A closer look at how misandrist arms of feminism institutionalize the neglect of men and masculinity in women’s and gender studies.
Tom Martin is becoming quite well known in the feminist and anti-feminist blogosphere. He has taken the unprecedented action of suing a Gender Studies department—the renowned LSE Gender Institute in London, UK—for discrimination against men. As Martin has said:
When “women’s studies” became “gender studies” departments, it signalled a new era of inclusion for men’s issues—a rejection of this now is a betrayal of men and equality.
In America, the situation is even worse for men, potentially, as many universities and colleges retain the subject of “women’s studies” on their curricula. I have a Ph.D in gender studies, from the UK, and my view is that no matter what the subject is called, it will always be based on extreme feminist dogma and on a misandrist view of the world. Again, as Martin has pointed out:
Patriarchy theory—the idea that men typically “dominate” women—is omnipresent, when research shows that women tend to boss men interpersonally. Texts highlight misogyny but never misandry, its anti-male equivalent.
It is in light of this bias in gender studies that I came to read Mark Simpson’s 1994 classic, Male Impersonators, and examine how and why it has been omitted from the reading lists of gender studies courses, including modules on “masculinity.”
In Male Impersonators, Simpson undresses the idea of the “natural man” and shows us how men perform masculinity, in popular culture in particular. Male strippers and drag artists, “macho” body builders, pornography, sports, the War Movie, reality television, the “men’s movement,” rock and roll. They all reveal, as examined by Simpson, the complexities and subtexts of modern masculinities. One of the many striking things about reading this book in 2011, 17 years after it was first published, is that it seemed as “fresh” and new as it must have in 1994. It’s because the subject it focuses on—men, and their representation in culture—is one that has been ignored and distorted by subsequent gender theory and by some misandrist strands of feminism.
♦◊♦
Feminism has done three things, particularly in relation to masculinity, which relate to how gender studies has come to ignore and belittle men’s experiences and perspectives. And these three things explain why excellent books such as Male Impersonators are not on gender studies reading lists:
1) Whatabouttehwimmin?
Any academic treatment of gender has been focused on the disadvantages faced by women and how women have been “omitted” from research, arts, literature, history, etc.
An example of this assumption can be found in another book published in 1994, Angela McRobbie’s Postmodernism and Popular Culture. The book has many discussions of women, girls and “femininity,” but look for “masculinity” in the index, and you will draw a blank. She justifies this glaring omission with statements such as this one:
It is in buying and selling clothes that girls and young women have been most active. The male bias of subcultural analysis has relegated these activities to the margins (McRobbie 1994:163). [My emphasis.]
But when I have looked at contemporary books, journals, and web-based media that deal with the subject of gender, I have found no evidence of this so-called “male bias” at all. In the Internet age, there are large numbers of websites/online publications in particular, such as Jezebel, Sociological Images Feministing, Feministe and The Frisky, which look at representations of women in popular culture, for example. But there is no comparable critical consideration of how men and masculinity are portrayed in the media and culture. If anyone dares to question this imbalance, and the fact that feminist “gender studies” analyses of the media tend to only consider women as subjects, they are often met with the playground style taunt: whatabouttehmenz?
2) Men are Monsters
Heterosexual masculinity, in particular, has been “pathologized” by some feminist gender academics—with heterosexual men being portrayed as the oppressors of everyone else: hetero women, queer women, queer men.
The idea that straight men have power that they use to oppress women, in particular, has been used by feminist writers such as Elaine Rapping, an American media and film analyst, to justify statements such as this:
Everywhere you look there are books, movies, discussions and news reports about male violence … faced with the deadly serious question: “why are men such creeps?” (Rapping, 1993:114).
This idea that men are “such creeps” is born out by the fact there is so much research and data on men’s violence against women, but very little about men as victims of violence, especially not at the hands of women. Is this because men are just thugs? Or is it due to the bias of gender academics?
Even the name of this website, The Good Men Project, suggests to me that men are not ‘naturally’ good, but that they have to work hard to overcome the negative aspects of their ‘masculinity’ in order to become ‘Good Men.’ For example, in his speech at the LA Slutwalk recently, Hugo Schwyzer of GMP fame said:
While it is true that men can be the victims of sexual violence, and while it is true that in a few cases women can be the perpetrators of sexual violence, there is no question that the vast majority of sexual violence is men assaulting women.
No question? Well gender studies programs could at least ask the question. But they don’t, due to its assumptions, which boil down to this nursery rhyme that “little boys” are naturally bad because they are made of “snips and snails and puppy dogs’ tails.”
3) “Masculinity” is Gay
The only aspect of masculinity that gender studies seems to have allowed to be considered, without completely dismissing its value, has been “queer” masculinities, and this has been left to “queer theory.” Simpson, for example, tends to be categorized as a “gay” writer on “gay” men’s issues, and when he is mentioned in books about masculinity, it is often in relation to his work on gay pornography. Some feminist writers have suggested that there is a definite line between “straight” and “gay” men, and in doing so they are endorsing “gay” men as somehow better than straight men, suggesting they deserve consideration as people, not just “oppressors.” But at the same time, they are marginalizing any positive representation of masculinity into the box of “queer theory.” In other words, this suggests that taking an active interest in men and masculinity is “gay” in itself.
♦◊♦
Male Impersonators is an interesting case study then, because, far from actually ignoring it, certain feminist academics have, in fact, taken its ideas, and co-opted and manipulated them and then failed to cite his work in their bibliographies. A number of feminist academics have made it clear they must have read Male Impersonators, but have not acknowledged just how much the book has “inspired” them, and in some cases have not mentioned Simpson at all.
The most well-known of these is probably Susan Faludi. Her book Stiffed: The Betrayal of the American Man, published in 2000, certainly draws on the themes introduced by Simpson in Male Impersonators. In particular, Faludi’s chapters on “hood ornaments”—men’s newfound “decorative” role in culture—and “waiting for wood”—on men in pornography—seem to owe a great deal to Simpson’s Male Impersonators. Anecdotal evidence tells of an interview with Faludi, where Simpson’s name was brought up, and she declared, ‘Oh, Mark Simpson. I’m his biggest fan!’ But not such a big fan that she could include his book in her huge bibliography.
Other academics who have obviously drawn on Male Impersonators, with little or no reference to Simpson, include Susan Bordo, who wrote The Male Body (1999) (more on that here), Germaine Greer (2003), Ros Gill et al, (2005), Harris (2007), Eric Anderson et al (2009), and Hall (2010).
The very existence of Tom Martin’s lawsuit against a major university department, and the fate of Mark Simpson’s “lost classic’”Male Impersonators, are but two examples of how feminist-dominated gender studies have short-changed men in a variety of ways, and how the neglect of men and masculinities is institutionalised within the feminist-skewed academy.
—Photo K. Sawyer Photography/Flicker
About Quiet Riot Girl
Standing ovation.
re: the “misandrist arms of feminism. . .”
Speaking for myself, if I discovered that an organization I associated with tolerated among its ranks hatred based sex, race, ethnicity, etc. I would disassociate myself with said organization and find another way to support my cause, untainted by hate and bias. Toleration of such would be tantamount to endorsing and supporting their hatred and bias.
I would say a prime reason to why there is no question about there being more cases of men abusing women is because we’ve had many times in history were this was common place, in fact in many parts of the world this is still common, but you never hear the reverse of it on that kind of level. This isn’t to say that it didn’t happen, but if it did it’s not like anyone talked about it so it’s something that simply never reached the surface. Take my culture for instance, I’m mexican/salvadorian, and women getting the shit beat out of them didn’t just happen in those respective cultures in many cases it was expected.
The problem as I see it is that now in our day and age, there seems to be a kind of backlash were we have said “feminists” (and not ALL feminists) who basically want to be treated better then men and are now the oppressors of masculinity, they justify this as equality but this isn’t the case. (Unfortunately this has given feminists a bad name in the eyes of many.)
I find this article very refreshing and welcome.
I found the criticism on the misandrist line “what about the menz” to be long overdue.
Thanks all.
JBG – I had ‘whatabouttehmenz’ thrown at me many times on feminist blogs etc before I really realised what its function was, and why it was so misandrist. The ‘group think’ means it is sometimes hard to challenge these things.
QRT: You should look up the terms ‘gaslighting’ and ‘mansplaining’
I think you mean QRG. Neither of those terms apply to this article. I am hardly calling women ‘over sensitive’ or irrational I am calling feminist academics biased against men and rather low down in their ethics in terms of how they steal other authors’ work.
And I am a woman. I am not ‘Man’ anything.
Sorry QRG: I meant look them up as they are used to dismiss men in the same way that ‘whatabouttehmenz’ is.
OH sorry! I got the wrong end of the stick. that’s me being defensive as a result of feminists accusing me of all sorts.
Yes ‘mansplaining’ ‘gaslighting’ ‘whataboutism’ ‘privilege denying’ – are all ways of putting down men, and people who challenge feminism’s pro-female bias.
Sorry, I am often short with praise.
I appreciate your writing very much, and the stand you are making. There is no way for a man to say what you are saying, and I appreciate your bravery in facing down the establishment, and the intellectual honesty you show in publicly disavowing a system which you could instead have quietly benefited from.
Also Sir Karl Popper on falsification. Something that everyone should pay attention to. http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/popper_falsification.html
Interesting points, QRG. When I hear complaints about “the patriarchy” and how men rule and control all aspects of society, everywhere, I always recall Dave Barry’s comment from “The Book of Guys.”
“Yes… but those are OTHER MEN. The guys you see every day, 99.9% of the time, have no more power or control than you do. THEY don’t have any say in how our government operates, or how corporate policies are set, or who gets sent to fight and die in wars. They don’t have access to this power either. Just like you, they’re struggling to get by and worrying about paying the mortgage and wondering if they’ll have time to grab dinner before they have to head off to Kyle’s soccer practice. These aren’t patriarchs, and they’re not oppressors… they’re guys.”
If your gripe is with the power elites, it makes no sense to take out your frustrations on the guy in the cubicle next to yours.
do you have a link to the book of guys?
Sorry, it’s his “Complete Guide to Guys,” and all I have is an Amazon link.
http://www.amazon.com/Dave-Barrys-Complete-Guide-Guys/dp/0345440633
He’s a humorist, of course, and I’m quoting from memory, but it was still an excellent point that stuck with me.
“I’m quoting from memory”
Er… so it’s not actually “Dave Barry’s comment,” then?
I am sure it is a decent approximation TD! we can always read the book to check
My opinion of feminism has changed over the years. My mother was feminist in the sense that she worked to remove barriers against her advancement in school and career. I always supported and still support that kind of feminism. But in the last 30 years it has turned into a nasty anti-male reactionary movement. So much of it is as you say about pathologizing heterosexual men.
I worry for my teenage son that he is constantly exposed to negative messages about masculinity. I have to work to counter i, to make sure he grows up with a positive self image about being a man.
I really started to become aware of these issues after my divorce when I was exposed for the first time to some really overt discrimination in family court. That is when I started noticing that feminist organizations that claim to support gender equality where actually always in support the kind of discrimination I was facing.
And then I started to meet with many men who were facing false allegations of sexual abuse and domestic violence and how few protections men have from these false accusations. And again it is always feminist organizations pushing for unbalanced laws where innocent men are defenseless against false accusations. For example where restraining orders are issued in ex-parte hearings where the other side is not even represented.
“I worry for my teenage son that he is constantly exposed to negative messages about masculinity. I have to work to counter i, to make sure he grows up with a positive self image about being a man.” Boy does this hit home!! I have a 13 year old, and he comes home with questions like “why do girls assume I want to make out with them?” or “since when did guys become jerks for no reason?”
It’s scary out there for the average male. The assumptions made about them based on their sex is just reverse discrimination.
There is no such thing as reverse discrimination. Discrimination is discrimination no matter who the target is.
The best thing that could be said about the ‘What about teh menz?’ approach, is that elite feminists are being deliberately playful and provocative with it, in effect, causing good men and women to react, and to enter the debate, and to correct the omissions, and to enter the work of gender equality.
The problem is, having entered the field of gender, I can tell you, the omissions and attacks on men never stop. It’s a double bluff.
For the average feminist on the street or in the classroom though, the ‘What about teh menz?’ games seem legitimate, simply because they do not realize men face inequalities.
And even for the elite students of gender, they simply do not know that men face inequalities, as these issues have been ruthlessly excluded from the curriculum.
I’m just putting the finishing touches to a video I shot on LSE’s campus, getting students’ reactions to the news I’m suing the Gender Institute, and it is the Gender students who are the least well-informed on gender issues. They are not being strategic, just ignorant. Follow sexismbusters on twitter for an alert when this video is done – with more to follow!
Please go to my website also, sexismbusters dot org , follow on twitter, like on facebook, and donate to the fighting fund.
I’ve posted new evidence on sexismbusters, of the core texts in the dock, along with close analysis highlighting the subtle and not so subtle ways the discrimination plays out.
@Tom Martin
“For the average feminist on the street or in the classroom though, the ‘What about teh menz?’ games seem legitimate, simply because they do not realize men face inequalities.”
Oh they do realize, believe me. They just act like inequalities in favor of women don’t exist. It’s part of the game and the revenge.
With other words, they are disguisting liars.
QRG, this is the second time I’ve had an opportunity to read this article and I wanted to thank you for it! I am really glad it has seen such an open and friendly response at GMP. The first time I saw it was at The Spearhead, and I was appalled and deeply offended by the attitude and behaviour of the commentators there toward you.
I am trying to position myself as a Men’s coach and writer right now, which means burning a lot of grey matter on ways to positively spin and come up with comping and cognitive tools to help men deal with the emotional and behavioural fallout from Men’s Issues. It seems for every piece of positive feedback I get, I also get a mountain of “whataboutthemenz?”-style mockery. And I have never seen any of it levelled at me in a critical, well-meaning or “playful” manner.
There are days when I just want to scream about it. But I am not interested in taking pop-Feminism on. In fact I try my damnedest to keep Feminism, Women’s Issues, out of the limelight in my writing entirely, and focus on what Men can do for themselves to improve themselves and become happier. I hoped that it would keep the derision I had to filter out of my comments down and my work focussed. Instead it seems to make the “Whataboutthemen?z” crew even more determined to intrude into my space.
Thank you for being willing to take that particular stance on, and call people to account for it.
Thanks Brian. I don’t blame you for avoiding feminism – it really doesn’t have that much useful stuff to say about /for men. I only tackle feminism because a) I was a feminist for so many years so i feel the need to articulate why I have rejected it, and b) Because as a woman ex-feminist I think I have the knowledge and maybe even a duty to take them on!
I used to think of myself as a feminist. I was brought up on highly feminist ideals, and spent much of my University career working very actively in feminist and goddess-centred circles. The rewards for working so hard to be a “good, progressive, feminist” man was that I endlessly hated myself, couldn’t speak up for myself and my needs in a sexless marriage, was alienated from much of my male family and had no male friends, and had no one I would comfortably talk to about anything without fear of judgment.
I just want to get away from it altogether, now. I want to be able to construct a healthy relationship with masculinity that isn’t burdened by a mountain of guilt, shame and uncertainty. Something that lets me, and hopefully others like me, find a positive place in the world.
Feminism is an albatross around my neck. I can see where it does good in the world, where it still has a role to play. I can also see how it was both culturally inevitable, and part of a process that has led Men like me to our current state, and not the cause of it. But I am done carrying it, and I wish people would stop putting it back over my shoulders. It has nothing more to offer me, and it is doing a lot of damage to Men who want to heal and contribute to the greater good.
Equality was always a worthy goal, and it still is. Fairness and justice will never go out of style.
The key to breaking free is recognizing that feminism, modern feminism, isn’t about equality any more. It’s about serving women’s interests and promoting benefits for women… which may be a worthy cause, but it certainly has nothing to do with me and nothing to offer any man.
I just finished reading your article “Miss Whiplash and Manboobz – The Mystery of the Male Feminist”, which I thoroughly enjoyed. If you ever want to investigate that topic again, let me know. As a recovering male feminist (372 days sober!) I’d love to give you some more ammunition.
Excellent I might take you up on that!
This article reminds me of the feminist backlash against the Male Studies proposal. Rather than address any of the issues presented by the group, feminists mocked them and dismissed the concept as unnecessary and sexist. Those “what about teh menz” responses send a powerful message to men: your problems do not matter.
I think that message is one of the major reasons, if not the reason, why so men many reject feminism outright. You cannot help people unless you are willing to listen to their views on their own problems. Far too often some feminists think they know everything and have all the answers. In my opinion, that is the problem far more often than any institutionalized misandry in feminism. It is that abject certainty that prompts comments like Schwyzer’s.
Yet, I do not see a way to resolve that problem. For the most part, groups that possess these kinds of entrenched views do not change them easily (you try to convince a neo-con that cutting taxes on the wealthy does not always promote economic growth, and I will bring the ice for your head), so there is not much in terms of discussion that will help. Presenting statistics does not help, and neither does showing the harm caused. We left at an impasse that will only worsen with time.
You present a pessimistic view, Jacob but I am inclined to agree.
The only reason I argue with feminists (apart from some kind of masochistic drive) is that online, especially, I never know who will read the articles/comments. And if even on feminist websites and blogs there is an alternative view available for the ‘undecided’ or ‘nonbelievers’ I think it is valuable.
I have received a few emails recently thanking me for taking a stand against feminist dogma.
But you’re right it is a tough fight!
Well, we can always hope for a eucatastrophe.
Great article Quiet Riot Girl.
One of the unfortunate ironies in the “Women’s Studies” variant of feminism is that it also does a disservice to women themselves. A lot of the rhetoric and approach is counterproductive, if the idea is to increase exposure to things like women’s historical contributions. It was great for Women’s Studies to break into the academy and actually start some focus on sexism and get some attention for women’s influence in society, but after a certain point it’s turned into a ghetto. As a male faculty member with very old-fashioned academic training, I can say “I don’t need to talk about women in my history class. That’s what the Women’s Studies classes are for.” In fact, if I attempted to create a women’s history course, I would be stepping on someone else’s turf, threatening someone else’s job. It’s protected ground, reinforced by scarcity, which is hardly conducive to “spreading the word.”
I forget which year it was, but there was a year in the 1990’s that international feminist organizations (and the UN?) declared the “Year of the Woman.” Same thing as creating a Women’s Studies department. That’s really nice for women to get recognized in such a milestone, but also sort of patronizing and limiting in the long term. Now that one year is behind us, so what does that say about the importance of women? “What are you complaining about – we gave you a whole year!”
History – feminists had a really good point that women were largely invisible in traditional histories. Almost everyone but a few powerful men was invisible. the remebdy was not to focus on women and invent things to celebrate them for, but to look at the whole range of a period. Once you start looking at all the crucial everyday technologies nameless women invented, along with all the crucial everyday things nameless men did, this invisibility statred to fade.
Good points.
Invent something? WTF is wrong with you people? You really think feminists are hateful? Look in the mirror.
Maybe you should know more about feminism before you speak.
Some statements by the founding mothers of feminism:
‘My feelings about men are the result of my experience. I have little sympathy for them. Like a Jew just released from Dachau, I watch the handsome young Nazi soldier fall writhing to the ground with a bullet in his stomach and I look briefly and walk on. I don’t even need to shrug. I simply don’t care. What he was, as a person, I mean, what his shames and yearnings were, simply don’t matter.”
Marilyn French; The Woman’s Room.
“All men are rapists and that’s all they are.”
Marilyn French, Author; (later, advisor to Al Gore’s Presidential Campaign.)
“I believe that women have a capacity for understanding and compassion which man structurally does not have, does not have it because he cannot have it. He’s just incapable of it.”
Former Congresswoman Barbara Jordan.
“The traditional flowers of courtship are the traditional flowers of the grave, delivered to the victim before the kill. The cadaver is dressed up and made up and laid down and ritually violated and consecrated to an eternity of being used.”
Andrea Dworkin
“Probably the only place where a man can feel really secure is in a maximum security prison, except for the imminent threat of release.”
Germaine Greer. (Germaine Greer has a quote that goes something like: “I like to look at pictures of nude little boys, not shaved men mind you but nude boys”)
“You grow up with your father holding you down and covering your mouth so another man can make a horrible searing pain between your legs.”
Catherine MacKinnon (Prominent legal feminist scholar; University of Michigan, & Yale.)
“Men’s sexuality is mean and violent, and men so powerful that they can ‘reach WITHIN women to fuck/construct us from the inside out.’ Satan-like, men possess women, making their wicked fantasies and desires women’s own. A woman who has sex with a man, therefore, does so against her will, ‘even if she does not feel forced.’
Judith Levine, (explicating comment profiling prevailing misandry.)
I would say that the feminist movement was born of not only hatred, but bigotry as well.
Well, both your quotes from Marilyn French are deliberate misinformation or pathetic ignorance on YOUR part.
BOTH of those are quotes from a CHARACTER in French’s book, NOT things that French herself said about men or feminism.
Learn the difference.
And if you’re going to provide “quotes” (your Greer “has a quote that goes something like” is just blatant propaganda/misinformation), provide links so that THINKING people –rather than those who just want to hide in fear, hatred and misinformation) can actually read the original and get the context.
And finally, I don’t know WHERE you get that these are “the founding mothers of feminism” but that’s bullshit too.
Really, the intellectual dishonesty of the MRA movement is WORSE than that of the right-wing neo-con religious-right Tea Party.
But then, I never expected any different from patriarchy– even when (like the VAST majority of right-wing neo-con religious-right Tea Party), you’re supporting a system that doesn’t support you.
First, men were the centre of the universe, and women had to orbit around them.
Then women managed to unhinge, find their own centres, move on their own path.
Now, I think, there are a few good men who are also brave enough to follow. When we get laughed at or ignored, we shouldn’t really complain: that is the toll you pay for moving your way.
This article is most welcome. But it won’t make things easier.
You say, ” is so much research and data on men’s violence against women, but very little about men as victims of violence, especially not at the hands of women. Is this because men are just thugs? Or is it due to the bias of gender academics?”
We also don’t study the mating patterns of flamingos in Antarctica. It makes since there is “very little” research (as opposed to “no research”) since research has not indicated an epidemic of female violence toward men.
sense rather…
@Appalled
http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm
Ever read some of the studies of violence? Quite a few seem to only ask the men about bad behaviour and thus leave out the abuse women are committing. The above link actually suggests an epidemic in abusive behaviour committed by women, and with men 4x more likely to succeed at suicidee it probably has quite a bit of merit. There is most definitely a need to study violent behaviour by females, I have been assaulted by females even sexually, my friends have been physically assaulted by females and it’s happened in quite public areas where no one notices or bats an eye. The very least we can do is ensure studies are done on both male and females instead of just one for violence, sexual assault/rape, etc so we can get a clear picture on the topic.
Regardless of who the perpetrator is, there are also twice the number of reports to the police in Australia of males as victims in violent crimes as opposed to females. I’m not saying this as a pissing contest but merely we have an epidemic of violence but the male victims tend to be ignored a lot and females having the hyperfocus, this doesn’t help ALL victims at all, they both need a balanced and fair level of awareness and support.
No one denies men are often the victims of violent crime… do you propose the number of those victims attacked by women is at epidemic levels?
Observations and attempts to right the cultural issues which lead to violence against women by men have no bearing on an individual’s victimization. There are many organizations and fields of study devoted to violence in general and all victims… what I don’t get is why men and QRG take the view that feminists are bad because they rightly point out that when women are the victims of violence it s overwhelmingly attributed to the opposite sex. Doesn’t mean all men are violent… but we are responsible to recognize this phenomena and work to battle the contributing factors… one of which I would argue is the constant demonization of the feminist movement.
A bad reputation doesn’t persist for decades on end unless there is substance. If feminism has a bad reputation, it (they) really ought to look in the mirror.
Hmmm… liked planned parenthood? Like the NAACP? Like Amnesty International? These groups all have a “bad reputation” among certain circles… mainly those circles who oppose them.
A swing and a miss. . . those are misfit analogies.
NAACP: Who other than racists oppose the NAACP? They don’t have any prevailing bad rep.
Amnesty International: How many people even know what Amnesty International does? And, of those, how many even care? Statistically, very few people have strong positive or negative feelings about that organization. So again, no prevailing bad rep.
Planned Parenthood: Only pro-life activists care much about Planned Parenthood’s activities. Again, most people have no singular negative opinion.
One major difference between those groups and feminism is that none of them have a reputation of hating and discriminating against others based on sex, as feminism has been known for – for decades.
Actually, I would say that the anti-male advocacy of feminism is catching up to it and tarnishing it’s once sterling reputation.
We all thought that feminism was like the NAACP or ACLU. But, now BASED UPON THEIR ACTIONS it is becoming readily apparent they are more like the black panthers or the Klan.
Good post with many valid points. One of the things I think a lot of feminists also struggle with is that some feminists give the rest of us a bad name. I am not a misandrist because I am a feminist, nor do I want to be “better” than men or put them down. To me, feminism just means wanting to be equal, and in so many ways women still are not equal. I get upset over how polarizing this issue becomes. The fabulous author Zadie Smith once said, “I myself have never been able to figure out precisely what feminism is. I only know that people call me a feminist whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a doormat. ” So that’s pretty hyperbolic, but the point is that I am amazed at how harsh the comments can be when I write anything that is about making the world better for women and girls around the world. It’s as if feminism itself has become a dirty word. I really believe there has to be a way to discuss the problems of women AND the problems of men without the extreme rhetoric. I am a child advocate. I write equally about the issues facing boys and girls. When I write about boys and what they need, I get a lot less angry push-back from women than when I write about girls and men go nuts. Why is this? I don’t hate anyone. I love men and do not wholesale blame them all for the plight of females. But am I allowed to talk about that anymore without being labeled a/an (insert rude adjective here) feminist? Does anyone want to try to offer some positive solutions without bashing me for bringing it up?
Lori,
I strongly suspect that the lack of “pushback” has to do with how you frame the existing problems.
“Women’s Issues” are virtually always framed as male-caused, even when this doesn’t make sense. As a quick example, we know that there are MANY women that would like to curtail reproductive rights (to date, half of all evangelical Christians are women). Yet discussions about reproductive rights somehow ignore this point: they are framed as women being oppressed by “the patriarchy.” The fact that a massive segment of the population is both female AND in favor of abortion restrictions is ignored in favor of a “let’s blame male privilege” policy.
Meanwhile, I have yet to see a serious discussion where the problems facing today’s boys are placed solely at the feet of women. Indeed, common “culprits” when discussing boys’ problems are often absentee fathers and toxic “guy culture.”
So why would you ever seen female push back? Women are not being told they are alone to blame for societies ills. Yet men see this message each and every single day. You analogy about male vs. female “pushback” suggests that you either haven’t noticed how blame is being distributed, or that you do not understand the worldview that results from being told “everything is always your fault.”
In many ways your comment is an excellent example of female privilege: the privilege to be oblivious about how gender problems are discussed and how blame is usually distributed.
Mike – well said.
Abortion legislation is written by an exclusive group where women are under represented… Congress. Perhaps that is why women focus on the patriarchy angle when it comes to reproductive rights.
Eric, thanks, I appreciate the discussion on this site.
Appalled, congress does not create abortion legislation in a vacuum. The legislation is based on views that are outlined in campaign platforms. Across the United States women turn out in droves to support these platforms. In virtually all polls ~40% of women have been opposed to abortion. Claiming “women are underrepresented in congress” as an explanation ignores this reality. If a significant portion of women (and 40% is WAY past significant) are in favor of a policy, it is inappropriate to blame said policy solely on “the patriarchy.” At a certain point it is not longer “what the patriarchy wants” but rather “what the people in general want.” That you disagree with them personally (as I disagree with abortion restrictions) does not change this.
This same male-heavy congress passed VAWA. In fact dubyah re-upped VAWA in 2000 with a GOP controlled house and senate: their goes your theory.
Lori,
This is key ” I am not a misandrist because I am a feminist”.
P := I am a feminist
Q := I am not a misandrist
You claim:
P => Q == T
I think once you study if your claim is as true as you think it is, and why you would so blithely state and assume that, I think that then, you might hear the grasshopper by your feet.
“When I write about boys and what they need, I get a lot less angry push-back from women than when I write about girls and men go nuts. Why is this?”
Lori,
why don’t you show some examples and then we might be able to give you answer.
” feminism just means wanting to be equal, and in so many ways women still are not equal”
You will never get anywhere if you focus on ther topics where women are still not equal, while ignore the topics where they are more than equal…. these two things go hand in hand. But that’s excatly what feminism does, therefore it is anti-male, generally. It does not make any sense that you personally like men or not.
i’ve used to say there is no “good or “bad” feminism, only feminism.
Women who write feminist blogs have been attacked and threatened with rape. These online attacks against women only space have been horrific, and women have a right to fight back against any male attackers online or otherwise. I’m not in favor of “equality feminism” I want my freedom, and that is a completely different dimension. Women have a perfect right to create spaces of scholarship that focus solely on women’s concerns. Men have plenty of space all over the world, and rule the media, congress, the courts, and have pretty much had the whole historical show to themselves. Women’s Studies is about the study of women. “Gender” is simply a way of once again decentering the main subject of study, which is women. Until we have a complete history of women, and all our contributions, we really don’t have time to give men right now. We want resources completely of our own, and when we are attacked and threatened and invaded on the Internet, we have coined terms to keep men off our sites. When we say a site is women only, we mean it, and men are not welcome to comment. When women criticize men this is falsely considered an “equal” attack, but really it is men who own the police, the guns, the military, and the vast majority of political sites talk about male issues (falsely termed human issues most of the time).
I think most men have had such unearned power for so long, that they really freak out when women claim space as their own, and when women demand academic space of their own. Men own academia, and can study themselves… they’ve been doing it for thousands of years, and erasing the work women have done for as long as well. I really have no sympathy for the complaints of the oppressor, and see no value in talking to men about feminism anyway. I do want a world of my own, and have probably wasted time here too. A lot of us deal with abusive power mad men in business every day, we get underpaid, we get attacked on the Internet, for what— saying we deserve academic space where the study of women is paramount, and where we are not erased again by the clever wording of “gender” studies. In fact, a joke I often tell is about my university degree…. “Men’s Studies” I say is my degree. Lots of folks then are astonished…. “I believe most people call this a history degree.” Then they get the joke. I wrote a letter to the editor telling why dead white males wasn’t “history” but just the “history of men” awhile ago. A man found my phone number and left a threatening message for daring to challenge male supremacy in western “civilization…i.e. the study of dead white males.” Just out of idyle curiosity, how many men get threated with death and rape if they comment on blogs, the threats coming from women I may add?
You confuse the few men in power of the media as something that can adequately address male issues? The extreme majority of gender studies in media is female issues, and quite rarely male issues. I support having femaleissuesonly spaces and mensonlyissues spaces but please don’t use male issues as an insult, even if the issues number less than female issues. It shouldn’t be a fight over who is more worthy, it should be 2 separate movements with a common goal that can actually work together.
It’s good you mention threats of death and rape (violence overall), whilst women makeup the majority of rape victims, males are still a significant number, and males dominate the victims of other forms of violence AND death. Clearly there is a legitimate concern and thus a need for male issues awareness to combat the violence towards them, just as there is a legit reason to combat against the issues women face. If women weren’t apart of the perpetrator group at all you might have a case, it’s rarer but still significantly a problem. A link I posted earlier suggests “women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners. ” and had quite a large sample size, and variety of studies. This myth of women being the innocent angels and men are the only perpetrators simply leaves a lot of victims AND perps without adequate support. Even if men are the majority of abusers and violent perps, this still doesn’t negate the need to give men support when they are victims. Much abuse is commited by those who were abused, it’s a vicious cycle that continues on and the lack of awareness for them, lack of support, the demonization of their gender simply allows this shit to continue.
BTW males do get a lot of abusive comments online from men, less so from women so men are also victims in that case too. You just derailed the article, and did a classic whatabouttehwimmin speech, exactly like some men and women do on feminist spaces, this reduces your ability to act like the better person and simply causes more people to be anti-feminist (which I am NOT). Don’t minimize and make little the suffering of men that is very real because of your preconceptions of who has it worse, IT DOES NOT MATTER WHO HAS IT WORSE OVERALL WHEN BOTH HAVE IT BAD IN SOME AREAS. Don’t try to insult the need for men to have awareness and support for their issues, even if they only number a few. Men should also not insult the need for women to have the awareness and issues either.
If you think men don’t get abusive comments from women, you haven’t been to very many feminist sites. I’m guessing Kiran spends most of her time in these echo chambers and therefore has no idea what a pitiable dysfunctional person she sounds like.
Kiran
“When we say a site is women only, we mean it, and men are not welcome to comment.”
You have illustrated, on queue, very well the feminist misandry that QRG was referring to. In your case, even seperatist feminist misandry. If you want away from men so badly, why are you on a site called Good MEN Project? Is it just to spreadh feminist misandry? That’s what we are trying to expunge.
Good men want to be around women and understand their views and opinions. I’ve been listening to my wife’s opinoins for years now. We/I love reasonable, balanced women (and men) who also love men. That’s what nature intended. What is not welcome is misandry.
Please define reasonable, balanced woman… who decides and what should be done with those who don’t meet the criteria? I/We love unique, empowered and confident women and I think that is the way nature intended it… not that I hold the market on what nature does or doesn’t intend. I don’t think “that’s the way it has always been” really holds much water as an argument and that is what statements about the nature of nature do.
rea·son·a·ble
adj.
1. Capable of reasoning; rational: a reasonable person.
2. Governed by or being in accordance with reason or sound thinking: a reasonable solution to the problem.
3. Being within the bounds of common sense: arrive home at a reasonable hour.
4. Not excessive or extreme; fair: reasonable prices.
bal·anced/ˈbalənst/
adj.
Keeping or showing a balance; arranged in good proportions.
Taking everything into account; fairly judged or presented.
Reasonable and balanced women (and men) consider ALL the facts and based their conclusions on all available information; even things they wish weren’t true. They even account for inconvenient truths; things they wish weren’t the case. They are willing to adjust their views, based on facts that come to their attention.
By contract, the unbalanced and unreasonable blind themselves (often intentionally) to inconvenient facts; facts that don’t support with their prejudices. For instance, the unbalanced and unreasonable habitually use terms such as “male privilege”, contending that simply being male accords one societal privileges superior to those of females, which the facts don’t support.
I don’t understand your question: “what should be done with” those who aren’t “reasonable and balanced?” Done by whom?
Every human is “unique.” IMO, it’s best for everyone (male or female) have a reasonable measure of “confidence.” “Empowered” is psychobabble. No offense.
Thank you, Kiran. Well argued.
It’s worth noting that feminist organizations, rallies, and websites are rarely meant to be women only. You would that given the name, but if you consider that feminism is supposed to be about gender equality you realize a feminist space can never be a woman only space.
If you’re a college student and you want to enter a woman only space, you don’t major in Women’s Studies, you join a sorority, which was always meant as a woman’s space. Doesn’t mean you will avoid misogyny while in those women’s spaces.
Though to be fair with all the vitriol women face when speaking their opinions, you can only blame them somewhat for being paranoid about it.
Lori Day and Kiran I read your posts and all i could see was ‘whatabouttehwimmin’….
How do you like it when the boot is on the other foot?
Oh, that’s very creative…
Yet so very true, Appalled.
QRG, this was a terrific essay, so thank you. I wish you the best success.
QRG,
I forgot to add, it will be interesting to see Hugo Schwyzer’s reaction. He is the embodiment of the classic feminist response system at this site. Will he engage with you, or just dismiss you? When he does engage with you, will other blogs in the feminist response system take both him and you on in an intellectual discussion, or just pile on you?
Well, you have my best wishes, and thanks.
thanks anon. He hasn’t commented here – he made a brief tweet to me but it was very ‘dismissive’!
Excellent article QRG!