And it’s time for Ozy’s five least favorite reasons that some feminists believe that if they talked about men’s problems ever that their copy of Gender Trouble would light itself on fire. I don’t think most of these are well-thought-out positions; I think they’re things people tend to say without thinking, often when someone is being legit annoying in a comment section.
Commenting note: if you’re a feminist and you feel like I’m misrepresenting one of your views, please comment and tell me so. I do not want to argue against a straw person; I think these arguments are weak on their merits. Also, all readers would please note that I am a feminist and I’m criticizing my movement from the inside, as it were, because I love it, think it has very much potential for good, and want to make it better.
Other commenting note: if you are NOT a feminist, could you kindly avoid using this article as a means to explain that feminism is the worst oppression men face and attempting to destroy men and in fact Satan incarnate? My comment-deleting finger will get RSI.
There. Is that clear enough?
1) Men are the ones that hold up the patriarchy, and therefore if they want to stop being hurt by it they should stop holding it up. This is absurd, because most of the people I’ve seen using this argument are thoughtful people who can easily think of women who are holding up the patriarchy and, in fact, making millions doing so. As a random example off the top of my head: Phyllis Schlafly, a woman, was one of the major forces behind the United States not ratifying the Equal Rights Amendment. As a logical consequence of their argument, because a woman led and benefited from the campaign against the ERA, we should not care about not having it.
…Except that is manifestly and obviously stupid. Similarly, even if it is mostly men who perpetrate a patriarchal trope that hurts men, we should still argue against that trope! I mean, obviously!
2) Men should just stop having their social conditioning. Again, this puzzles me, because the people who toss forward this argument are empathetic and thoughtful people who would rightly call out someone who said “well I think women should just stop feeling like they’d be unattractive and unfeminine if they were good at math.” It’s not that simple, and the blame should logically be placed on the people who are making them feel that way, not the women themselves. Similarly, one should not say “well I think men should just stop feeling like they’d be wimpy and unmasculine if they did elementary education.” It is literally the exact same situation! Why do some people seem to think that if women aren’t present in a discipline it’s because of sexism and unwelcoming environments and assholes being all “well, you’re probably ugly,” but if men aren’t present in a discipline it’s because of Mysterious Dudebrainz Reasons.
Also anyone who explains this by saying that men don’t want to take crap jobs like elementary education and nursing needs to check their internalized misogyny. Why exactly do you think that all female-dominated jobs are terrible again?
3) Men’s issues are rooted in misogyny. My answer to this is… so?
I don’t necessarily agree that all men’s issues are about misogyny, but let’s grant the premise for the sake of argument. Let’s take an issue that is fairly uncontroversially caused to a certain degree by misogyny: women not being allowed in combat in the USA. A lot of that is because people believe that women are inferior and incapable of the work, or will get pregnant to get out of combat zones. (Some of it is also because people believe that men will either protect women whenever they get injured or rape everything, but never mind that for now, I’m presuming it’s all about misogyny.) So, uh, does that mean that being far more likely to die in combat ISN’T a disadvantage? Because it’s rooted in misogyny it’s instantly totally awesome to be shot in the face?
Of course, nowadays there’s really no front line in wars, which means that not being in combat positions disadvantages women that might experience equal danger but not get equal hazard pay. But that doesn’t mean “men have had it really awesome for all of forever,” it means “shit is complicated.”
4) Talking about men is derailing feminism. Notice that giant clusterfuck in the previous point of stereotypes about men and stereotypes about women, disadvantages towards men and disadvantages towards women, all feeding into and supporting each other? You literally cannot fully understand the “how do we get women in combat?” problem unless you also understand the aspects that are about men. Even some things that pretty much just hurt men will often end up, when circumstances change, looping around and hurting women! It’s all a big ball of wibbly-wobbly patriarchy-watriarchy stuff. Even if you for some reason only care about how patriarchy hurts women, not talking about men is a tactical error, because it’s all connected.
5) Men should just have their own movement and stop expecting feminists to do the work. Because of course there are no male feminists, sexism against women and sexism against men are not remotely linked, and the single largest movement about gender equality would have nothing to say about a particular kind of sexism. Feminism can– and should– be a broad tent, encompassing the gendered issues of many different demographics. It is totally possible.
I tried making an observation concerning number 4, talking about men is derailing feminism. It didn’t seem to get past the MOD so I’ll rephrase it to something hopefully more acceptable unless of course I missed it and it’s actually here, then my bad. My question was is the misconception that talking about men derails feminism or is the misconception feminism means equality for all. When feminists don’t talk about men is it because they think it detracts from the conversation about women or is it that they don’t care about men?
As a dude going into elementary teaching and special ed, I am entirely aware that it’s a crappy job. I dunno if it’s anything to do with gender, although it may be. It’s because teaching, as a profession, has become a bullshit political football in the United States. In addition, as a dude going into elementary teaching, I am going to have to be several times as careful as a woman to never, ever touch a child, hug a child, if a child falls down and whacks their knee I should pick them up by the shoulders and talk them… Read more »
Very well said Ozy. Thanks for writing this.
Having read through the comments I’m seeing alot of a sixth misconception:
6. Because I, or the feminists I know, don’t agree with these ideas they aren’t feminist ideas.
The non-monolithic nature of feminism goes both ways: unfortunately many of the people who call themselves feminists do make these misconceptions and can’t be said to be any more unfeminist than the ones who don’t.
Sometimes true, sometimes not true. No large political/ideological/whatever movement is going to be monolithic, but there are some general statements that can be made about it and going against that can make you non-feminist (or whatever the movement is in question). I think it was Jasmine who mentioned that there’s a middle between anarchy of ideas and rigid monolithic regulation of ideas. For example, Republican opinions vary across a spectrum of opinions…it’s not monolithic…but if I were to say that I think the state should take over the banks and then declare that’s a Republican idea, that doesn’t make it… Read more »
I think part of the problem that many people have when discussing feminist ideas, is that it’s like playing whack-a-mole. A feminist will say her body her choice making the bodily autonomy argument, bodily autonomy being I believe, a tenet of feminism. Someone will mention MGC. A feminist will say that doesn’t count because of religion. Another person will ask then why do you oppose parental notification/consent laws? That is religion too. Another feminist will say well feminists are not all the same.
I think the main situation you’d most often see number four is when it is actually (whether deliberately or not) being used to derail a situation. I most often see this in posts on female circumcision. With (I presume) guy’s pointing out that male circumcision is still legal and why don’t we focus on that?
I’m sympathetic to the anti-circumcision movement, but it’s inclusion in this situation is really unhelpful, and often gives the impression that the male posters just want to make this ‘all about them’. Which in an already male-saturated media just feels like an invasion of space.
[…]often gives the impression that the male posters just want to make this ‘all about them’. Which in an already male-saturated media just feels like an invasion of space. Okay, seriously, you have this totally backwards insofar as involuntary genital cutting goes. FGM has been an extremely high profile issue for at least 20 years, and in western culture is widely condemned as a horrible human rights violation, and is illegal. Obviously, this does not mean that FGM is a dead issue. It is still done in some parts of the world, and it needs to stop. Believe me, I… Read more »
you have a point Xakudo. Well put.
The point is that they’re hijacking a discussion; this is Decent Behavior 101, people. Not having every discussion ever be about all things male isn’t conceding that circumcising a male baby is a-okay.
The content of the actual derailment is another issue.
Part of the problem is that there is a difference between derailing a discussion and expanding it. I remember a discussion on MGC and whether it should be illegal in San Francisco (and the U.S. in general). A feminist poster immediately brought up the fact that FGC is illegal in most parts (if not all parts) of the world and that hasn’t stopped the practice. They weren’t pro-MGC just anti-banning. The argument was that it was more effective to change societal norms than a law. Is that derailing or expanding the conversation? Personally, I think that was technically derailing because… Read more »
“The point is that they’re hijacking a discussion; this is Decent Behavior 101, people.”
Bullshit. BULLSHIT. Women and femihnsts do not own the discussion of genital mutilation, even if they think they cna arrogate it to themselves.
And it is patently dishonest for anyone to decry a barborous practice in some other culture and then ignore the same barbarous practice in their own. That is what all so-called derailing is about. It’s all the same discussion, even if some feminists try to claim it is not.
“Bullshit. BULLSHIT. Women and femihnsts do not own the discussion of genital mutilation, even if they think they cna arrogate it to themselves.”
Nope, they don’t! Which is why people can have their own damn discussion about the issue without walking into an existing feminist discussion under a topic a feminist author started on a feminist site and demand everybody shut up and talk about men or else they’re misandrists. Try paying attention to what somebody is saying before you lose your fuc**** mind. I know it’s hard since it isn’t about what you find important, but try.
She’s talking about how annoying it is to have a discussion on FEMALE genital mutilation, and how someone mentions male genital mutilation and that it derails. The discussion wasn’t about genital mutilation in general, but specifically about FGM. If someone wants to talk about MGM then they should make a new thread. I think part of it is a feeling that men feel forgotten, they see talks about gender issues but feel desperation that no one listens to their troubles so they feel they need to add on to a discussion, tackle both issues together instead of one. Not always… Read more »
Thank you! Goodness gracious. To be thorough, however, the derailing is often coupled with
a) accusing the feminists of “erasing” male genital mutilation because they’re not discussion male genital mutilation at the time; this accusation presents itself even where male genital mutilation doesn’t fit the particular narrative, such as when the focus pertains specifically to how FGM functions on a social level
b) accusing feminists of “not caring” about MGM
c) arguing that MGM and FGM is “the same” and then accusing feminists of trivializing/not caring about MGM for pointing out that it isn’t the same
people hijack discussions all the time. You dont need to be a feminist to do that nor a MRA for that matter.
But I like to postulate if male topiks were more common and fair, nobody would derail your discussions (like at feministe, some users are against male shelters for male dv victims). Naturally somebody who has experienced violence feel the need to intervene.
Nobody is saying people don’t hijack discussions or that one need be an MRA or feminist to do so. I’m simply pointing out how common it is for feminist discussions to be hijacked and derailed by outsiders demanding male-centricism and then making all kinds of unfounded accusations against feminism when they don’t get what they want.
I’ve seen these misconceptions,but they are rarely explitcitly stated as such. I think a lot of us when we’re in a discussion think we’re being more rational than we actually are. Thus a lot of feminsts may say they don’t believe these things, but they have a habit of slipping in now and then. And because it is very difficult to admit we sometimes aren’t as enlightened as we want to be, we react defensively or try to justify, deflect, or rationalize our position. I’ve also seen people call others out on these misconceptions when they weren’t actually there. The… Read more »
“4) Talking about men is derailing feminism. Notice that giant clusterfuck in the previous point of stereotypes about men and stereotypes about women, disadvantages towards men and disadvantages towards women, all feeding into and supporting each other? You literally cannot fully understand the “how do we get women in combat?” problem unless you also understand the aspects that are about men. Even some things that pretty much just hurt men will often end up, when circumstances change, looping around and hurting women! It’s all a big ball of wibbly-wobbly patriarchy-watriarchy stuff. Even if you for some reason only care about… Read more »
Not meeting the demands of the derailer has proven the misandrist feminists don’t care about men/silence men/deny men can be raped/ erase the experience of male rape-victims. No, statements like these made by feminists are examples of erasing a significant part of male rape-victims: Only men can stop rape Raising the specter of women raping boys implies a false equivalence and doesn’t help us understand and change a culture where rape—the power, the crime, the threat, and the jokes—is acceptable. There is a qualitative difference between saying men rape women and women rape men and that difference gets eliminated when… Read more »
“There is a qualitative difference between saying men rape women and women rape men and that difference gets eliminated when you tell individual stories without context.” Does this include instances were males have been the overwhelming victims of female perpetrators? From the article concerning a justice department report on sexual abuse in juvenile detention: http://www.examiner.com/article/incarcerated-juveniles-raped-and-sexually-abused-by-inmates-and-prison-staff-at-shockingly-high-rate “The report, based on a study of 195 facilities in all 50 states, found that at some facilities more than 30 percent of the juveniles had been victims of some type of sexual abuse. Overall, 12 percent of incarcerated juveniles across the country were raped… Read more »
Does this include instances were males have been the overwhelming victims of female perpetrators? That was a quote from the same person who said that only men can stop rape and that raising the spected of women raping boys implies a false equivalence. Read her and judge for yourself: https://goodmenproject.com/gender-sexuality/rape-culture-men-women-power/ The statistics you quote don’t stop angering me even though I’ve seen them before (I think it was Typhonblue who referred to the BJS report in a comment on some blog a couple of years back). It is yet another example of how we as a society fail, no –… Read more »
*clears throat*
First off Ozy I want to say that you have been covering the topic of male victims and female perpetrators quite well (I’ve disagreed with you about femmephobia being the reason why male victims doesn’t come forward). But when I said “the extent of female perpetrators in recent years” I was talking about for instance “The last 12 months” prevalency numbers from NISVS 2010 which I must have missed you writing about. I said any references, links etc. would be appreciated and I do mean that because as I alluded to above I think that without the help of feminists… Read more »
Also, I would like to see some of feminism’s large lobbying arms do something about this too, but I’m not going to hold my breath. For me, typically when I say feminists are not doing anything about this I mean the advocacy corner of feminism that meets w/lawmakers daily for women’s issues, not necessarily individual feminists.
I have a reply to Ozy in moderation. In addendum to that I just want to add that I really appreciate and I really am glad for the focus you’ve had on this subject Ozy. I know you’ve taken a stance on this which have caused disagreement with some feminists and you, but you still did the right think in my view. Unfortunately for you perhaps the dynamic often can be that we sometimes expect a lot/all from those we perceive to be getting it or willing to get it. So please do not read my previous comment (if and… Read more »
As Ozy had pointed out with zir throat clearing, ze covered that topic quite blatantly, and even did some calling-out in the process.
(To be nit-picky, ze didn’t mention that the 12-month statistics showed near gender parity. But zir points were very good regardless, and ze did cover what was most important, which is that the gender gap in victims and perps isn’t overwhelming.)
“There is nothing ‘male-as-default’ about these victims.”
My “male-as-default” comment had nothing to do with a characterization of male sex crime victims; it had to do with a larger mentality related to the behavior of derailers. You isolating one sentence of mine, out of context, to respond with an unrelated and deeply-involved point, is dishonest but sadly predictable.
Also almost exactly to what I was referring.
Tamen, “No, statements like these made by feminists are examples of erasing a significant part of male rape-victims: Only men can stop rape” Okay, but what does that have to do with non-feminists derailing discussions? “or from another feminist who doesn’t agree with the part of the new FBI definition of rape which would categorize being forced to penetrate someone else as rape” Okay, but what does that have to do with non-feminists derailing discussions? “In short – the last one would personally think a man who was forced by a woman to have sex with (penetrate) her was raped,… Read more »
“Okay, but what does that have to do with non-feminists derailing discussions?”
You are derailing this discussions by babbling on and on and on about non-feminists derailing discussions, when the only one deriialing this discussion is you, a feminist. Or do you believe that it’s only derailing when a non-feminist does it?
Um, Tamen cherry-picked parts of my post to quote, out of context, in response to unrelated points s/he wanted to make, and so I responded to the person that “responded” to me.
I’ll give you an ‘A’ for effort though. Keep fighting the good fight!
Not meeting the demands of the derailer has proven the misandrist feminists don’t care about men/silence men/deny men can be raped/ erase the experience of male rape-victims. This implied to me at least that feminists who don’t care about men/silence men/deny men can be raped/erase the experience of male-rape-victims doesn’t exist, that it’s just an unfounded accusation based on feminists not meeting the demands to talk about male vctims from a derailer. I provided some examples of feminists who explicitly denied or erased male rape victims to counter that implication. You considered that a derailment on an article about feminist… Read more »
“This implied to me at least that feminists who don’t care about men/silence men/deny men can be raped/erase the experience of male-rape-victims doesn’t exist, that it’s just an unfounded accusation based on feminists not meeting the demands to talk about male vctims from a derailer.” Well maybe next time my post should exist in context. Perhaps replying to a specific item an author lists, maybe even quoting it so that readers can understand to what I’m replying. I might even surround those particular words and sentences with other words and sentences whose content goes to a larger point that had… Read more »
I don’t doubt that derailing happens, but there are times I’ve seen derailing thrown around when someone is correcting incorrect statistics, the person objects to something that they perceive as wrong but are still on topic yet are told they are derailing. Eg, lets say a feminist states 99% of rapists are men, then a man or woman states new statistics showing the number to be lower and that there are more female rapists than the op knows, I still see it as on topic but correcting a statement that is wrong. I’ve seen people call that derailing, accusing them… Read more »
Certainly, but we’re opening another can of worms, lol! The two sides can sincerely believe they’re correct and both present statistics to back up their claims. Then the issue becomes the methodology behind the statistics and suddenly we’re off and running. This even happens *within* feminist discussions. Thus I’d characterize that as a statistics issue first and foremost. Not only that, but at this point feminists view dealing with those that dismiss rape statistics (female victims, specifically) as all but par for the course. Not objective questioning of the methodology or being skeptical of the conclusions based on the questions… Read more »
So now that you have addressed the ones that are derailing there is still the problem of when such statements and sentiments that Ozy mentions are coming from feminists. But don’t say “check your privilege” since that’s misandrist and men aren’t privileged or advantaged in every area, ever. Apparently a feminist must walk on eggshells to appease the male-as-default norm as that is the main concern, always, and trumps everything. It is a very powerful force and now we’re seeing how its very nature has allowed it to endure for so long. Apparently so powerful that things like Ozy is… Read more »
“So now that you have addressed the ones that are derailing there is still the problem of when such statements and sentiments that Ozy mentions are coming from feminists.” First, to what do “the ones” and “such statements and sentiments” refer? Ozy asked that people express whether they believe certain points were strawfeminists. That item may not be an intentional strawfeminist but I believe that Ozy is mischaracterizing a common response to derailing. The derailing is so common and accepted that two posters proceeded to respond to my post and then another’s in such a fashion. “Apparently so powerful that… Read more »
First, to what do “the ones” and “such statements and sentiments” refer? “the ones” = The derailers “such sentiments and statements” = The items the Ozy has listed. Now does derailing happen? Yes it does. But these responses do come up in other circumstances. ??? Please clarify this. Ah I was misreading that line earlier. My apologies. I believe that is demonstrably untrue. Surely there are feminists that don’t bother with appeasing dissenters. They are not walking on eggshells. I didn’t say they were being asked to. I concluded by deduction based on how non-feminists react when feminists refuse to… Read more »
““the ones” = The derailers “such sentiments and statements” = The items the Ozy has listed.” Ahh, I get it. So regardless of Ozy inviting people to call out anything perceived as strawfeministing, you’re essentially saying, “yeah, yeah, but what about what *IIIIIII* want to talk about?” which is exactly to what I’m referring. “Surely there are feminists that don’t bother with appeasing dissenters. They are not walking on eggshells” I didn’t say anything about dissenters; stop trying to twist my words to better suit what you’re happier to address. I’m talking about derailers. And just like the way you… Read more »
Ahh, I get it. So regardless of Ozy inviting people to call out anything perceived as strawfeministing, you’re essentially saying, “yeah, yeah, but what about what *IIIIIII* want to talk about?” which is exactly to what I’m referring. No. I was asking about the ones that don’t fall into straw arguing. If you don’t want to talk about them fine. I didn’t say anything about dissenters; stop trying to twist my words to better suit what you’re happier to address. I’m talking about derailers. And just like the way you just twisted around what I said, when feminists don’t give… Read more »
“No. I was asking about the ones that don’t fall into straw arguing. If you don’t want to talk about them fine.” So you engaged me to shift the discussion else ware, which is exactly what I just said. Why did you contradict me? “Oh come off it. Goofing on a word doesn’t equate to some grand effort to twist your words.” The same word you understand perfectly so far until that very point? And then dismissed it as being no different than completely different words? That’s goofing? LOL “Actually I was interested in trying to just bring up another… Read more »
“So now that you have addressed the ones that are derailing there is still the problem of when such statements and sentiments that Ozy mentions are coming from feminists.” First, to what do “the ones” and “such statements and sentiments” refer? Ozy asked that people express whether they believe certain points were strawfeminists. That item may not be an intentional strawfeminist but I believe that Ozy is mischaracterizing a common response to derailing. The derailing is so common and accepted that two posters proceeded to respond to my post and then another’s in such a fashion. “Apparently so powerful that… Read more »
Colette: Responding to your point about the intrusion of men into feminists bloggospheres and injecting male issues, I have what I determine to be an important point. When men get onto these boards and talk about (your examples) A) lack of safety for men in hazardous jobs or B) male rape victims not getting help due to socialization that all men want sex and therefore can’t be raped I come to a different conclusion. These posters are *ALSO* opposing patriarchy (a word I don’t like, I’d rather say the status quo or gender norms). They are fighting *against* stereotypes that… Read more »
John D, Thanks for the response! To be clear, and I cannot emphasize this enough, it isn’t to say “male issues aren’t part of this.” But the *behavior* of walking into an existing discussion and demanding it be about men is problematic. Accusing feminists of not caring about men because of a discussion about how women are impacted is problematic. Imposing arbitrary, invisible quotas for how much/often/thoroughly feminists must discuss men until non-feminists approve is problematic. It’s derailing and particularly frustrating for feminists since a tenet of the patriarchy/status quo is that men are default* and women are the support… Read more »
Thanks colette for keeping things tidy and clear and civil. I will try to do the same. I agree it can be derailing. But, hasn’t feminism been so successful because it has attempted to use grandstanding and derailing of society’s forums (I’m thinking of Gloria Steinem’s intrusion into a playboy party and other stunts)? Many men are beginning to feel like they must do this because (a great deal) of feminist advocates DO NOT talk about male issues and they certainly don’t advocate on behalf of men to government to fix them. Outsiders judging and forcing feminism’s hands may be… Read more »
I think you’re comparing apples and oranges here. Playboy Clubs were/are places of employment. To illustrate my point, let me first say that I support efforts to infiltrate dangerous jobs and document the poor treatment of the male workers, and it does happen. Now if you’re going to equate exposing dangerous, unethical, and even criminal conditions and actions with demanding feminists discuss men (even when it doesn’t make sense) all the time then that is where we’re going to disagree. “Many men are beginning to feel like they must do this because (a great deal) of feminist advocates DO NOT… Read more »
Hey Colette, “Now if you’re going to equate exposing dangerous, unethical, and even criminal conditions and actions with demanding feminists discuss men (even when it doesn’t make sense) all the time then that is where we’re going to disagree.” I would hypothesize that the men coming onto the boards and derailing conversations aren’t “demanding feminists discuss men all the time” but at all. “Doing so through reinforcing the status quo isn’t.” The two issues you posted (and many other issues affecting men) are *not* maintaining the status quo. The two issues you mentioned are fighting gender norms, but those against… Read more »
You must not have been on basically every mainstream feminist board when these things take place, but I digress. So some feminists, somewhere, aren’t discussing men at all (obviously not Ozy or any number of feminists I can link you to, but some). To you, invading particular discussions where let’s say a quarter of the time (and that’s being generous) it wouldn’t even make sense or be productive to discuss men and demanding feminists discuss men (or discuss men the way the derailer wants men discussed) is the same as infiltrating places of employment where workers are exposed to dangerous,… Read more »
The problem comes when we move away from discussions/blogging and (what I would call ) academic feminism (which is more egalitarian–except for male privilege and patriarchy theories) and observe the lobbying arms of feminism (like NOW and AAUW). The simple fact is to my mind the total aggregate affects of feminist advocacy do *not* = equality. Many proponents of feminism keep posting on these boards and saying feminism does = equality. They may even be right if you judge the overall makeup of members of feminism (rather than advocacy). The problem is that some of the most anti-male pundits seem… Read more »
“No, that *isn’t* what I’m referring to. Nobody is stopping male issues from being discussed, that they shouldn’t be, or that the very act of discussing the issues reinforces the status quo/patriarchy. I am, however, saying derailers that demand feminists recognize their authority to dictate how male-centric any given content being discussed in feminist spaces must be is reinforcing the status quo. And it is.” Excuse me? what happens when male issues are discussed outside the bonduaries of feminism? they get all labelled as MRA’s. They even get that label when the topics are discussed inside the feminist theory like… Read more »
Isn’t there some piece of contradiction in pointing out that on one hand “feminism is not a monolith.” and on the other hand “feminism is not that!” ?
Not really. It is possible for one movement to encompass many different beliefs while holding firm on certain issues. While you could argue that feminism is anything you want it to be, it’d take something away from the movement to say it’s about absolutely anything…
I hear you.
But who is to invalidate someone else’s “anything you want it to be” because it doesn’t fit into their own view about it?
IME, I’d say that #3 and #4 in the list adhere to a majority of the (outspoken and self-identifying) feminists I’ve been in contact with or heard.
And that’s something that I would never do, is to tell someone who self-identifies as a feminist that they are not or cannot be. But I can certainly point out ideas that are contradictory to a feminist orientation.
Saying that you don’t agree with something isn’t invalidating it, though… For me, this article just doesn’t ring true (maybe because there aren’t any specific examples given?), and I am worried that it’s harming the cause of feminism by encouraging people to believe that these opinions are rife in the movement. The title itself sort of spells this out, ‘A few common feminist misconceptions’ not ‘A few common misconceptions that some feminists believe’…
Re. “invalidating”. You are saying that there are opinions that doesn’t fit into feminism. And for someone to be right, you got to tell someone holding an opposite view that they, in fact, are not right.
Re. specific examples. And that’s another beef I have with feminist discussions. They are often reluctant to discuss on a generic level, but if you break it down and start giving specific examples, they are most often disspelled as coincidences and anomalies and not in any way representative for the whole picture… 😉
I think if I were reluctant to discuss this I may not bother continuing to post! “They are often reluctant to discuss on a generic level, but if you break it down and start giving specific examples, they are most often disspelled as coincidences and anomalies and not in any way representative for the whole picture…” So, we refuse to discuss anything and then we’re bad at discussing it when we do? XD I can’t win here, can I… Examples would give me a clearer picture of where Ozy’s coming from so I could see hir point of view. At… Read more »
So, we refuse to discuss anything and then we’re bad at discussing it when we do?
No,. that’s not what I said…
I’m well aware that’s not what you said, but you implied as such when you stated that if Ozy gave specific examples, us feminists would likely dismiss them as coincidences. So, in the blog post, Ozy accuses feminists of not wanting to discuss certain issues at all, and you’ve accused us of dismissing other people’s viewpoints if we WERE to discuss them. I feel as though I’m battling with everyone’s negative feelings about feminism without actually having embodied any of them!
I didn’t give examples because the ones I thought of were from people I like. 😛 I am too lazy to search for comments from complete strangers, unfortunately.
Hahaha oh dear! Well, could you call them X or Y?
It’s not at all contradictory to say that it isn’t a monolith but that there are some persons who self-identify as feminist who may not hold views congruent with the movement. In fact, rather than contradictory, I think it’s important to say that this is not representative of feminism when someone says they’re feminist but hold decidedly unfeminist ideas. It’s about accountability, really. I can’t call myself a feminist and then advocate for anything other than equality. That’d be disingenuous. But even still, feminism – while the goal of equality might be its premise – is never going to be… Read more »
The problem is just that everybody speaks on behalf of feminism, while just filling in with their own ideas regarding what it’s about..
What is really the movement, and how do you and we decide what is decidedly unfeminist? There’s a lot of people also calling themselves feminist, while holding the polar opposite view of your’s in many questions.
There’s an entire body of feminist literature/ideals available for people to find. It’s not a requirement that people read these things to be a feminist, but that should act as more of a guide than any random person saying “hey I’m a feminist.” As Sarah and Jasmine said, there IS a middle ground between monolith-of-ideals and anarchy-of-ideals. It’s important for people to educate themselves about the movement in order to get a better idea of what’s what–I’ll provide an example. As a black woman, I have HUGE issues with some of the total erasure of black women’s issues in feminism,… Read more »
Oy. Oooy. I’m not sure what feminists you’ve been talking to, but a lot of this is SORELY off. I’ll explain why. “1) Men are the ones that hold up the patriarchy, and therefore if they want to stop being hurt by it they should stop holding it up.” <=No… This is NOT a feminist view, and many feminists are committed to pointing out the errors in the ways of patriarchal women. For example, women who contribute to ambivalent sexism by promoting stratification of gender roles and a submissive position for women. There are DEFINITELY patriarchal women, though many of… Read more »
What you said. I’m always a bit concerned whenever I see a ‘things feminism has got wrong’ article, because they’re usually comprised of things which fundamentally AREN’T feminist viewpoints. Just people some people are calling themselves feminist while believing these things doesn’t justify calling out the whole movement to repent on its mistakes. I’m a bit mystified as to where these ideas have come from, and I would argue that those who read this article will take it more seriously as a result of Ozy being a feminist hirself. As in, ‘If a feminist is saying this then this stuff… Read more »
In my experience the problem arises because when a self identified feminist advances one of these misconceptions in a feminist space, no one questions their feminist credentials. When the position is challenged by an outsider, it’s often defended as a form of feminism. We’re not told that these individuals are not feminists or currently being feminists. We’re told that not all feminists are the same. That’s probably what Ozy is getting at. “I’ve found that the circumstances where I can even bring up feminist issues without being drawn into a conversation about men very rare indeed.” I’ve gone on some… Read more »
We’re not told that these individuals are not feminists or currently being feminists.
Could I add a bit to that?
How about: We’re not told that these individuals are not feminists or currently being feminists,or even that they are not being good at feminism.
Not a specific challenging of the not good parts, just a generic “Well, that’s not MY feminism.”
I suspect that if you feel that when you try to talk about feminism with men, and the men derail the conversation to talk about men – i.e. themselves – that there’s probably a reason for it. Almost all men I know, including myself, have a good reason to be suspicious of “feminism.” Maybe it was being the recipient of verbal tongue-lashings in college. Maybe it was something as horrible as a false rape accusation. Maybe it was something as benign as an unease with being seen as an abuser or as a violent person just because they’re a man.… Read more »
I suspect that if you feel that when you try to talk about feminism with men, and the men derail the conversation to talk about men – i.e. themselves – that there’s probably a reason for it. Sometimes. I’ll say that in cases where feminists were starting off denying the experiences of men then yeah I can understand a derail but as Sarah says sometimes it really is a bad derail. It appears to me that, while personal experience is valued within feminism if you’re a woman, the personal experiences of men are discounted and minimized. At least, that’s been… Read more »
I’ve barely said anything and already I’ve been accused of trampling on other people’s issues! And no, I’m sorry, but I have never had the experience of a self-identified feminist accusing someone of being violent or an abuser on the basis of gender. Enforced gender roles play a huge part in these misconceptions and it’s usually feminists who are trying to dismantle them.
No… Won’t minimize that. But this: “Maybe it was something as benign as an unease with being seen as an abuser or as a violent person just because they’re a man. (You have to admit that many feminist arguments make just this claim.)” I will. Because it’s not true. Read actual feminist literature and reconsider. Most claims made have to do with social pressures and patriarchy causing MORE men to feel that abuse/violence is okay, for reasons of men not seeing certain things as abuse or being taught entitlement to certain things that they shouldn’t be entitled to. The focus… Read more »
So … you’re saying that you personally get to make the rules about what a feminist is? Because in my life I have known more feminists that think men are intrinsically violent than the opposite. Now, perhaps they were just louder. But even if that was the case, that definitely won’t make me OK with capital-F Feminism if this is how some of its adherents behave.
By your logic, I can say “that definitely won’t make me okay with men if this is how some of them behave.” Try again.
And no… Not ME personally. MY opinion is the result of actual research and some level of knowledge about feminist history, literature, and theory. My opinion, while still an opinion, is informed. Take that how you will.
Ozy isn’t trying to call out the whole movement, just the ones that believe these tenants.
The reason people are left thinking that they are feminist tenants is because of having experiences in which feminists brought them up and they went virtually unchallenged.
I haven’t witnessed any feminists completely eradicating their discussions about men or refusing to engage in any sort of debate…
I have. Even in situations where the topic was supposedly about men.
For me, I’m still struggling to think of a circumstance where these opinions have been brought up by someone who identified as a feminist… Usually, they are used as Straw Feminist arguments, created by people who don’t often speak to feminists in order to belittle the movement which is why I’m a bit uncomfortable with this blog post. The title seems authoritative and yet Ozy hasn’t detailed an example of where ze’s seen these arguments used…
So based on your experience of not having encountered such feminists (and I noticed that some of the folks here won’t even just say they are feminists but keep saying “people who call themselves feminists” or “self-identified feminsits” but not simply “feminists”) you are ready to write them off as straw arguments?
We’ve spoken to feminsts and some of them have some jacked up opinions. Its nice that there are people speaking up to prove that those beliefs aren’t feminist beliefs but the straw feminist claims are getting old.
I’m just speaking from experience here, experience isn’t right or wrong, it just… is. I find it hard to identify with what Ozy is saying a) because I haven’t experienced self-identified feminists (and I call them that because they may or may not be feminists, it’s impossible to tell just from one or two statements) voicing these opinions and b) ze hasn’t provided any specific examples. I’m not writing anything off, I’m just saying that if you’re going to claim that these are ‘common feminist misconceptions’, I need a clearer picture of where they’ve come from.
I agree here. Althoug I also have encountered feminist in denial (I refuse to say, they are not feminist or selfproclaimed feminist. I prefer to say, feminist who are mistaken. Thats a bit more realistic) and I agree with Ozy’s critics. But we need some citations otherwise its just vague and inefective. Its like when somebody tells you are a bad person without giving any examples. O_o
I’ll give you a specific I’ve seen multiple times. When it comes to talking about body shaming/policing over fat. Being told that the reason that men are fat shamed is being its actually based in a hatred of women is not a very nice thing to do considering it ignores the very basic misandry that generated the thoughts that led to the fat shaming in the first place. Because apparently of all the jokes that fat guys hear I’m told that the ones that make references to women are somehow worse or they are sign that they “really mean it”.… Read more »
I’m really curious about these “feminist spaces” people are talking about. I won’t necessarily assume, but I will point out that any random gathering of upset women is NOT necessarily a feminist space–I’m honestly a little skeptical about this given Ozy’s #1 on the list–any space where women are not realizing that they can be patriarchal as well is likely NOT a feminist space in the first place. Please be careful how the word is thrown around–both by commenters in the role of audience and by self-identified feminists who might very well not know anything about the movement themselves. I… Read more »
“I’m always a bit concerned whenever I see a ‘things feminism has got wrong’ article, because they’re usually comprised of things which fundamentally AREN’T feminist viewpoints…”
in your opinion. Unfortunately many feminists DO consider them feminist viewpoints.
It might be sorely off in your experience, but I have commonly heard every one of those arguments from self-identified feminists in the field (especially #5). Remember, no one feminist can speak for all other feminists, this includes speaking for all other feminists on what feminism is not. In doing so you run the risk of minimizing my experiences as well as anyone else who has heard/struggled with/debated the above arguments with (validly) self-defined feminists. In response to your response to #2, pointing out privilege only to men for deconstruction? Women and feminism are not monoliths, how am I to… Read more »
In that case, this article should be titled a few common misconceptions made by self-identified feminists and NOT common feminist misconceptions. Feminist as an adjective is making things much more general over the entire ideology than they should be. People can identify as feminists but have NO grasp of feminism or actual feminist ideals–which, I’ll state again, have been documented and put into literature for several years now. People are meeting sexist self-identified feminists and attributing their sexism to their feminism, which is not logically valid.
Not bigotry/sexism due to a feminist belief structure directly, more that there appear to be common misconceptions among people who happen to “be” feminists. In Ozy’s case “feminist” is a grouping, not necessarily a cause. This article is not an attack, but a reminder to a group of specialists to remember where their philosophy fits into the bigger picture. People make mistakes, especially people who focus so strongly on such emotionally charged topics. It seems disingenuously brutal to reject someone’s feminist label due to what might be an inevitable mistake thanks to human psychology and the nature of academic/activist focuses.… Read more »
I received the same implication to #4 of Purplenats response to Ozy. It reeked of the “men face problems but it’s not discrimination or sexism.” This is (in my opinion) a false and broken narrative I see among feminists all the time. In my opinion, this is due to a revisionist view of history that a lot of feminists hold. I also think this is a FAR LARGER misconception of feminists that needs to be resolved to open dialogue than Ozy’s 5 points. No dialogue will be possible while feminists are convinced that discrimination means a 95% female issue to… Read more »
“The thing to remember is that men (at least 95% of men) were not lords or powerbrokers”
So you’re saying that feminists don’t believe that feminism is monolith, but men are, sounds about right.
At least the feminists who seem to shout longest and loudest against advocating for men seem to believe that all men are oppressors.
““4) Talking about men is derailing feminism.” <=No… Talking about men is important, too. Patriarchy has demonized certain identities for men and that's bad. But… There are GIGANTIC. HUGE. TERRIBLE issues facing women, often as a direct result of the identities and privileges assigned to men through patriarchy. The need for a focus on women comes from the fact that many women have not had their stories told, and those who have have been demonized and forced into identities far more dehumanizing and polarizing than those men have had to face. Men have gender-oriented problems—women are constantly facing literal hatred… Read more »
I think one of the most important things that some feminists need to realize (and that many MRAs need to understand that some other feminists already realize) is this:
Just because the people in power are almost all men doesn’t mean that almost all men are the people in power.
Absolutely, Yiab! I mentioned this in a panel I contributed to just recently on the issue of the men’s resource center at UBC.
Could you link the story? I’d be interesting in reading it.
Sure. This is the panel:
http://www.gender-focus.com/2012/06/17/gender-focus-panel-sfu-mens-centre/#.T93sAiW7SPI.facebook
If you want more of the back story, I can post an article about the issue, as well. 🙂
If the only way that that “men’s center” can come about is if it becomes some sort of Men’s Auxiliary to the Women’s Center, where only “feminist approved” ideas can be discussed, then frankly I’d rather it didn’t exist either.
Did nobody think to include a man on the panel?
Seems odd.
Please do post an article, I need me some faith-boosting reading. That whole debacle over the SFU men’s center leaves me question the true intentions of those feminists in particular. I had hoped to see feminists in support of such an area but I haven’t seen much of it, if at all.
Yup…I also think that if you explain that rationally to most feminists who don’t already realize that, they’ll understand and agree…but then I tend to think that rational discussion is the way forward for most things.
Think part of the conflict between feminists and MRAs is that both sides subscribe to the idea that the gender binary has a clear and persistent victim group and oppressor group -we argue endlessly over who the ‘real’ victim is and who is to blame. As a reactionary movement, I can’t fault MRAs for that tone -I think one of the defects of feminism is that it originated a victim/oppressor dichotomy for understanding gender that it appropriated from other civil rights era movements. I think victim/oppressor works when your analyzing the generational disenfranchisement of a minority group, it doesn’t work… Read more »
Very true, but are we not typecasting feminists and MRAs by calling them both dichtomic and one of them reactionary? NAFALT etc.
Maybe…and soon as we manage to arrive at universally consistent and understood definition of these movements, I would be happy to qualify my thesis.But for purposes of my framework, they’re absolutely dichotomous; one trends radical, the other trends reactionary.
This seems to me like a list of misconceptions about the misconceptions of feminism. I am staunchly feminist and not one of those is a belief that I hold. Not one of them.
It’s great that you don’t believe them but your not believing in them is not enough to render them unreal.
Most feminists don’t. But there are some really awful people out there calling themselves feminist. Look up someone called Z. Budapest (a former leader in Neopagan feminism, during the second wave) and pretty much everything she’s said and done in the last few years.
The_L – Exactly! Most feminists don’t adhere to any of these ‘misconceptions’. And though there are certainly some people out there calling themselves feminists (although, if they’re iterating any of these sentiments it would appear to me that they’re not actually operating under feminist tenets), I just tend to get my back up a little when I see lists like these. Because I find it offensive to consistently have feminism as a whole thrown under the bus. These misconceptions are not feminist sentiment; or not the feminism that I know or have seen. I think the title, then, is a… Read more »
Because I find it offensive to consistently have feminism as a whole thrown under the bus. These misconceptions are not feminist sentiment; or not the feminism that I know or have seen. How it is throwing it as a whole under the bus when Ozy nowhere near tried to say that these sentiments (or the people that hold to them) represent the whole? I think the title, then, is a little misleading if the intent is not to (erroneously) call out feminism, but rather those calling themselves feminists who espouse such ideology. I’ve gone down this path before. If such… Read more »
The title itself is suggesting that these are feminist tenets (they are not). There may be people who call themselves feminists who say these things, but this is definitely not representative of feminism as a whole. This sort of misrepresentation of what feminism is about is why part of the energy feminist movement has to go toward fighting the multitudinous misconceptions about what feminism represents. I would never tell a person who believed themselves to be feminist that they weren’t. Who am I to tell someone how to define themselves. What we must realize is that feminism is not a… Read more »
The title itself is suggesting that these are feminist tenets (they are not). There may be people who call themselves feminists who say these things, but this is definitely not representative of feminism as a whole. This sort of misrepresentation of what feminism is about is why part of the energy feminist movement has to go toward fighting the multitudinous misconceptions about what feminism represents. Even with that title Ozy starts off saying that its only a portion of feminists that bring up this stuff and invites other feminists to chime in as to why such sentiments don’t represent their… Read more »
I’m not saying Ozy has asserted that this is representative of the movement. However, even without explicitly stating such things, the title itself is enough to mislead people into believing that this is representative of feminist ideology (which it certainly is not).
How much more explicit can “….that some feminists believe that if they talked about men’s problems….”, criticism of these sentiments, and invitation for others to say otherwise be? If there are a good number of feminists that criticize them (which I’m told there are) then how can such misleading happen?
I’m asking this stuff as a person who has had a fair bit of bad experiences with feminism and is a regularly critical of it (ask HeatherN) and even I don’t see it as misleading.
Or would it ease your soul if Ozy just changed the title?
I am never a member of a group of which I am not a critic. So even as a feminist, I do not accept it uncritically. It is the title specifically that I find problematic. Again, I’m asserting that each and every one of these points is actually contradictory to feminist tenets, so even if self-proclaimed ‘feminists’ are saying such things, it doesn’t make them feminist. It’s really the language of the title specifically that I am problematizing, as someone who attends closely to language and its functions. I’m not refuting that each of these things is a bad thing.… Read more »
Again, I’m asserting that each and every one of these points is actually contradictory to feminist tenets, so even if self-proclaimed ‘feminists’ are saying such things, it doesn’t make them feminist.
I think the culprit may be that people see them get mixed right in with the reasonable stuff that would be called feminist. Speaking as an outsider of course.
So we can agree that they are a problem and they need to be dealt with thought right?
Of course. These sentiments are definitely problematic, when held by anybody. I am concerned with equality, and that includes issues that impact males.
Fair enough.
Jasmine: What and where are the feminist tenets that these five points are against? Do all feminist adhere to those tenets? Are those tenets a requirement do calling oneself a feminist?
I would love to have be able to point out those tenets to the self-identified feminists I’ve encountered who say that when a woman makes a man penetrate her without his consent it shouldn’t be classified as rape. Feminists who thinks those cases shouldn’t be counted in official rape statistics.
Tamen, feminism, in its most simplistic way, is about working toward equality (for all human beings). To suggest that any person (especially because of one’s gender) is any more or less deserving of such equality would be un-feminist sentiment. Feminism isn’t a club in which you must meet certain requirements in order to be able to call yourself the “F” word. So there are going to be some who consider themselves feminist but who actually have very unfeminist ideologies. I have never met a feminist who would suggest that a man cannot be sexually assaulted by a woman. I’ve never… Read more »
Jasmine: Part of my comment: I would love to have be able to point out those tenets to the self-identified feminists I’ve encountered who say that when a woman makes a man penetrate her without his consent it shouldn’t be classified as rape Part of your answer: I have never met a feminist who would suggest that a man cannot be sexually assaulted by a woman. I’ve never heard a feminist say that that shouldn’t be counted. Can you see the difference? Would you like to clarify why you used the word sexually assault rather than rape? I hope it… Read more »
Then that is really the problem of the people who misinterpret the title. Anyone who reads the article should be able to see that Ozy isn’t presenting this as “This is something all feminists believe.”
If people can’t be bothered to actually read the articles, then they shouldn’t be visiting blogs in the first place.
One would hope that people would read thoroughly, but that doesn’t always happen – so it is the responsibility of a writer to convey very clearly exactly what they mean. Or I always feel, when I am writing, that i have that responsibility.
-Also, all readers would please note that I am a feminist and I’m criticizing my movement from the inside, as it were, because I love it, think it has very much potential for good, and want to make it better.-
As I said, this isn’t being presented as something all feminists believe. Ozy IS a feminist. This is presented as “Some feminists believe this, and this is a problem.”
“The title itself is suggesting that these are feminist tenets (they are not).”
No, iot is suggesting that they are misconceptions, that they are not rela feminism. Do oyu dispute that they are not rela feminism.
As for “common” that syas that they are not rare. That is true too; in fact sadly they are quite common.
I can totally understand where you’re coming from. As a Christian, I get told “Stupid things Christians believe” a lot when I don’t believe them. And I think this can be seen as a similar list to terrible things about Christians. I don’t hate gays and women. I don’t hate evolution. Most of my best friends don’t either. If a list about “Hating gays and women and being literalists” was presented as something that all Christians do, I’d be upset because that’s not true. Just as, I feel, it would make sense to be upset about this if this was… Read more »
Yes, I was iterating the same idea basically in acknowledging that feminism is not a monolith. There are certainly feminists who espouse such ideology. However, I would say in doing so that they’re actually espousing ideology that is not at all feminist in nature, just like a Christian who hates homosexuals is espousing rather un-Christian ideas.
I think I would be a liar to say those aren’t Christian statements. They come from the Christian movement, but don’t match up with its ideals. These come from the feminist movement, but don’t match up with the ideals it espouses. At the same time, these come from the feminist movement, even if they don’t match up with the ideals. However, I think it is the duty of every person who is a part of a group, whether it be feminists, Christians, or Star Wars fans, to own the members in the group who are problematic. To acknowledge that this… Read more »
Coming from the Christian movement and being Christian statements are two very different things. 🙂
I agree. And yet I also feel that it is my duty as a Christian to own that the people who say that are, well, also Christian. They’re misguided Christians. But they’re Christians. And to reject their claim to Christianity does nothing to get rid of them. I suppose I’ll have to agree to disagree about the title of the blog. I hope that there’s no hard feelings about it. I appreciate that you don’t think of those statements as feminist (or as Christian) but I feel that if I simply say these people are “Not Christian” rather than “Christian,… Read more »
Oh goodness, certainly no hard feelings. I appreciate being challenged and respectful debate! And I particularly like that – feminist, but not good at it. Because I’m not saying that self-identified feminists don’t hold these views (there are those who do), but merely that those who do are actually not practicing feminism well. So that is quite suitable. I’m not denouncing them as feminists, so it actually fits to be able to say that they may be feminist but they’re not good at it. 🙂 Hmm, I’m not sure at this moment what I would title it. It’s easy enough… Read more »
It’s a little different in the sense that christianity has a defining and canonical text (the new testament) whereas feminism has none. Someone who declares that they worship satan, hate their neighbour and want to punish sex-workers couldn’t very well claim to be christian, whereas feminists exist at opposite ends of every ideological spectrum and neither one can really be said to be “unfeminist.”
No it doesn’t have a canonical text (feminism isn’t a religion anyway)…but there are basic feminist ideas and espousing ideas that are counter to those can be said to be “unfeminist.”
“if they’re iterating any of these sentiments it would appear to me that they’re not actually operating under feminist tenets”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_scotsman
@ Jasmine “if they’re iterating any of these sentiments it would appear to me that they’re not actually operating under feminist tenets)” It’s very rare that I see a feminist challenge the feminist credentials of even a hypothetical feminist. We’re not told their being unfeminists or that’s not feminism. We’re usually told that not all feminists are the same, which implies that these misconceptions are an accepted part of feminism or at least acceptable to feminism. I’ve only seen this happen here (hypothetically) and in a feminists for life article. Being anti-choice seems to run counter to main stream feminism… Read more »
As others have said about #5: The movement exists. Its supporters are called MRAs. And they’re so stigmatized that anyone who even wants to talk about men’s issues tends to automatically get lumped in with the worst of them and gets called a misogynist pig. Why can’t there just be one movement that works against sexism in all its forms?
Or, alternatively, just reject the stigmatization as false and unjust and a transparent attempt at deflection?
Note how the most common accusation against MRAs is misogyny. Look at this a little closer – given that protecting women – white knighting – is a structural feature of patriarchy, it should be pretty easy for feminists to reject this framing of MRAs. Still looking for that to happen.
“Why can’t there just be one movement that works against sexism in all its forms?” Sexism, in all its forms, is a varied and diverse beast. I don’t know if any one movement can handle all of the issues it presents. As I mentioned above in another comment, sexism against women and men, even when dealing with the same broad topic such as patriarchy, is presented in complexly different ways such that no one solution could address both successful. As such, does it make sense to have a movement that addresses sexism against men to work alongside feminism in the… Read more »
As such, does it make sense to have a movement that addresses sexism against men to work alongside feminism in the fight against sexism? I think it does, because the two groups would need potentially radically different methods of accomplishing what, on the surface, seem like two very similar goals. Sure it makes sense on paper. But I think the problem starts even before the “potentially radically different methods of accomplishing….”. I think what happens is those methods are shaped by radically differing ways in identifying the problems (at minimum you still have folks on both sides arguing that there… Read more »
Give an example of an issue that affects women, which doesn’t also affect men.
@ Rich S.
“As I mentioned above in another comment, sexism against women and men, even when dealing with the same broad topic such as patriarchy, is presented in complexly different ways such that no one solution could address both successful.”
IMO that would make it more important to ensure the problems are resolved in tandem to limit the chance that resolving one gender’s issues doesn’t exacerbate the problems of the other.
“Why can’t there just be one movement that works against sexism in all its forms?”
Ideally there would be but we’re coming out of almost a century of oppositional politics when it comes to civil rights. I think it’s going to take a huge paradigm shift for people to realise that gender isn’t quite a case of “have” and “have not”
Best line ever.
The post as a whole is great. Other memes that bug me:
“Sexism is only against women, because sexism is about systemic issues, and men do not face any systemic issues. Whatever you, as a man, experience is by definition not sexism.”
“Men are never oppressed as men.”
etc.
Thank you. Same goes for the “Misandry is a myth lol” crap that is really just people being WILLFULLY OBTUSE. It’s like saying “Misanthropy is a myth because there’s not some other species that is systemically oppressing humankind, all together, for being human.” Yeah… or maybe you’re using jargon when you tack “systemic” onto the otherwise widely accepted and understood definition of the word. Same with racism, honestly. Racism is real, and racism sucks – but by trying to make sure that the definition *only* applies when privileged white people are being prejudiced against the non-whites, it seems like a… Read more »
One more misconception; If you don’t support everything that supports/empowers women you must hate women.
Got into this discussion at college to many times. “I don’t support that because x.” response “why do you hate women?”
Does this mean they hate men if they don’t support/empower men?
I’ll be nice this time. Thanks Ozy.
One thing to also consider are boys like Dyson Kilodavis. Now, not all boys who are like Dyson are lucky enough to have supportive parents like Dyson’s – and may, in fact, even be punished for expressing an interest in things coded “feminine”. When they are minors, at complete authority of their parents, and have next to no autonomy – they *are* disadvantaged, regardless of their sex. It’s one thing to tell grown men who are no longer under their parents’ authority to rise above the patriarchal gender norms and just do their own thing (which even *that* is problematic),… Read more »
I’m not against feminism, not the slightest. Nor am I against men’s rights advocates, assuming any real ones exist (the toxic anti-feminists on reddit and elsewhere don’t count). But I also don’t see why there’s much reason for them to be separate anymore, at least in countries where women are approaching something close to parity to men – a lot of the time they’d just get in each others’ way. Thus I propose a new label: “Gender Equalists”.
I don’t want to argue your point on parity in some countries, but I want to think about the “get in each others’ way” comment. The issues that face men and women in society are very different. They come from different sources and they often manifest in wholly different ways. Patriarchy is a great example. For women its a social construct that attacks them overtly and oppresses them. For men its an internal conditioning that is instilled at a young age and develops as boys grow into men. The issue cannot be addressed the same way for both groups. Feminists… Read more »
“Patriarchy is a great example. For women its a social construct that attacks them overtly and oppresses them. For men its an internal conditioning that is instilled at a young age and develops as boys grow into men.” Got to tell you Rich S, this viewpoint isn’t likely to garner much support. You’re essentially saying that women as a group are victims of an external social force not of their making (that can only mean some or all men) while men have are victims of internal defect endemic to their masculinity. I don’t believe women are powerless and I don’t… Read more »
You realize that the gender roles were most likely negotiated between the two genders. It made more sense for the physically stronger to do the hunting/gathering (seek employment) and the one able to feed the children stay and raise the children. Patriarchy doesn’t exist. It is a feminist term used for the purpose of blaming society’s ills on men. Playing the blame game and the victim Olympics are political tools to achieve short term gains, but in the long term are divisive and counterproductive.
Some info (based entirely in archaeological and anthropological theory, NOT necessarily from a feminist perspective): Gender roles were created and maintained and changed, etc, between all the genders (let’s not forget that there are plenty of societies out there that have more than two genders). I’ll point you to the book Last Hunters, First Farmers for a discussion of gender roles in early agriculture societies. Basically, much of the labour wasn’t really divided much until the invention of the plough, which did require more upper body strength to use. Then, of course, we’ve got the domestication of animals to pull… Read more »
“There’s one in which men are actually the primary caregivers after a child is weaned” That was really one of the first things that made me skeptical about the Chalice and the Blade. I would also think that 8 months of pregnancy may make it difficult to hunt or fish. Gathering might be possible. I’ve never been 8 months pregnant. Regardless, that doesn’t mean that gender roles were not negotiated at least as it pertains to CIS men and CIS women. I wonder if the same people saying housework is undervalued here would say the same thing about them, just… Read more »
I have been 8 months pregnant twice. I’ve known say….200 women personally who have had babies (close friends or family). Gardening (gathering), hiking, walking, throwing, heaving trash into cans, canning, fly fishing, yoga, painting a house, being a nurse (moving beds, moving bodies), acting, ballet instruction (en pointe),teaching, dealing with horses (riding to a certain point) were all quite possible during the various stages of pregnancies and after. The last month? Not so pleasant in general, what with the peeing and backache, but I worked a job up to the week prior to the first and the day prior to… Read more »
Gathering (walking and squatting repeatedly) was probably really good to prep the body for labor considering it’s what’s recommended in all the prenatal classes. Walking and squatting! You can do TON of stuff while pregnant so long as you aren’t having high blood pressure (which may be due to modern living more than anything). Running as fast? Maybe not. But it’s not like you are an invalid.
Hunter-gatherer woman are probably in extraordinary physical condition buy our standards. Also, we are talking about women who are young and strong, since their lifespans were probably much shorter than ours. That said, different cultures have very different ideas about what pregnant women could/should do. I recall a Discovery Channel program about a tribe of Amazonian hunter gatherers where pregnant women are locked up in a ritual hut for the last several months of pregnancy. Their husbands bring them food and pass it through a slot. The pregnant woman is not supposed to do any work or have physical contact… Read more »
There are as many rituals as there are cultures. We are very creative primates.
I thought about women working up until the day that they gave birth, but I figured that the working conditions today were far superior. I also remember people decrying drive through maternities. I remember an incident when I was in my 20s. I was the only guy sitting in the priority seating area of a bus. The priority seating area had nine seats and it was full. A few of the women were older, but not all. The bus was full or almost. A pregnant woman got on. A guy as clueless as I about women couldn’t accurately guess how… Read more »
“I’m wondering if at some point the negotiation went bad and men imposed patriarchy on women, but didn’t release themselves from the gender norms that were previously negotiated or if they were already so entrenched that they never thought to change them. I’m leaning toward a hybrid theory.” You are creating a continuum of history that doesn’t exist. You can’t draw these huge generalizations about prehistoric culture (which are inaccurate anyway) and then try to explain modern culture based off of that. Societies don’t work like that. There isn’t a straight line you can draw from one culture to the… Read more »
If you want to examine where our current gender roles stem from, I think the furthest back you could really go is the Industrial Revolution. Any further back and the best you can do is pretty broad similarities. Then you’re dealing with a society that is just far too different for direct comparisons and causal links.
“Her “first option” would be whatever her culture has prescribed for a woman who is 8 months pregnant.” Wouldn’t that depend on her level of agency? In my identity theory class, we discussed that disabled people often reject the identity that society has given them. In other words their “first option” is to not conform to the role that society expects of them. “You seem to be treating women as these biologically-driven creatures who are more animal than human. Women aren’t chimpanzees or something” I’m not sure how theorizing that a woman may make a conscious choice (select an option)… Read more »
Well this conversation has been completely derailed (sorry Ozy if you’re reading this), but here we go: No, I wasn’t ignoring human agency; I was saying the ‘first option’ is usually whatever a culture prescribes (in any situation)…it’s generally the easiest way to go about things. Not easy in that it expends less energy or the most pleasant, easy in that it usually makes the most sense to people, is the most easily explained, and has the least amount of potential social fallout. So via human agency: yeah people do all sorts of things in situations that go against the… Read more »
“I thought about women working up until the day that they gave birth, but I figured that the working conditions today were far superior.” There weren’t “working conditions” in the paleo times. Just what had to be done. My point was that if people who are pregnant can squat, lift, walk, hike, (and I’ve been reading more and more about current women marathoners who run pregnant), shoot a bow, gut and skin small game, tan hides currently, they probably did so then plus some. And given that the work load of the paleo was different in terms of rest periods… Read more »
“A woman 8 months pregnant might be able to hunt, fish, or gather, but would that be her first option?”
If she was hungry, yes. What else would she do?
Tell the father of her future child to get it.
You act as though women were ordering men to go get food for them because they couldn’t be bothered…or because they were pregnant (and thus apparently unable, even though a couple of women have already mentioned that you can work right up until you give birth sometimes). In all societies (ALL) women and men (and any third gender people) all work to provide for themselves and for their community. Every culture places different values on community versus self, and every society divides that work up differently, and the wealth/goods up differently…but in no culture is one gender left doing nothing… Read more »
John, cis-men and cis-women are a social construct, a largely western social construct. The concept of cis-men and cis-women relies on the idea that biological sex and gender are connected, and that both are largely binary. That’s not how all societies conceive of their gender identities. There are societies in which gender is not a binary. It’s not that people created a third gender to include people otherwise left out by the binary….it’s that the binary never existed. Also, your comment about pregnancy and fishing assumes that the primary role of anyone with a uterus was to produce children in… Read more »
@ HeatherN
I’m wondering if slavery or even the domestication of animals may have led to the advent of patriarchy. Was there evidence of slavery in these societies where work was more egalitarian? If a man could subjugate another man, woman or even a beast, could it have given him the idea to subjugate his mate?
Basically I’ll answer this with what I’ve said a few other places…you can’t make direct links like that. What you’re talking about spans far too much time (thousands of years) and far too much geographic area to make direct links like that.
So you’re saying patriarchy doesn’t exist or it’s a fairly modern convention that only exists in certain parts of the world because geography and the span of time mean that we can’t pinpoint a causal effect.
I’m saying patriarchy is a social construct. Societies create it (or don’t). If you want to understand how specific societies created it and why then you have to look at each society specifically. You can’t talk about what happened in, say, Ancient Rome, and then draw conclusions about modern western society directly because too much else is different. You could use examples from something like Ancient Rome to highlight certain points you’re trying to make about modern western society, or you can point out specific aspects that seem similar…but you can’t look at Ancient Roman society and say “they did… Read more »
Human cultures are really diverse. If you study anthropology, it is amazing how many different ways of living people have come up with. There are cultures in New Guinea where men and women live in separate villages and men are primarily homosexual. There are cultures where women do all the hard work and men sit around and adorn themselves and look pretty. There are cultures where women choose their husbands during festivals where the men dress up and dance for them. From what I recall, the most egalitarian societies gender-wise tend to be the hunter gatherers. There is still a… Read more »
Basically, yeah…except that a lot of what you’re talking about in your discussion of early agricultural societies is too generalized. That paragraph needs a lot more “can”s…women can start to be seen as property, etc. A woman’s contribution to food-gather in early farming societies isn’t necessarily valued less than a man’s…at all, actually. If we’re talking about societies where women were mostly gatherers, then chances are they invented farming and were the first farmers too. Also, early farming was often supplemented with hunting (big game or small game) and fishing…domesticating animals often happened after domesticating plants. There are plenty of… Read more »
I’d just like to jump in to talk about dowries: it’s probably not true in every culture, but I’ve seen stuff implying that in some places, the dowry was treated more like the wife’s money, and would go to her if they got divorced or if she never got married. So in those cases, it could probably be seen more as insurance that she would still have money if the marriage went bad than as a price the family paid to have her taken off their hands.
So I’m assuming that you don’t subscribe to evolutionary theories of behaviour?
Pop-evo psych you mean? No.
Actual biological anthropology/evolutionary biology? Yes. However evolutionary biologists don’t make the huge simplified statements that John Anderson was making, because such statements aren’t accurate.
Regarding #5 if feminism is truly an equality movement, why would men need another movement? I would think that if a feminist were to make this argument they recognize that men have inequalities that need addressing, but don’t believe that feminism should address them. They’re not advocating for men to become feminists and address these issues. I suspect that feminists who believe this do not believe that feminism is an equality movement.
Just because Feminism is an equality movement doesn’t mean that as an organized group they need to constantly be addressing inequities among all walks of life. It’s important for the members of any civil rights movement to stand in unity with other civil rights groups, but they also need to retain focus on their own mission. There are many issues to be won and social norms to be challenged. Feminists are focused on the aspects of our world that are a problem for women. They should be supportive of other equality movements but they shouldn’t lose the focus on their… Read more »
“They should be supportive of other equality movements but they shouldn’t lose the focus on their goal of equality for women.”
Equality of women to whom? If the answer is men, then doesn’t that necessitate men being equal to women or am I missing something like maybe feminism being a women’s superiority movement.
…that’s the problem with gender you cannot talk one group without automatically talking about the state of the other. Personally, I would like to feminism and MRAs replaced a more fully encompassing gender rights movement. We’re basically talking about the same thing: don’t let my gender define me.
On a totally unrelated note, why are gay men constantly separated from the men’s movement as a separate issue? I can’t think of a more vivid example of what it means to be a man and chafe at the norms expected of you by society.
Probably because the men’s movement as a whole has been focused on affirming a “traditional” masculinity in the face of societal change rather than redefining it. It’s probably time for a second wave of masculinism that takes care of these things,,,
“On a totally unrelated note, why are gay men constantly separated from the men’s movement as a separate issue? I can’t think of a more vivid example of what it means to be a man and chafe at the norms expected of you by society.” This separation you mention exists in some places and not in other A Voice for Men has made a special point of saying that gay men are in the MRM and the MRM is about gay men too. They have a couple of gay men who post there out of about seven or eight regular… Read more »
What is the com in tradcom?
I’ve seen this one mix up with #4 more than a few times: Men’s issues exist, but bringing them up is derailing (because men are basicly privileged), therefore men’s issues should be brought up over there somewhere so we don’t have to listen to them.
Its a shame really.
Re: #5 – if only! (again, arguendo, as you did on # 3. men should have their own movement and it must include women, but the point is that the men’s movement gets unremitting vivilfication from the very passive-aggressives who say #5. It smells like # 2.
Im sorry, but these are not common feminist misconceptions. In fact, as written, Im not exactly sure what they are. They are so incredibly vague, and lacking a batter word, unstable, its impossible to find the opposition and/or the advocacy in any of them.
I have seen all of them posted around the internet on various blogs.
They are a classic example of “reason” riding into battle on the elephant of intuition. So of course they are not thought out.
Regarding number one, I see a lot of political cartoons with “we are the penis-owners! we have all the power!”. No, you have all the power because you’ve managed to worm your way into a job that gives you that. If you were, say, a busboy or a sex worker (no offense meant to those jobs), you’d have very little say in anything.
Regarding #5 – I think men SHOULD have their own movement counter to and opposing feminism. The majority of feminists I have met in my life – including my wife – don’t believe that men can be discriminated against. While feminism could be a big tent, in reality it isn’t. And if it was, it would need a new name anyway.
I understand men having their own movement, but opposing feminism? Why would you want to oppose equality for women? Because that’s what feminism is, at its core.
Feminism, especially third wave, focuses on equality for all, not just women.
If you say so. I see a lot of bickering about “rape culture” and “patriarchy” but maybe I’m not as in the loop. Certainly when I came of age in the late 1980s, feminists were not at all interested in men’s issues and were downright hostile to the fledgling men’s movements that were starting to appear.
Some elements of third wave feminism focus on equality for all. Feminism isn’t a monolith and I’ve seen some pretty hair-whitening stuff from third wave feminists.
The devil’s in the details, as they say.
You’ll find precious few who actually disagree with the statement “I believe men and women should have equal rights and responsibilities, excepting those cases where that is literally impossible, in which case they should have as close as is possible”, the problem comes in when you attach the “; therefore, …” part.
Pretty much what schadrach says, I don’t have any motivation to oppose someone looking for equal rights, but many of the people who call themselves feminist don’t use that definition.