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
About Role/Reboot
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) good, and collectively providing information, alternative view points and forums for discussion. Why the anger about that, QRG? Why come here just to be offended?
Personally, I think feminism is a very broad church (forgive the terrible terminology) and allows for lots of voices. It DOES try to tackle inequality in many forms, and it supports men’s rights (to be emotional, vulnerable etc) as well as women’s. Perhaps more could be done on issues for ethnic minorities, or high male prison rates, but ultimately, feminism as a movement grew out of frustration of women not having basic societal rights, so it is only natural that the central tenets might appear to be women focused.
Feminism, for me, has given me the tools to understand the world and the way it makes me feel, which the majority of the time, is pretty rubbish about myself. I guess that, mostly, I am just super jealous that you live in a world in which it appears that patriarchy doesn’t exist. That must be lovely. If you ever feel like a holiday in a country that clearly doesn’t hold women in high regard, I would be more than happy to swap.
‘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.
A) How can it be the fringe when it is some of the largest self-identified feminist groups who do this (like NOW and AAUW) and
B) if they are radical then where are the milder man-loving feminists who should be calling them out on misandrist behavior?
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 and it doesn’t mention feminism.
Ran you are unwelcome at this site. I have decided to define the purpose of this site and have arbitrary decided this is the wrong place for you to come. Please comment somewhere else!
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 good man?”
@ 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.).
There is NO group of feminists that have actively lobbied to reverse the above trends — instead NOW has argued for the expansion of more liberties for women, such as increased breast cancer funding (prostate cancer kills more men but gets funded 2.5 times less federally).
You are a woman, so it’s understandable that you’d agree with the tenets of feminism, but it certainly isn’t about gender equality, and it certainly doesn’t help men or make them “good” whatsoever.
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
@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. All you are achieving here is making each of us a little cross, and the best possible outcome is that we can agree to disagree.
@ 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. It grew out of women being chattel and a resistance to that. Additionally, asking feminists to consider the feelings of others, and to moderate their voices is one of the things we fight against. Why should I cast my eyes down and try and seek consensus with those who seek to oppress me? The fact the feminism *can* encompass the rights of men (as they suffer under patriarchy just as women do) in my mind shows what a unified cultural theory it is.
Re: less women in prison : Brilliant! Providing free housing is no doubt much cheaper than incarceration, both in the first instance, and long term reducing recidivism and family breakdown. You show your true colours by reading this as an opportunity to stuff more men in prison. The scene I imagine in which feminists stand in Parliament and say “M’lud, we ‘umbly request you empty out the women’s prisons in order for us to stuff the menz in there” is unintentionally hilarious! Thanks for that! If you thought about it a little more – surely it benefits young boys (and the men they will grow to be) that they have stable housing and at least one parent around to raise them? Perhaps in the long term it would lead to less men in prison as they might have the luxury of a stable home, and not seeing their primary caregiver in prison might give them a chance not to end up there themselves.
I’m glad that there are some women’s groups (I’m assuming American?) that have many members. This does not equate to power, however. When there is equal representation in the halls of state and big business, let’s talk again. I *truly* look forward to that conversation.
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 men. Finally, there is nothing more misogynist than feminism. Do women get equal treatment if they want to become a fire fighter? Nope, they get special tests where they have to do far less than a man. Many a man fails his test, but he would still outperform the women that pass theirs. Feminism trumps it as a great triumph; when of course, anyone who actually cares about equality, knows it is one of the greatest defeats to equality. It’s the legalization of women being a bunch of pathetic weaklings; and patronizing them like little children: here, go ahead do the job anyway, you go girl – without being actually able to do the job, in the process endangering lives, those in burning buildings and firemen; both the colleagues and the woman herself.
Real equality would go like this: a job is a job, and you need to do tasks fast enough and efficient enough to do the job. You can’t do the job; you don’t get it. Completely regardless of your gender. Require to haul heavy hoses, unscrew heavy, tightly screwed caps, and lock hoses to it, holding the hose while high pressure water is pushed through, pick up a 200 pound victim and carry him outside with speed? You’re just gonna be able to do it, and if you can’t, too bad.
Finally, there is no patriarchy, there was no patriarchy, and women were never treated as chattel in the western world. It’s completely bullshit.
Funny how you claim feminists shouldn’t have to consider the feelings of others – privilege, if that isn’t a massive level of privilege I don’t know what is. It’s usually considered to be something that everyone should be doing. Taking others into consideration. It’s funny how you spend your time claiming you as a feminist shouldn’t have to that, and then spend your entire time busy attempting to shame others, especially men, in doing exactly that, already equating us with evil oppressors you’re fighting against. It won’t fly with me. You can take your shaming bullshit and stuff it where the sun doesn’t shine.
Oh, wow. Talk about sexism. Tell me, are you advocating setting all men free and give them free housing as well? It’s cheaper!
You would also get more crime, because if the reward of murdering a man is free housing, well… time a murder a man, eh? “Yes, your honor, I murdered him.” “Well, free house for you then.” It would also mean mobs will start recruiting women, who can just continue to sell drugs and murder people for them, and they can’t be punished. Of course, then you get the retaliation murders, not to mention the complete backing away from especially men from women – they can’t be trusted not to kill you for free housing after all – and the preemptive strikes in self-defense. “Yes, your honor, her eyes seemed shifty, you know the murder rate to get free housing; I had to kill her.”
And no, it will not benefit boys to have a mother (oh, I said women, not mother) around, because they might become their victims. After all, what can a court do to a woman that has already been punished with free housing? Not to mention that children benefit from a father far more than a mother. That kind of reasoning should be to set all men free, and give them free housing, and give them therapy.
And no, it didn’t reveal my true colors, the feminist woman who originally proposed the idea a year ago before a task force accepted the idea and took it over revealed her true colors. Because that is literally what she said. Once the women’s prisons are empty, you can put men in there. Those were her words.
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 last thing – if women have so much power today – why are rapists of women geting off with light sentences while the rhetoric “she asked for it” continue unchecked?
> @ 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 and such bull and actually focus on actual men’s issues, and actually writing stuff about how men should empower themselves, right up to and including giving women the middle-finger and taking command of their life and relationships, right?
Or in other words, you just told all of us men, that as the goodmenproject.com is a feminist site, it isn’t about men, good or not, at all, certainly not about helping them. This site is about how to empower women even more, and how to breed better male slaves. After all feminism won’t bother with the rights of men; only about the rights of women, and to hell with whether or not man keeps any after their done. This site is thus about screwing men over.
Thanks for the clarification.
Actually, revealing and critiquing feminism’s misandry is more like calling out the black panthers or KKK on bigoted bullshit.
“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 privilege. As you can see by the most recent US president, THAT was really successful
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.
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 malevolent)
B) If shifting 340 BILLION DOLLARS in aid isn’t power, I’d like to know what is
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 ADVOCACY LOBBY.
btw..Kyriarch theory disproves a lot of patriarchy theory because it shift the blame of Social injustice away from Patriarchy (EVERY SINGLE MAN THAT EVER LIVED)…
and places the blame towards Fascism and Fascism supporters.
In short..We are fighting for Justice in the courts and in congress..
Ladies and Gentlemen Lets Get It On.
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 do: they can be astronauts, supreme court judges, and presidents.
Compare NOW and the AAUW to a group like MADD (mothers against drunk driving) that emerged in the 80′s. When is the last time you have heard anything from MADD? You know why you haven’t? Because they had a legitimate grievance, and it was addressed. Laws were put into affect like sobriety check lanes, free taxi rides for the inebriated, tough laws on 1st & 2nd offenses (etc..).
Why are NOW and AAUW still here? Because the man-hating radicals of the feminist movement are not the radical fringe, but it’s radical CORE. It stands to simple reason that as more and more rights were won for women, those members of the feminist movement who had simple legitimate grievances that were addressed LEFT the movement.
All I see in today’s largest feminist groups are people with an axe to grind.
On the other hand, look at father’s rights groups. They’re not fighting for overwhelming father custody (the way feminists fought for and got laws enforcing overwhelming mother custody), they’re fighting for SHARED PARENTING.
There are dozens of studies which show having a loving fit dad in a childs life reap huge benefits. There is no question that shared parenting is all about equal rights, justice, and protection of the child to keep substantial time with both parents. Yet, feminists fight shared parenting whereever petitions are setup or state legislatures look at modifying custody law.
In many states regarding DV feminists have pushed for laws like “mandatory arrest” and “primary aggressor” laws that essentially state the man should be arrested, even if he has injuries and she doesn’t.
Feminists have crossed the line from fighting FOR women and now actively fight AGAINST men’s equal rights in parental laws, DV, employment support, and a host of other areas.
Men’s rights activists do no such thing. They are fighting for the same thing feminists fought for 40 years ago: full equal rights before the law.
There’s a difference to fighting to make laws equal to all, and trying to pass laws that hold one gender or color down.
Feminism has truly morphed into something spiteful and disgusting. And I don’t buy into “feminism is this big ole tent with lots of different views” argument.
You know why? Where are the voices of all these mild man-loving feminists who should be calling out feminists hateful rhetoric and laws?
“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 from being about to criticize it since it prevents any critic from nailing it down. But later she uses the word feminists in a way that implies that she is talking about all of them as one like-minded and monolithic group.
She wants to have her cake and eat it too. 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.
‘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?
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,” Love said. “And we have to create that record ourselves so we know that what we’ve done is not distorted or outright forgotten. It’s a huge project. In fact, it’s impossible. But then, we feminists often do the impossible.”
Don’t believe me? Read her text, it’s widely available on line, and then ask yourself why the premier organization for women overlooks the radical notion that women are people too, when it comes to the transgendered.
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 discourse. That all of them are essentially anti-capitalist in scope probably has something to do with this phenomenon.
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 from – again for emphasis – the primary feminist organization of present day musty leaders.
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 being essentially complicit from a functional point of view.
I’m all for pointing out “bad feminists,” but to do so without acknowledging those feminist individuals who have been doing that very thing for years while still inspiring vital, important work today comes across as a disingenuous attack on a straw-man version of feminism, and isn’t likely to win you any converts.
@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 terminologies and ideas, when those very ideas are being used to oppress in their name, places a guilt of inaction upon them.
As I always say to my female friends, I have spent my entire life fighting for your issues. I have been raised with them in mind, with the substance and structure of their critiques as part of my intellectual fundament. Why is it so very much to ask you to fight for me in return?
No matter how good, smart or correct academic feminism is, it has unleashed an lurching unintellectual monster on many of us, and it needs to take some historical responsibility for it.
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 solutions and a host of disastrous and unintended consequences. Once you uncover the structural faults in the theoretical structures of the politic, the wheels fall right off.
But – the theories are both in effect and in practice today. No straw to be found, just a lot of cement heads with gender study degrees. To be blunt.
Fardarter:
Excellent comment.
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 described?
I also have a problem with the statement that feminism changes with new information. If women in America today were subjected to even half of the injustices men are subjected to on a regular basis, we would say that women are oppressed. In fact, the way women had to face domestic violence silently 60 years ago and earlier, with law enforcement on the side of the abusive male husband and the courts against her on every turn. That’s precisely the position men are in today. Research has demonstrated that IPV has a gender symmetry. Yet, feminism doesn’t change its language in order to reflect these changes. It simply molds its initial assumptions in order to try and explain away certain realities which fly in the face of the feminist narrative of perpetual female victimhood and oppression. Feminism may not be in lock-step on every issue. They can disagree but they eventually reach a consensus, but only so long as it perpetuates the same narrative of female victimhood in a patriarchal society.
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 enjoy viewing ourselves as victims, and that we preferred to envision today’s third wave feminism in the context of empowerment, not oppression. We emphasized intersectionality, class and race. We discussed how the language we use privileges and oppresses, includes and excludes, of the hubris of assuming we were in a position to help others. We even spent a lot of time talking about whether feminism had anything to offer people anymore, and if so, how it needed to change to address the needs of present and future generations. In my experience, the feminism I learned was self-critical and evolving, but also a bit puzzled and lost in terms of direction. (In my personal opinion, I think this is because it truly wants to reach gender equality, but doesn’t know how, or care, to properly address men’s problems. The movement, by itself, doesn’t possess the tools it needs to achieve its goal.)
Like the article author, I often find myself puzzled to see the way others perceive feminism, versus my own exposure to it.
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 the vast majority of their ideas decades ago.
If it seems like they’re in trouble, it’s because they are. At least, their epistemology is. In order to survive they will need to change fundamentally, thus tossing aside decades worth of “research” and thousands upon thousands of hours of human labor that was spent to construct it. It’s going to be painful when it happens but it’s for the better.
“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 like to see the proof of that.
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 in the minds of Don Quixote types, so it may as well be as immutable as the very gene that determines hair color.
None of the above is novel or revolutionary though – Marxism is based on class warfare between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. Feminist epistemology theory simply switches gender for class. As long as there are a bourgeoisie, the proletariat’s epistemology must be privileged. It’s about as socially essentialist as one can get without invoking the Sacred Chalice.
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 scope. One of the great contributions of feminist epistemology is its stress on the ways knowledge is socially situated, in that people’s experiences of the world are conditioned by their social roles and status, often described in terms of their parochial interests and values, and so forth. Given this socially shaped diversity of representations, it makes sense to investigate, in a naturalistic way, how it can be used as a resource for theorizing. In the most recent articulation of standpoint theory, the project is not to identify one epistemically privileged social perspective, but to identifying the contingent and local advantages different perspectives have with respect to representing certain aspects of the social world that are relevant for answering particular questions. This reminds us that certain positions of marginality may contingently afford better access to certain aspects of the world than privileged positions do–that we can learn from those less advantaged than ourselves, because of experiences they have had qua being disadvantaged. Incorporating their experiences of the social world into our representations of it makes our representations more objective, in the sense of more complete, and less partial.
PS perhaps check out the 2003 essay by Alison Wylie “Why Standpoint Matters” on page 339 of this anthology (you can read it on the amazon site for free): http://www.amazon.com/Feminist-Standpoint-Theory-Reader-Controversies/dp/0415945011/ref=pd_sxp_f_pt
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 of self justification.
Take the issue of why standpoint is important. It is used by the average feminist as a way to avoid criticism from any man. It even has a term these days, ‘mansplaining’ which is basically the disavowal of men ever having anything interesting to say in a feminist context BECAUSE of our lack of standpoint. Look how these ideas are MISUSED, not how they are used in an ideal space.
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 good living (men are 38% of college graduates). Where is the help for men (and their children) in abusive relationships? VAWA states that grants from VAWA for abuse shelters can not be given to any shelter that houses men.
Where is the understanding from those more vulnerable (when they happen to have a Y chromosome)?
Mainstream feminist organizations fight tooth and nail any governmental fixes in addressing the boy crisis in education–despite having achieved exactly that for girls in the mid 90′s (aka AAUW’s “study” called Shortchange girls Shortchange America which ushered in new pro-girl/anti-boy teaching methods, special pro-girl education laws and even textbook changes).
When we take feminist ideals and see how they are used in a “boots on the ground” sense by advocates it is nothing short of punitive and exclusionary to vulnerable and disenfranchised men.
Political advocating feminism is what most people talk about when they say feminism is bad (particularly for men and children) and they are largely right.
If there were any academic (or any strain) of feminists who wold call out these feminists attacking men’s rights, then you would have a point about the big ole umbrella of feminism. That just doesn’t happen. Feminism is monolithic in that it treats ALL MEN (whether minority or poor or abused or depressed) as the enemy. The other strains of feminism are content to let NOW and AAUW advocate for anti-male and anti-father laws, which is agreement by silence.
In this anti-male stance, feminism IS monolithic.
Well said – this is my understanding as well.
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.
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 no longer any social penalty.
My point? 40 years ago there was no reason to have a law that says you can’t wait 30 days to report a missing child (i.e. Casey Anthony) because the social stigmatization for doing those things were stronger than any law.
Before women got the vote, the Titanic sunk. Men were under the socialization to protect women, i.e. “women and children first”.
In the heart of the most misandric period in history the social price men paid for not assisting women were huge. Look at the 1800′s english era in which men had to duel with pistols to “defend” a women’s honor. The view that men had this power and therefore A GREAT MAJORITY OF THEM misused it has no objective bearing in reality when looking at historical records.
The idea that just because marital rape was not listed as a crime does not mean MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF WOMEN WERE raped. It meant that society was hard-core normative in socialization.
There was also no law against men having mohawk hair-cuts in the 50′s, but that doesn’t mean that there were millions of men with mohawks.
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 not have it badly (much worse than men, it HAS to be acknowledged). We should only oppose it for being unwilling to articulate a full picture out of vested ideological interests. Everyone had it shitty in an age when human life was seldom of much value.
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 died building the trans-continental railroad (accurate numbers are hard to come by–men’s lives are not only cheap but not worth counting).
In many instances this even trickled down to male children:
ht tp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1312764/Britains-child-slaves-New-book-says-misery-helped-forge-Britain.ht ml
I am not in denial, I am just opening my eyes very wide when I cast my net out to talk about oppression.
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 past–they will detail the fact that minorities would be over-represented as a sign of racial oppression, but not the fact that these were 100% men as gender oppression.
I agree that there may not necessarily be a “winner” of who was most oppressed (or loser I guess would be more accurate), but the harm dealt to men is largely unrecorded and unrecognized, and even actively resisted against being acknowledged by some radicals.
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 activism that will benefit us all.
Thanks, Sarah, for writing such a fine article.
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?
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*
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.