Sarah Jackson is tired of feminists being lumped together with lazy stereotypes.
Originally published at Role/Reboot.
Yesterday, a blogger known as “Quiet Riot Girl” contributed this piece to the ongoing conversation about rape at The Good Men Project. I read this piece with a lump in my throat. It was not so much a lump of anger, but instead a feeling of sadness for the fundamental misunderstandings of feminism the piece reinforces.
As a feminist and a scholar I believe it misunderstands the movement in a multitude of ways. My biggest problem with this piece is the fact that it lumps “feminists” into a like-minded, lock-step group incapable of evolution or dissent. That is fundamentally inaccurate. Like any movement, feminism is constantly changing in the face of shifting cultural and political norms and the increasingly democratic inclusion of traditionally-excluded voices. (Clearly the author is not familiar with “third world feminism,” Islamic feminism, or Chicana feminism, among others.) I won’t spend a lot of time here discussing the distinctions between the various waves of feminism or the diversity that exists therein. Nor will I address extensively what I believe to be a fundamental misunderstanding by the author of what contemporary feminists generally mean by “rape culture” (a culture in which dominant hierarchies of gender and sexuality justify sexualized violence. Feminists use “rape culture” to talk about sexual violence against all people as an act of terrorism, and recognize that “rape culture” contributes to all gendered violence, even that not included in legal definitions of rape).
Rather, as a black feminist I strongly resent the suggestion that “feminists” (as defined by the author) do not talk or care about issues of racial violence. From my experience this is completely untrue. I’m basing this not on personal impressions, but rather on reading feminist texts as they have evolved. It doesn’t appear to me that Quiet Riot Girl has had any exposure to feminist scholarship that holds race as a central concern. This scholarship developed alongside more “traditional” (white, heterosexual, middle-class) forms of feminism and has been increasingly embraced by all feminists. In fact, this scholarship is increasingly included in the feminist canon. Barbara Smith, an African American lesbian feminist, was one of many who insisted feminism include critiques of racism, as well as homophobia and classism.
♦◊♦
Further, in this version of feminism, many feminists (male and female) have explicitly linked the practice of lynching to rape culture and have detailed in some depth the way the same ideologies inherent in this lynching culture have historically enabled racialized violence (including racialized rape). This brand of feminism locates the roots of state-sanctioned and individual acts of violence against African American MEN (and women) in what bell hooks has called “white supremacist capitalist patriarchy.” Accordingly, white supremacist capitalist patriarchy has placed white women on a pedestal, constructing them as always-helpless soon-to-be victims who cannot live safely without the protection of white men. This “protection” exists in the form of the white patriarchy that supposedly shelters white femininity by reinforcing a culture of fear, in which white women are penalized (sometimes by rape) for stepping outside dominant norms of “womanhood,” and violence against black men is justified as a necessary measure to protect “helpless” white women from the “uncivilized” sexual urges of the darker races.
So while Quiet Riot Girl suggests that feminists don’t talk about a “murder of young black men culture” in the same way they talk about “rape culture,” she ignores the fact that some feminists have always linked these phenomena and that for these feminists “rape culture” includes histories of race and class violence. In this view, 14-year-old Emmett Till, one of the most well-known victims of racialized violence from the civil rights era, was, in part, a victim of rape culture. He was brutally murdered, not simply because of his race, but because of what it supposedly meant for someone of his race to make perceived sexual advances toward a white woman. Similarly, feminists who ascribe to this view would link rape culture to the fact that gay and transgender people of color are more likely to be victims of homophobic violence. This is because of the ways in which sexuality and victimhood have been culturally defined as exclusive to straight white people.
In this version of feminism, rape culture also includes recognition of the constructed “non-rapability” of black women. It recognizes that because of the gendered and racialized ideas that have required white women be idealized and paternalized as ever-likely victims and black men stereotyped as ever-ready rapists, and because of the history of sexual violence particular to the slave trade in the United States, women of color are generally not afforded the same victim status as white women. Instead popular stereotypes and ideologies have suggested that women of color are always-willing sexual partners, their assaults often dismissed as a reflection of sexual deviance or other forms of immorality.
♦◊♦
While initially the feminism developed by Black, Latin and third-world women was marginalized within the feminist movement, today most feminist scholars recognize intersectionality (or the way race, class, gender, sexuality, citizenship, etc. contribute to specific experiences around physical and ideological oppression) as a primary concern. Thus, to suggest that “feminists” do not care about other types of identity-based oppression and violence, or that the concept of “rape culture” exists in some kind of vacuum in which it only ever incorporates white, male-on-female sexual assault, is to ignore a huge part of contemporary feminism. I strongly recommend Quiet Riot Girl and anyone else hoping to comment on what feminists do or don’t say read some of the feminist texts that incorporate these arguments before suggesting that feminists don’t care about racial violence.
Ironically, by ignoring feminist work that places race as a central concern, and the work of Black feminists in particular, Quiet Riot Girl is doing exactly what she suggests the feminists she critiques do: placing her own definitions of feminism and rape culture above the experiences and contributions of those who have experienced racialized violence.
While I generally discourage Wikipedia citations this entry gives a pretty comprehensive summary of Black feminism for beginners. I also suggest:
- Black Feminist Thought, Patricia Hill Collins
- The Color of Rape, Sujata Moorti
- White Victims, Black Villains, Carole Stabile
- Ain’t I a Woman, Black Women and Feminism, bell hooks
- Killing the Black Body, Dorothy Robert
- Rape and Criminal Justice, Gary Lafree
Sarah Jackson is a Postdoctoral Teaching Fellow at Northeastern University in Boston, MA. Her research and teaching focus on how media discourses of race, class, and gender reinforce and/or challenge concepts of national belonging. Outside her academic life, Sarah volunteers with youth in educational equity programs, does a lot of yoga, and fantasizes about being an artist. Read more of her writing on Wandering In Love and follow her on Twitter @sjjphd.
—Photo juliejordanscott/Flickr
The feminists’ reactions to the rape of Duke student Katie Rouse, in a Duke fraternity house demonstrate the connection between feminism, sexual violence, and racial issues.
You know, the term gaslighting comes to mind every time someone tells men who have objections to feminism how irrelevant their problems are. Oh wait, that is something only men do to women, so it can’t be. *sarcasm*
Sarah Jackson’s article reflect my experiences with feminists. I find most feminists to be well-educated, conscientious, hard-working, intelligent, and much more devoted than other social activists to working on a wide variety of issues. Most of the feminists I know are also involved in the environmental, civil rights, and labor rights movements. Many of them are dividing their time between marching in SlutWalk, the anti-rape and sexual violence march, and Occupy Wall Street, the workers’ rights march. They find the anti-feminist comments on The Good Men Project quite distressing but they use their time wisely and get involved in political… Read more »
So our experiences of discrimination are nothing but an inability to let go of the patriarchy? Have you any idea how condescending that sounds?
Apparently so.
Save the whales, but not the males huh?
Finally, there is no patriarchy, there was no patriarchy, and women were never treated as chattel in the western world. It’s completely bullshit.
You’re completely wrong on that. Marriage laws in Europe and the Americas were based on coverture, the idea that “in marriage, two become one and the man is the one.” The man had all the legal rights over woman. It wasn’t until 1920 that American women finally were allowed to vote.
Karen, I think something that is lacking in feminist thinking when they look back at old colonial and english laws is the presumption that because men had control of property that men then abused their wives. There is no proof of this. What I would liken it to is this: In the last 40 years we have grown into a very lawless society. By this I mean that we have become a society that refuses to judge or stigmatize any choices as being bad. This has resulted in people doing very bad things (that weren’t done before) because there is… Read more »
Sorry typo:
In the heart of the (supposedly) most misogynistic period in history the social price men paid for not protecting women were MORE SEVERE than any law could be–i.e. there was no need for laws against abusing women.
I don’t agree with your analysis. What I do think is worth noting from it though is that men have had to deal with a massive set of social mores in exactly the same way women have. Women may have had it tougher, and I back the notion that society was legally constituted to be unfair to women, but that does not mean that women held no power to mould the social setting, nor that there were far more pernicious interests which used men to their own ends. One should never oppose modern feminism on the basis that women did… Read more »
I’m not claiming women didn’t have it bad, although I am disputing that women had it worse. When I say this, I am looking primarily at the common man and woman. When you exclude the elites (a small portion of 1%) then on balance men had it much worse than women. Women had very tight restrictions (no college education, no political voice, few job types available), absolutely, no doubt. But, so did men. However, men’s roles constituted being the cannon fodder upon which society was built. 26,000 men died creating the panama canal, 112 died building hoover dam, many thousands… Read more »
The legal system and social systems mitigated against women’s freedoms. In addition to whatever sufferings men and women suffered through things like class/race whatever, women had and extra injustice heaped on them. Whether that compares to the things men experienced, who knows? On the other hand, it IS a unique oppression that women suffered which was absolutely awful.
Actually, I despise talk of who had it worse or better. Suffering is not a zero sum game. That is the one thing I would like self declared feminists to promote and recognise.
By the way: I don’t oppose feminism because I believe women didn’t have it tough in “the good ole days”, but because feminism is morally bankrupt and is at it’s core a hate ideology when you look at how it’s principles are actually applied. While who had it worse may to a large degree be subjective, I think it’s important to detail and acknowledge the special problems men had as most of society (and particularly feminists) WON’T. If you crack open any high-school textbook there will most likely be a portion talking about the harsh treatment of workers in the… Read more »
The feminism I know, based on actual research, is not very scientific but rather more resembling a religion.
In science when facts are presented that refute the theory, you modify the theory. This doesn’t happen in feminism, rather they refute and/or ignore the facts that don’t fit their theory.
The problem that I have with this idea that “rape culture” can somehow be “linked” to lynching by some logical chain is that it’s presented as if making such a connection is proof enough in itself. Where is the actual evidence that such a social dynamic even exists? Just because it looks apparently true (to you and other feminists) doesn’t mean that it is. Does feminism have actual sociological analysis which has objectively measured a plausible existence of this “rape culture” to a statistically significant degree? If so, is there also analysis which connects it to lynching in the manner… Read more »
Kai:
Exactly right. Very well said.
I’ve been taking Women Studies courses in college for the past few years, and my experiences contradict your assertions. We talked about equal parenting rights, including those for men. We talked about the danger of labeling IPV as men’s violence against women – our guest speaker on IPV was a black man that survived several abusive relationships with women, and shared with us what it was like to be assumed guilty and arrested for the violence perpetrated against him. We spoke about the constraints of hegemonic masculinity and the lack of freedom men face. We all agreed that we don’t… Read more »
But the catch is, it’s still trying to reframe those realities (what men face) within the context of patriarchy theory. I agree that feminism is still evolving. But it’s trying to evolve in such a way that it retains a lot of the old assumptions yet somehow absorb these new realities facing men both at the same time. Which, to be quite honest, is an impossible task. Academic feminist theory is based upon unverified theory. In fact, feminist theory went so far as to invent “feminist epistemology” to bypass the brutal facts of objective, scientific analysis which would of disproved… Read more »
“Feminist epistemology” is not an a negation of empiricism, it only asserts that most beliefs are as much a result of their social context as they are factually true. How is this controversial?
@DrSen
So the other social science never noticed that beliefs are a result of their social context until feminist epistemology? Where did you learn that crap?
Well, the term “social epistemology” dates to the 50’s, and in 1952 De Beauvoir wrote:
“representation of the world, like the world itself, is the work of men; they describe it from their own point of view, which they confuse with absolute truth”
So while feminist epistemology fits under the larger umbrella of social epistemology, I’m comfortable with saying that they developed concurrently.
The notion was intellectually present well before it was articulated under the name ‘social epistemology.’ You confuse the history of the term with the history of the concept, and somehow claim ownership of it at the same time.
Yes, the different perspective being the assumption that women, being the alleged subordinated class in society, have a unique perspective which the “patriarchal scientific method” fails to take in to account. In short, it begins with the assumptions of feminist theory first. Which is hardly a fundamental axiom which one can assume to be self evident from the start. There’s no evidence that women possess any sort of “lateral thinking” which distinguishes them from the mainstream “patriarchal” scientific community. Men and women are different of course, but so different that a new epistemology is needed just for women? Well, I’ll… Read more »
Show me a modern, widely cited feminist epistemologist who believes that essentialist claims (holding that there are immutable differences between social groups and that all members should or do think alike) about cognitive differences are the impetus for the creation of feminist epistemology and I’ll concede my point. Those claims were controversial even at the outset and now, as far as I know, reside mostly in the realm of bullshit pop-psychology. Furthermore, the significant influence of postmodernism has resulted in a feminist epistemology which refuses to grant epistemic privilege on an automatic basis to ANY perspective, including that of women.
That’s a rhetorical question, right? Feminist standpoint theory, feminist epistemology, feminist empiricism – exist as theories exactly because they desire to privilege female epistemology over non-female epistemology. They are not immutable in a cognitive / biological sense, for the obvious reason that the whole postmodernist structure is a constructivist / “blank slate” approach to knowledge, but they are immutable in the sense that they exist and are dependent on another immutable patriarchy essence (gender warfare, domination and subjugation) for their very subsistence. And mind you, the Patriarchy cannot be defeated, for it truly does not exist as theorized, but for… Read more »
More of a plea for someone to start attacking named feminists and listing (if not quoting) some primary sources. If people refuse to provide specifics, they’re probably guilty of the same tribalism you accuse feminists of. Let’s look at your first statement: “they desire to privilege female epistemology over non-female epistemology.” I counter with the assertion that the insights given to us by feminist epistemology are applicable to any person experiencing marginalization regardless of race, gender or identity. To the extent that any epistemic advantage is credited to the experiences of the marginalized, it is both contingent and limited in… Read more »
Nobody needs to present such names and citations, because the people who speak so often for feminism mostly can’t. To respond in that way is to respond to the Straw Man that academic feminism puts up when they say, look at this feminism we uphold, it is so just. Yes, it often is just, but it is also not what most self described feminists believe. Why is it so hard to see that the people who so often speak in the name of feminists, don’t represent the viewpoint which academic feminists do, but cherry pick SOME ideas as a way… Read more »
Great point fardarter. I don’t understand how feminism can be about learning from those disadvantaged, when we move from theory and see how those theories are put to practice. NOW had a secret meeting with Obama to re-direct 42% of the stimulus package away from construction and manufacturing (heavily hit by the recession) to medicine and education (largely unscathed by the recession). Construction jobs are largely populated by minority men. Young men face twice the unemployment that young women face. Where is the learning from those disadvantaged? Construction and manufacturing are essential for minority and poor men to attain a… Read more »
Well said – this is my understanding as well.
This is the feminism you might not know, but should – from the NOW website – which surely is highly representative of feminism. http://www.now.org/nnt/winter-2004/history.html Note the inclusion of Mary Daly – the transphobic militant who along with a few other dim witted radicals, ostracized some women for simply being who they are. She is celebrated today at NOW, and her work is being memorialized in the canon of feminism. I guess not all women are people after all. From the article: “There has to be a record of what we did to make the world a better place for women,”… Read more »
No one ever said mainstream feminism wasn’t plagued by privilege, be it of the white or cisgender varieties. If anything I think this reinforces the notion of a multiplicity of feminisms rather than some monolithic bloc. What should be disconcerting is that the author of this piece went and listed a bunch of thinkers who are actually relevant within modern feminism and you go bringing up what should be a musty old 1970s relic. I’m not saying youre a jerk or anything, just that it indicates that the best and most robust feminist ideas have somehow failed to penetrate popular… Read more »
Well I suppose I should thank you for not calling me a jerk. And in a similar vein, I’ll stay away from calling you dense – The author of this piece wrote that the feminism she knows is not the same feminism that Quiet Riot Girl rails against. I’ve shown that the present day primary feminist organization, with emphasis on present day, supports and canonizes the writings of horrid and despicable thinkers within its rank. And your retort is that it’s not so bad, because they are musty – when the point being made is that they still enjoy support… Read more »
Believe me, the thinkers listed at the end of this piece have more scathing words for NOW than I could ever come up with. I just don’t really see how bringing up NOW is anything other than a convenient target. Yes I believe those people are fucking gross, and as bell hooks explains, they pay lip service to revolutionary goals while really being concerned only with gaining entry to the capitalist patriarchal power structure. Still, I don’t see them as the locus of male oppression any more than I see them as the locus of black or transgender oppression, despite… Read more »
@DrSen There is a point you are missing. While academic feminism may be exceedingly relevant to today’s issues, this is not the feminism of the streets. The feminism of the streets takes many forms, but the two things that are consistent about it are that it places women at the centre of the discussion and it is lacking in philosophical rigour. It is no more than a repetition of catchphrases, cherry picked ideas, and feminist memes, without the ordering and qualifying aspects of an academic discipline. That academic feminists do nothing to actively disassociate themselves from the use of their… Read more »
With all due respect – I think we have a serious disagreement over the term “straw man” Putting on my more sympathetic hat – I do agree that the lack of rigor (I’m in the science and engineering field, so lazy convoluted theories irritate me to no end) is a symptom of the political beast. The driving force in any political movement is to recruit the new and maintain the base, stay relevant, and maintain or increase funding – veracity is not an item on the menu. The problem with incorrect theories and assumptions is that they lead to ineffective… Read more »
Fardarter:
Excellent comment.
“My biggest problem with this piece is the fact that it lumps “feminists” into a like-minded, lock-step group incapable of evolution or dissent….Nor will I address extensively what I believe to be a fundamental misunderstanding by the author of what contemporary feminists generally mean by “rape culture”….Feminists use “rape culture” to talk about sexual violence against all people as an act of terrorism, and recognize that “rape culture” contributes to all gendered violence, even that not included in legal definitions of rape).” Typical feminist sophistry. Author starts out talking about how feminism is not like-minded, not monolithic to prevent anyone… Read more »
‘Somehow feminists are not monolithic when it comes to criticizing them but conveniently all feminists accept the concept of rape culture. Why? Because feminists are like-minded and monolithic.’
EXACTLY. I think we have ourselves a conclusion to this debate.
QRG
You should know there is something faulty in your position when you wholeheartedly agree with someone who gives themselves the moniker ‘Assman’.
Well done stifling the debate! : )
I’m an assman too, Ran.
Me three – can’t help but love that ass!
Does the fact that I agree with Ran detract from her argument?
“D*ck Slicing Lesbian says:”
^^^
I love the name.
I wonder if “Lesbian C*nt Raping Hetero Male” has been taken yet?
The lack of objectivity in this thread is remarkable. There are basic premises that are not being addressed… 1) Feminist are Female Advocates in the exact same vain as MRA’S are Male Advocates (PERIOD) 2) Conflict is a natural part of human existence. 3) Female & Male Advocates are unequivocal necessities (PERIOD!) If some chick hits me with her car I AM CALLING MY LAWYER AND I EXPECT HER TO DO THE SAME!!!! LIKE NO DUHHH?! Feminism is not the enemy because it is not an Injustice. Feminism sits at the counsel of Justice AS SHOULD A HEALTHY MEN’s RIGHTS… Read more »
Budmin: I would point out that there are some very important distinctions between MRA’s and feminism (as they both stand today). It is becoming more and more apparent even to the non-politically engaged that feminism (and by that I mean the large feminist groups who enact political strategy) are hotbeds of misandry and anti-male bigotry. If you think about it this is very logical. Feminism has done a lot for women’s rights in the past 40 years. In fact, I would say that their core bullet points have been addressed: women have the full legal right to pursue anything men… Read more »
Hi Ran, a) feminism IS powerful.
b) I think making feminists cross is a noble aim.
If you think feminism is powerful, you must have an extremely myopic, Western-centric view of the world. Likewise if you think trolling on a site that puts forward views contrary to yours is a noble pursuit, you need to get out more. Perfect solution for both? Travel the world, and see it as it really is.
NOW had a closed door meeting with Obama in which he agreed to redirect 42% of the $800 billion stimulus funds from manufacturing and construction (which are largely male-dominated and shed millions of jobs during the recession) to education and medicine (which are female dominated and went largely unscathed during the recession. Among blue-collar workers (in the U.S.) male unemployment is about twice that for women. Before this meeting NOW’s president said “We’re against the stimulus going to burly men”. A) NOW crossed the bridge from being pro-women (i.e. good and benevolent) to actively being anti-male (i.e. being evil and… Read more »
“feminism’s (or any other) sexism and discrimination” Feminism can’t practise sexism and discrimination. Only people can do that. Feminism is the movement AGAINST sexism and discrimination. The vast majority of MRAs and other who just bitch and moan about feminist privilege (without trying to see in ANY WAY how it can help them and especially the women/girls in their lives) are just pissed b/c the days of unchallenged male privilege are over. Get on the train, boys. Or else be left behind in the cross-eyed, banjo-picking stereotype like those who refused to accept/acknowledge civil rights and the challenge to white… Read more »
Have you visited a site like pandagon? Feministing? Jezebel? Have you watched at how it is very very bad when a man does something, but if a woman does the same thing it is excusable.
The radical notion that women are people means that women are to be held to the same standards of accountability as men.
‘Feminism is the radical notion that women are people. And men aren’t’.
welcome to life as a woman for the last few hundred years
Feminism, as a movement, promotes sexism and against men. If one disapproves of those things, they would disassociate themselves from the movement or, better yet, never join in the first place. Not recognizing its blatant discrimination is an indication of how steeped in it’s dogma a person can become.
@QRG Interesting. Perhaps feminism *could* be defined as a sort of secular religion, if we define religion as a set of shared beliefs. Atheism is all about defining what one doesn’t believe more than what one does. Perhaps it is nice to have something that one can ascribe to in a more *positive* way. BTW, Jesus did teach that you should challenge the powerful. Feminism is hardly that. If you really do have so much energy to “protest”, go occupy Wall St, rather than trolling on a site that you have repeatedly identified as being counter to all your beliefs.… Read more »
Thx ran. I love when feminists like u post so people can see how horribly broken feminism is
Ad hominem attack. YAWN. Gonna tell me I’m fat and ugly next, I suppose?
Next!
Whereas your ad hominem attack upon all men as trying to oppress all women is very reasonable and logical.
ROTFLMAO
The true irony is that you think you’re the enlightened one.
God, that’s funny. Can’t breath I’m laughing so hard.
You know you’ve been bested in a debate when the best response you can come up with is “LOL.”
You’re the scorekeeper? You need some glasses ref.
Wow -!
I don’t expect feminists to stop opposing men’s rights. I am simply pointing out the fact that they do.
No feminist i know is against rights for men- feminism in my understanding is not against men at all.. Most of the feminists I know are married with children in loving relationships with men whom they support and adore.. but maybe I am just lucky
About feminism and black rights: bullshit! Blacks never campaigned to remove all blacks from prison, regardless of their crime. Further, feminism constantly spends its time claiming that men should be feminists too, because feminism is good for men, because feminism is merely seeking equality. Feminism is not seeking equality, it’s seeking supremacy, and most cases they have already found it. Sentencing being far less for women than for men is one, family court is another, the perception of DV is another.. Further, feminism does not just work for women, they are attacking and doing everything in their power to destroy… Read more »
again – this really saddens me to read this as I feel that feminism has evolved into a complex movement many threads of which are very sympathetic to male oppression – a core tenat of feminism is that gender is socially constructed (right or wrong) and this insight has helped to critique the notion of masculinity and models of masculinity that might for some men be oppressive … sad also because in my understanding feminism in at least some of its trajectory seeks to bring attention to unjust socio-ideological constraints so as to bring about understanding and peace – one… Read more »
> @ J.G. John and Eric : Attacking feminism for not supporting men’s rights is kind of like attacking the > black power movement for not campaigning for the rights of whites. It is not the raison d’etre of the > movement. Checking for new comments, I just realized that you as a fair-minded person for equality, is saying right here, that as a site for men to bring out the good in them, it should immediately shut down any and all talk about feminism, shut down any talk helping women avoid being another victim of the evil’s of patriarchy… Read more »
Actually, revealing and critiquing feminism’s misandry is more like calling out the black panthers or KKK on bigoted bullshit.
While QRG has the right to speak her mind on any issue she pleases, it seems to be counter-productive to come to a site like this in order to do so. Firstly, to me it seems like going to a place of worship just to stand up and loudly tell everyone you are an atheist. You *can* do that, but what do you hope to achieve? Perhaps a better analogy, perhaps, would be going to a soup kitchen and telling everyone you don’t believe in welfare of any kind. People here are just trying to do (what they feel is)… Read more »
‘Firstly, to me it seems like going to a place of worship just to stand up and loudly tell everyone you are an atheist. You *can* do that, but what do you hope to achieve? ‘
No Ran that is a very good analogy. If you think feminism is the ‘religion’ of GMP I am prepared to go with that. But as Jesus has taught us, sometimes it is worth loudly telling people why you disagree with their religion.
Voicing disagreement with feminism’s (or any other) sexism and discrimination is not wrong or misplaced, no matter how unwelcome the message may be.
as long as the response is not based on a fragmented and watered down understanding and/or knowledge of the full spectrum of feminist scholarship as well as the myriad ways in which feminist has opened up discursive doorways to discuss issues of difference – including the issue of male identity, race, racism, speciesim etc
Ran Says: “Perhaps a better analogy, perhaps, would be going to a soup kitchen and telling everyone you don’t believe in welfare of any kind.” Actually it’s like going to a women’s only soup kitchen and asking “what about all these starving men?” Feminism uses the patriarchy mantra to actively avoid assisting those men at the bottom of the power pyramid who need help just as much as women. In fact, it seems to me several large feminist groups actively campaign against helping men. If you want to say this is the radical fringe, then I have two counter arguments.… Read more »
Oh, yes, femnism is totally for the rights of men and against the male prison rates.
That’s why feminists in the UK have presented a proposal to UK government, which they are taking seriously, to stop putting female criminals in prison altogether. So what replaces it then? Free housing!
You know the reason why the brought up this magnificent solution? To free up women’s prison space, so you can stuff men in there!
“While QRG has the right to speak her mind on any issue she pleases, it seems to be counter-productive to come to a site like this in order to do so.” Why? This is not a feminist site! Its a site for men to discuss what it means to be a good man. For all men. Including anti-feminists. Its not a site devoted to feminism. If feminism is the default ideology of this site than GMP should make that clear. But if it isn’t than robust criticisms of feminism should be very welcome. I checked the About for this page… Read more »
If The Good Men Project (TGMP) is supposed to discuss what it means to be a good man, then it needs to take feminism seriously and at a certain level, it needs to be devoted to feminism. Feminism has a lot to offer men and some men at TGMP realize that. If TGMP constantly trashes feminism, it will lose a lot of credibility. Without feminism, TGMP would not exist. When women started questioning and challenging assumptions about women during the feminist revival in the 60’s and 70’s, it compelled men to start asking, “What does it mean to be a… Read more »
@ Karen: Feminism, whether you’re talking about any form (liberal, separatist, lesbian, cultural, third world, whatever) does NOT work for men. Our society is insanely misandric (men die of virtually every cause more than women, yet there are 5 bureaus of health for women in the federal government, men are more likely to commit suicide, more likely to be homeless, more likely to drop out of high school, more likely to drop out of college, more likely to be falsely incarcerated, more likely to be sexually assaulted (due to incarceration), more likely to be a victim of violence, etc. etc.).… Read more »
May I point out that female foetuses are routinely aborted in India and China – Does this happen to male babeis anywhere?
amb said:
October 17, 2012 at 3:08 pm
“May I point out that female foetuses are routinely aborted in India and China – Does this happen to male babeis anywhere?”
Funny, i thought feminism taught it’s a woman’s body, woman’s choice regardless of the motives. Suddenly you care about abortion when it’s about female fetus?
Why should that matter.. it’s just a clump of cells and tissue without rights anyways.. at least that’s what feminism taught me.
yes ! All theprogaganda against feminism covers up the enormous contributions made by women to social reform for all.. women are mothers at heart – just as men are protectors – why hate women ? women are givers of life. .. sadly perhaps some women haters had bad mothers
I like the provocative debate, some discussion we can sink our teeth into. I’m asking these questions out of curiosity, to see your point of view more clearly and maybe find some common ground. I understand the need to get beyond dogma and stereotyping. I understand that ideas like “patriarchy” and “rape culture” have poor descriptive value sometimes (or often)(or always). Are you suggesting that these things are complete falsehoods? Are they things that have never existed? Or, are they describing some things but are over-generalized or applied too often? Or, are they focusing on the wrong evidence? Or, do… Read more »
P.S. This message was meant to be addressed to QRG.
I think ‘rape culture’ is based on total falsehoods. Patriarchy is more complex because the word can be seen to relate to society in the past, where ‘power’ was passed down via father to son, and wealth etc. And there are psychoanalytic concepts of ‘patriarchal’ relations. But the term used by feminists suggests a society where men have dominance over women across the board, and that there is a kind of ‘higher power’ causing this. (who? what? how?) That concept of patriarchy is totally wrong and always has been in my view. The ‘intersectionality’ arguments, that say, oh, homosexual men… Read more »
Actually, a lot of feminists use “kyriarchy” now.
But, since you’re very informed about feminism, you probably already know that and I don’t have to explain what that word means. 😉
Anyway, along with what Stacy said, I’m just not seeing much nuance in your representation of what feminism supposedly is. I see you wanting feminism to be more nuanced with respect to certain things like how patriarchy is discussed and defined, but you’re still not acknowledging the reality that feminism is demonstrably not a monolithic movement where all followers do, say, and think the same things.
*And by Stacy, I mean Sarah. Whoops! I was just talking to someone named Stacy.
Hi Yes I know about ‘kyiarchy’ and it is the same as patriarchy but it uses the ‘intersectionality’ which Sarah mentions. And which I have critiqued in the comments above.
Feminism is monolithic. That is why my criticisms of it are always met with the same responses
I have a question-
“Doesn’t the concept of kyiarchy disprove Patriarchy?
I think Kyiarchy is a version of patriarchy
I think kyriarchy is technically a good concept. However, as long as the researchers who “investigate” how oppressed various groups happen to be liberal feminists, I would doubt their veracity in them counting men as being oppressed. A good example is the large numbers of immigrant, poor, and minority men who were exploited building the trans-continental railroad. Accurate numbers weren’t kept but it looks like it may have been 1000’s of men who died from exposure and other issues that would have been easy to fix. Most high school text books I’m willing to bet would underscore the race of… Read more »
I sympathize and by my estimation I agree about 80%. I think it’s important to point out that injury, causes of death, and life expectancy are much more dependent on your income level than on your gender. The difference between working class men and wealthy men is generally much greater than the difference between men and women. By the same token, I’d also point out that while the poorly paid immigrant men were working on the railroads, their female counterparts were not exactly living the life of luxury. There were plenty of them with dangerous, body-destroying jobs, too. Maybe not… Read more »
i totally agree with elissa – The concept of ‘patriarchy’ is a blunt instrument and does not relate to real life gender relations at all.
Elissa: as far as I am aware feminism would not consider ‘patriarchy’ to imply complete domination and subordination. The feminist view of patriarchy is is nuanced, and is starting to take into account cross-sections of privilege etc. Regardless it is difficult to say feminism is invalid in trying to correct the fact that for most of human existence men have been in control of all institutions an communities, a problem which is not rectified yet. JG te Molder: The feminist notion of ‘Rape Culture’ absolutely sees rape against men as a factor in the perpetuation of a culture which allows… Read more »
Can’t really agree that its use is nuanced, rather quite the opposite – it’s a meaningless catch all phrase that thwarts thought. Much like the “axis of evil” phrase used by the burning Bush duo a few years back. Strip clubs – it’s the patriarchy Wage gap – it’s the patriarchy Male gaze – it’s the patriarchy War – it’s the patriarchy Nice Guys ™ – it’s the patriarchy Gang violence – it’s the patriarchy Anything bad ever – it’s the patriarchy Anything good ever – it’s not the patriarchy On another thread, Tom Matlack made the absurd claim that:… Read more »
“Be mindful that some of the greatest leaps forward towards addressing suffering, pestilence, mortality, and hunger have resulted directly from the advance of patriarchal technology. If indeed we ‘women are people too’, putting aside Saudi Arabia, we pretty much owe it to patriarchy.”
Oh, so we’re admitting patriarchy exists now?
😆 Oh, police take EVERY rape accusations seriously: WHICH IS THE PROBLEM! Recently police have begged women to stop filing false accusations because the false accusation epidemic severely cut in their budget. That can only happen, if they investigated every accusation seriously. For example, there was a nun that claimed a man dragger her in habit half-way across the city before raping her. She described a black man. The police went to seriously investigate the complete bullshit claim of a black man dragging a white nun blocks and blocks through a city and nobody doing anything about it! Luckily, the… Read more »
There is indeed a rape culture in especially USA, however, it is not a rape culture against women, it’s a rape culture against men. Any idea that any rape against a woman is tolerated and encouraged by society is idiotic. A woman points an accusing finger at a man and cries rape, there’ll be a posse of men ready to murder the man, regardless if he’s guilty or not. In fact, it wasn’t more than a few months ago, that a police force condoned a mob of men attacking an accused man (who turned out to be falsely accused, big… Read more »
Really? Because considering the statistic that at least 1 in 5 women will be raped in her lifetime – and the disproportionate number of people NOT murdered by posses of angry men – I have to strongly disagree that rapists and accused rapists are somehow specially targeted by our culture for punishment.
However, your commentary on responses to the rape of men by society is pretty accurate most of the time.
1 in 5 women get raped?
You or someone else made that up.
Provide verifiable reliable evidence (a .gov site) to prove your 1 in 5 claim. Or admit it’s a bogus statistic.
The stats aren’t exactly hard to find. The US CDC states:
An estimated 20% to 25% of college women in the
United States experience attempted or complete rape
during their college career.
In the United States, 1 in 6 women and 1 in 33 men
reported experiencing an attempted or completed rape at
some time in their lives.
http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/SV_factsheet-a.pdf
Are attempted rape and rape the same? I’ll go ahead and answer. No.
This is another example of false statistics reported by feminists.
Eric, This also might be similar to the Miss Magazine rape study on college campus. Essentially what happened is that after taking surveys of sex questions of women, the researchers made a determination if the women were raped (i.e. in many instances the researchers stated that the women’s experience was rape, even though the woman didn’t AND she went on to continue dating her “rapist”). What is happening lately, is that the CBC and Department of Justices is hiring 3rd parties to conduct studies. When these entities have lots of feminists on board, they typically “cook the books” to achieve… Read more »
Oh, god. Someone who actually believes the bullshit 1 in 5 women get raped. (Unless you don’t and are just using it.) No, 1 in 5 women do not get raped. No, 1 in 4 women in college do not get raped; even if it were true back in the 80s when the studies and numbers were massaged to pull that number out of their asses; it couldn’t possibly still be true considering back then there were more male students than female students, today 60% of the students are female… unless at least 99% of the rapists have always been… Read more »
“There is indeed a rape culture in especially USA, however, it is not a rape culture against women, it’s a rape culture against men”
Way to totally not read the article and the definition of rape culture within it.
Claims the person trying to pass off the above article as gender-neutral about rape and rape culture.
‘The existence of patriarchy is for me an indisputable fact,’ -Ned exactly. Feminism takes its ideology as ‘indisputable fact’ so when people dispute it, feminists cannot or will not respond.
Feminism has no indisputable facts at its disposal. Only dogma
The poster DID respond to your disputation, immediately following the line you quoted.
Ned didn’t. Ned just started going on about the animal kingdom. It’s ridiculous pseudo-science.
As opposed to dismissing others’ ideas as “bullshit” and “pseudo-science”, which is so much more nuanced and answerable.
I critique patriarchy and the biological gender binary here:
http://quietgirlriot.wordpress.com/2011/04/28/against-feminisms/
I actually find it much easier to dialogue with gender traditionalists who argue that patriarchy is somehow destiny — biologically or divinely ordained. At least they’re not in denial of the fact that this institutionalized structure of male dominance exists, even if they try to rationalize rather than dismantle it. But if you believe that patriarchy doesn’t exist? O_O What sort of dialogue can possibly be had?
Yes Ned, we all know the word patriarchy exists, but that it implies complete domination and subordination (in the non-fluid sense) is the semantic issue at hand. In the realm of sexuality, domination and submission does not really mean what the word definitions might let on it to mean, and only a dogma would has the gall to view human history with a categorical domination and submission all-encompassing theme. The biggest problem with this view, and to be very blunt about it, is that it’s sophomoric. Kernels of truth found in a complex human ecosystem does not make a verifiable… Read more »
How about allowing people to choose how they live their lives rather than trying to control them?
Don’t like a given religion? Don’t join. Think Amazon is sexist? Don’t by from them? Think feminists are anti-male? Don’t be one. But let other people live their lives as they choose ad you want them to do for you.
Well, if Quiet Riot Girl doesn’t believe patriarchy exists or has existed, then there’s really not much conversation that can be had with her. The existence of patriarchy is for me an indisputable fact, consistent with what we also know from studies of sexual dimorphism in other primate species. Whenever you have considerable sexual dimorphism in a species, with one sex being substantially bigger than the other, that sex dominates the other sex. In the case of humans, the situation is even more complicated because apart from the size differential between men and women, systemic misogyny and sexism was historically… Read more »
“Do you guys want to join us in women in the project of becoming fully human or not?” There is so much I could say about this but suffice to say that all the women I work and live with are fully human and know it, including my wife, daughters, my boss, her boss, and her boss. This feminist concept that women are somehow not fully human and all men are privileged is beyond absurd and one of the ways feminism continues to be known as an extreme anti-male movement. Lastly, 75% of “women” reject feminism because, among other reasons,… Read more »
Well, if Quiet Riot Girl doesn’t believe patriarchy exists or has existed, then there’s really not much conversation that can be had with her.
——-
I usually think the same way about people who mention patriarchy. lol
Is a feminist someone who ascribes to the basic values of feminism, or someone who calls themselves a feminist?
Stereotypes are horrible and I do know a few good feminists who are actually egalitarians. However, time and again it seems that the majority of activists and organized groups don’t support equality, such as NOW’s opposition to Equal Shared Parenting.
Feminists do the same thing when it comes to MRA’s and FRA’s (Michael Flood for example)
*think are morally wrong, not thing (apologies, doing to much at one right now).
I really appreciate Eric and fardarter’s comments here. I’d actually agree that there is a huge gap between what feminists are doing in the academy and what the public perceives feminists to be doing. That being said I think in part this gap is due to the way mediamakers have misrepresented feminism and the way critiques of feminism have used hyperbole to label feminists as “man haters” and so on. One of the primary critiques of the black feminist strand that I describe above was the way “mainstream”feminism (usually white and upper-class) sometimes perpetuated the ideologies that justified racial violence… Read more »
‘Just because a particular party we vote for does things we thing are morally wrong or politically unproductive doesn’t mean we stop voting right? ‘
I stopped voting when the Labour party (in the UK) did so many things that were ‘morally wrong’ I could not support them with a clear conscience any more. And as a result I don’t vote, as there is no viable alternative.
“Like any political ideology, feminism is not impervious to problems but that does not mean we should throw the baby out with the bath water.” I agree with this statement wholeheartedly. Another thing to point out is that there’s no authority on which people can and cannot refer to themselves as feminist. The term varies pretty wildly. Some of the most passionate disagreements that I’ve had over gender were with people who also identified as a feminist. There are several branches of feminism that I just flat out disagree with, but I would never say that feminism, as a whole,… Read more »
well lindsey I have been told numerous times by feminists that I can’t be a feminist due to my views, whatever I identify as. Feminism rejected me, before I rejected it. It’s not quite as open as you suggest.
If feminism is so open and changing, then where are the pro-SAHM feminists and the pro-life feminists?
The largest mainstream feminist groups persistently exclude women who’s beliefs are that women who advocate the benefits of women not working, or who are pro-life.
That’s not open and changing. That’s closed and rigid.
I don’t support any organization(s)/movements that promote and/or support what I believe to be morally wrong and discriminatory positions, feminism included. From what I see, feminism is the bath water, not the baby.
Eric, I see the problems that some feminist thinking creates (yours and other posters have certainly given me greater insight) but I refuse to give up calling myself a feminist. I support many feminist goals, but mine is the voice which says “have we completely thought through all of the implications?” I don’t think that throwing in the towel will accomplish what I want, which is true equality. If other feminists want to ignore me, belittle me or tell me I’m really a misogynist that’s fine. If I walk away I give the worst elements of feminism free rein to… Read more »
Thank you for your reasonable views and comments. I respect your desire to do what you feel is right. However, as you can see, you are vastly outnumbered among feminists. I believe that you will find it easier to accomplish your mission outside of feminism because you won’t end up wasting so much time trying to convince the others that they are wrong about males. There are many of us who look to help whomever happens to need it, regardless of gender, race, or class. That’s the volunteer world outside feminism. It’s about humanity, not one sex to beat the… Read more »
Correction: “not one sex trying to beat the other down.”
Sarah, as you well know you or I can point out countless feminist writings and policies on “male privilege” and “the patriarchy” and “rape culture” and the “gender wage gap”, pointing the finger at males as being responsible. Feel free to point me to where “many, many feminists” (o even 1 or 2) are standing up publicly to decry the unfair and sexist gender education gap as loudly as those other issues, especially as regards young black men, making that a key issue. I have not seen a shred of evidence of that being on the agenda of “many, many… Read more »
Eric, from my perspective “male privilege””patriarchy”and the “gender wage gap”are not levied to attack individual men but systems which have undeniably historically privileged men and thus created contemporary realities in which women are still trying to catch up with equal status. I find it very sad that some men, and in my opinion some media, misunderstand feminist critiques of patriarchy as attacks on men. Patriarchy is about systems and ideologies not individual people. We can acknowledge that this country was founded in racism and white supremacy right? But that doesn’t mean we walk around blaming individual white people for the… Read more »
I’d like to throw my hat into the arena here. I feel like these comments are not in the spirit of the original piece by Sarah Jackson. I read both pieces (QRG and Jackson’s) and find Jackson’s response a valid one. She seems to state that defining feminism as a monolithic construct is incorrect and a dangerous idea to spread to the masses. I share this view and believe that your perspective (QRG) robs feminism of the nuance and multitude of platforms and issues to which it so importantly attends to. I don’t see any value to the terse nature… Read more »
Hi Andrew – which comments by me do you object to?
and do you mean my whole post was ‘bitter’?
Hi QRG,
I object to the tone and tenor of your entire series of responses but, in particular, your use of curse words. I’m not verbally prude, I just believe there is a time and place. This is neither.
I apologise for the curse words at least. Thanks for your comments.
Andrew,
I could not agree more. There are many people who contribute valid and relevant comments to this important discussion. I would go even farther to say that taking the time to speculate at how fast Ms. Jackson replies to one’s comments belittles this issue and voids any sincerity about an issue.
Hi Jessica I get the point. I have apologised for the ‘cursewords’ and am apologising for my other comments to Sarah about timeliness. But we did have a long discussion that she read and wrote about, but that she could not be bothered to take part in. I was commenting on that really.
Do you have a comment relevant to this debate?
Jessica,
You are clearly attempting to derail the discussion with a blatant attempt at shaming QRG into silence through dismissal of her views on an article that directly criticizes SOMETHING SHE WROTE. If anyone has a reason to feel bitter, respond strongly or adamantly, I believe the person being critiqued is thusly entitled.
Do you actually have a comment on the topic at hand or are you here to play concern troll???