the I.R.S.
Don’t I and other single Men have a responsibility to protect ourselves 1st?
While I agree with what you say about “its not as if the only men that exist are the ones in power”
yes, not all men are in power but the dynamics of hierarchy gives them power, if not ultimate power. In a world of men when men find their worth through the power they have over others, even those men who don’t have this ultimate power can comfort themselves in knowing that even if they are on the very bottom of the man rung, they are at least, by right, better than women.
I believe that this point was missed that in these type of countries like Saudi, where the social hierarchy is more traditional/patriarchal, that women are their saftey net/ fail safes. that no matter how low they are, they will still know they can’t become the lowest if they (socially) keep women at rock bottom.
Just because there are few men in power, and that they are in power of the rest of the men, doesn’t mean that those “rest of men” aren’t trying to gain their own power.
It’s unfortunate that this point in itself is easily overlooked by the idea that not all men have ultimate power therefore they have no power, which obviously isn’t the case in any heirarchy.
“even those men who don’t have this ultimate power can comfort themselves in knowing that even if they are on the very bottom of the man rung, they are at least, by right, better than women.”
Why? Why would a man on the button rung of society, a man who is defeated in the social status arena, feel he is “better” than a woman who is never actually required to play it? This is an exceptionally bold statement to make, you’re going to have to back it up.
” that no matter how low they are, they will still know they can’t become the lowest if they (socially) keep women at rock bottom.”
This relies upon the premise that women “ARE” at rock bottom. but they aren’t. no woman, even in Saudi, are allowed to drop so far as rock bottom. they are protected from the worst situations. You seem to have an awfully low opinion of women.
” doesn’t mean that those “rest of men” aren’t trying to gain their own power.”
And how does “trying to gain power” in any way counter or disprove the fact that not having that power means no privilege. Patriarchy theory relies upon the presumption that the men at the top are representative of all men. Even some feminists have come to realize how ridiculously foul a concept this is, so modified the theory into kyrachy (sp?).
“even those men who don’t have this ultimate power can comfort themselves in knowing that even if they are on the very bottom of the man rung, they are at least, by right, better than women.”
I just need to return to this point. This is a demonstration of the very professional victim mentality that is so harmful to women and men. The idea that the homeless guy sleeping on a grate, due to his being a man, can take comfort that he is still better off than, say, Michelle Obama. This demonstrates how the one sided discussion of many feminisms and patriarchy theory goes. Look only at what a man “might” have, and only at what a woman “might” endure, and judge these as equivalents to see how women have it worst.
How many american Evangelicals have you ever met? Any at all?
Are you talking about real people who happen to have different opinions and maybe a different world view than you? Or are you setting up “evangelicals” as some all purpose enemy to blame society’s problems on? A straw man that you can rhetorically bash at will whose humanity need not be taken into account?
Thanks for contributing to civil discussion of our society’s problems.
Many people would debate that women’s rights are NOT under serious attack in the USA. Or at the very least women’s rights are not very likely to be reduced in the near future.
Also feminism directly opposes many things the MRA seeks. Regardless of how MRA’s view the situation of women the current feminist movement opposes them.
the only women’s right that actually has any opposition to it is one that is not currently extended to men, that of reproductive rights. And ironically, feminists are hand in hand with traditionalist in oppose the granting of that right too men.
One of the problems in that you’re looking at abortion from what you believe to be true. Many people believe that a person is a person at the point of fertilization. Doesn’t not being murdered get to the heart of safety? Doesn’t not being murdered today trump missing one meal today? If a woman’s bodily autonomy is paramount, she should be able to abort a day before the baby is born. What is the difference in humanity between a baby the day before birth and the day they were born? Now rewind that and point to the place in time where you can say that on this day, the child is a human being. How long after birth is a child not completely dependent on another person for survival? Are they not people because they are dependent?
If they’re wrong, a woman is inconvenience for nine months. If you’re wrong, a person is murdered. Now apply your same theory about how we need to concern ourselves with what is important. Based on what you wrote, you’d now be anti-abortion.
You must be a guy to say that pregnancy is no more than and “Inconvenience”. in a year, more women die in childbirth and related complications than our military members die in war .
so if I take your logic, being drafted into the military and going to war is mere inconvenience.
“in a year, more women die in childbirth and related complications than our military members die in war .”
I presume that’s a worldwide figure you’re comparing to a local military campaign? You’re giving your example the inclusion of third world locations where technology is not available to aid them in avoiding death. You then proceed to examine only “our” military (a much smaller selection of people than all the women in the world), whom most certainly benefit from life saving technologies like drones and airstrikes, which keep “our” soldiers out of harms way. How many women in the US died of childbirth (and related complications… what does that entail?) compared to military members?
I also presume you are not a mother? Because most mothers I know found there pregnancies to be very rewarding, and only some of the unpleasant aspects (morning sickness, swollen ankles) were an “inconvenience”.
It is rewArding. It’s also far more than an inconvenience. My experience as a mother as well as my friends is that it is often hard to discuss how hard and oftentimes truly unpleasant pregnancy, birth and newborn parenting can be. Most peoe only prefer you say it’s all rainbows and kittens when the reality can be much less pretty. I’ve done it twice. I’d avoid it again at all costs. And I had it relatively easy save for the PPD which was severe.
“Most peoe only prefer you say it’s all rainbows and kittens when the reality can be much less pretty.”
I find whether it is “rainbows and kittens” or some horrible burden of insurmountable tragedy is entirely dependent on the person telling it and the agenda they are pushing. But when I read the article on making artificial wombs so that women wouldn’t be burdened by the experience of pregnancy, I saw a great deal of outcry from mothers who wouldn’t give up the experience for the world. I’d hardly call that a burden. There are inconveniences and worst involved with pregnancy, but I suspect (being a man I can never know for sure) the experience as a whole is a positive one… and can positive experiences really be deemed inconveniences, or worst?
It isn’t either or
But it often IS framed as such, particularly by those claiming it is such a hardship for women that they deserve special privileges and treatment that men, in turn, should be denied (I’ll point to many discussions of men’s reproductive rights and why abortion is a RIGHT for women but men need to take responsibility for their part in a pregnancy that comes to term, and leave it at that, as I do not wish to derail this further. I suspect you can at least acknowledge that some people have used “the burden and hardships” of pregnancy to promote that double standard?)
I consider both of my pregnancies positive. And I also consider them major changes in my life, major shifts in my physical, emotional, and mental well being that had lengthy affects on my life. Nothing about pregnancy is simple, easy, a walk in the park and I’d advise anyone considering it to think long and hard about the commitment.
For something to be an inconvenience would mean it had little impact. Pregnancy has major impact, much of it difficult and somewhat sacrificial. Just because it’s hard doesn’t mean it’s not valuable, just that it isn’t a walk in the park at all.
I have no idea about the fake womb thing. Would I do it? PRobably not because I’d have no idea how the germination of a human being with no physical mammalian connection would leave the fetus able to bond with other humans. We are how we are because of how we are produced over millenia. Maybe it would be fine. Maybe it would create a world of sociopaths.
Science fiction wise? I’d prefer a way for men to be able to carry and birth young. If we all could do it, that would be quite interesting, bonding, sharing
Kittens can be damned inconvenient, I’ll have you know.
Sorry John. Reading back I realized I participated in the derailing of your point. I allowed little bit’s quibble over calling pregnancy “inconvenient” become more important than the point at which a fetus becomes a person. Sorry about that.
“Whatever rights women have are rights that men have granted — and can withdraw at whim. What justification do men have for subjugating women?”
Again with the injection of hostile motive onto men. I so often here the claim feminism isn’t about blame, then see stuff like this. Is it not possible that the “patriarchal” dynamic may offer a stability more suitable to poor societies? You even admit we’re slipping back towards one (though you squarely lay the blame on republicans, making this more of a political piece than anything relevant to gender discourse). It’s even been seen that stay at home mothers is a reversing trend, all as the US economy slowly spirals down the drain. So is it really that the only reason patriarchy exists is because men feel entitled to subjugate women? And if so, where does the idea of “patriarchy hurts men to” fit into all that? Why is it whenever a feminist wants to make a point, a hostile motive is injected onto a man to explain undesirable (to that feminists) outcomes?
I’ll see your “again with” and raise you one: Again with the claim that patriarchy is not a position of hostility, but one necessary for survival. Hint: the reason the US economy is tanking is not because we’ve been too kind to anyone, women included.
“Hint: the reason the US economy is tanking is not because we’ve been too kind to anyone, women included.”
I gave no indication of why the economy was tanking. So not sure where this strawman is coming from. I mere said that, perhaps, because the economy was tanking (for whatever reason) we appear to be sliding back into more traditional roles.
“Again with the claim that patriarchy is not a position of hostility,”
To claim patriarchy is a position of hostility you must concede it has a driving consciousness to it, a consciousness that projects that hostility. Who’s driving that consciousness? men? the elites? Please explain your answer in both the context of nomadic tribes and in city based societies. And remember “the patriarchy hurts men too”, before injecting hostile motives onto those men who are hurt too.
Even if it’s not hostile – and it’s more often thoughtless and belittling than outright mean – it’s not necessarily key to survival. I would think that with women in so many positions of influence and responsibility, our continued survival would depend on cutting back patriarchal culture – either that or get the women back into the kitchen, which ain’t gonna happen.
” our continued survival would depend on cutting back patriarchal culture”
Why? Honest question… not saying it’s a wrong answer, but what is it about cutting back the “patriarchal culture” (and what exactly does that mean/entail. please don’t insult me with generalities that have no substance or real world correlations) that is so pivotal to our continued survival? And does it offset (and then some) what might be lost from that same “patriarchal culture” you wish to be rid of?
“it’s not necessarily key to survival.”
I needed to return to this….Because it is, yet again, an argument I never made. I said it “may offer a stability more suitable to poor societies”.
I’d tentatively agree that people have to be well off to worry about gender roles: deconstructing them is a luxury, for the majority of they world they’re brutal necessity.
But I don’t agree at all that power and privilege is as one sided as you’ve claimed. For instance, do men who sacrafice themselves to save a woman or to protect their country actually have a choice in the matter? One might as well argue that since women (mostly) control a child’s early education the ball is in their court to eliminate gender roles. In reality noone has the absolute power to end or perpetuate gender roles, they’re a function of the whole of society, women included.
“I’d tentatively agree that people have to be well off to worry about gender roles: deconstructing them is a luxury, for the majority of they world they’re brutal necessity.”
Only because a lot of societies are desperately poor and controlled by warlords and such folk. Brutal – yes. Necessity – now there’s a first world opinion…