Hi. I’m Julie Gillis and I’m a feminist.
It’s like an admission, isn’t it? A vulnerability of sorts to state who you are and why you are here? Or perhaps it’s just how we all have learned to compartmentalize ourselves, here in America, in western culture, a method that has caused GMP founder to query himself, about how this affects manhood.
What on earth do labels mean, I wonder this often. In absolutely no particular order, I’m a feminist, a humanist, a secular spiritual pantheistic agnostic, a community builder, a mother, a daughter, a sex positive activist for LGBTQ rights and for the radical expression of pleasure and relationships, a locavore advocate for CSAs and food and (wow what a coinkydink) the radical expression of pleasure and health,a wife, a damn good worker, a lover of bourbon and red wine, a walker, a dancer, a middled aged woman, a white person (probably over educated), privileged (oh yes, honey, I DID use that word), a fan of documentaries, a producer of theater, a performer of comedy and a writer.
And a lot more.
I like men. I’m married to one, and have two boykids. I’ve been writing about men and supporting The Good Men Project now for about nine months or so. As way of introduction again (and caveating all my future posts), I thought I’d list out the things I believe in and am for just to get that stuff out of the way.
I believe men are human beings. I believe men are influenced as negatively by sexism and teh patriarchy as are women. It’s a big-ass system y’all, and it’s like the water we swim in so how could we all not be influenced. I think men have been and will continue (until such time as we heal the world), sexually assaulted and raped and that it’s bullshit and horrible and should be addressed, hard core, by our government and society. I believe men should have more reproductive (birth control) options. I think that this whole disposability issue is related less to gender and much more to power and control of the populus, that boys need different things than girls do in school BUT it can’t be essentialized into a binary cause there are boys that do better in more “female” focused spaces and vice versa, but that the more attention we can give our boys to address their actual needs, the better.
I think men deserve love and compassion and connection and that often that does indeed look entirely different than how women need it (and expect it) and I do actually see flaws in any “ism” that has wound up making money and careers and political policy out of activism. So yeah, that would include feminism.
I’m gonna be writing with Ozy because I like hir style. And because yeah, I’m a feminist and I figure we can figure this polemic thing out in a way that actually helps rather than hurts and I want to be a part of that.
Any q’s? I’ll be happy to answer.
About Julie Gillis
Welcome aboard!
We should go back to basics again. The standard argument is that… why care about men when women are the more oppressed group and have more pressing problems like sexual assault, slut-shaming, victim-blaming, wage ceilings, unfair representation in the media, legal issues over pregnancy choice and the general disprivilege of women? How do we deal with feminists who bracket men for later? Why do men deserve compassion when they’re the ones usually abusing women and being assholic misogynists than women being misandrist, something that’s usually denied?
I’m confused, Flatbanana. Are you a fan of the standard argument? =)
Please note: as I tried to indicate with the smiley, this is a QUESTION, not an ACCUSATION. Need Moar Data. =P
Thanks for the openness Gaius. I’m generally not a fan of the argument, but I can at least relate to the argument in a needs-olympics kind of way. but I wanted to pose it to Julie as a long time lurker of NSWATM to further delve into her thinking of the drama that happens within gender activism. I understand the term feminist as a “someone who supports and works towards gender equality” but usually that’s opeationalised as “women need to be pushed up”.
Like Gaius I wonder are you saying that you are a fan of that standard argument?
How do we deal with feminists who bracket men for later?
I’ve been wondering that one for long and the best answer I’ve been able to come up with is simply not deal with them.
Why do men deserve compassion when they’re the ones usually abusing women and being assholic misogynists than women being misandrist, something that’s usually denied?
I think the problem with this question is that, like that standard argument you mention above its an attempt at diversion. The fact that there are abusive men out there and even if there more misogynistic men out there than misandrist women that has absolutely nothing to with showing compassion to men.
Or is there some sort of numerical threshold at work? As in we check to see how many misogynist men are out there and if there are too many then the compassion supply is cut off to all men or something?
Do the numbers on which group treats the other badly more often and more badly really matter when talking about offering compassion to people? Is it really right to say that Average Joe doesn’t deserve compassion because Average Tom, Bill, and David treat women badly? If that is the case then I don’t blame Joe one bit for turning bitter because he would judged guilty be gender association. He didn’t do anything bad himself, no he just happen to be male like Tom, Bill, and David and that was enough to say that he does not deserve compassion.
I think I’ve mentioned it on another comment thread before, but from a more philosophical perspective, I maintain that the belief that “patriarchy hurts men too” is enough to justify the existence of a space to discuss men’s issues even if said issues are not one’s specific focus.
The hard part is actually using the above notion in an argument. I’ve found it easiest to debate basically using “yes and.” The notion that some women face terrifying things that deserve to be discussed is true AND so is the notion that some men face terrifying things that are worthy of being discussed. So is the intersection, so are the varying trans stories etc.
There are pitfalls to avoid. Depending on the person you’re arguing with, try to avoid traditional feminist technical terms (sexism, misogyny, power, kyriarchy, even “bigotry” sometimes). Depending on the feminist in question those might be defined in such a way that various forms of hatred against men cannot exist (e.g. “systemic” hatred against men is usually stamped out by more 101-ish activist definitions of “sexism” as those definitions require very specific “historical” notes or “power analysis”).
Try to acknowledge the other person as respectfully as possible. Your very existence might represent a threat to their world view, and if your goal is to share information or viewpoints succumbing to anger or frustration (as tempting as that might be, I’ve been there enough times) wont help. Raw emotion, as useful a tool as it can be in some cases, in situations such as this, always seems to be the enemy in my experience. The above might be impossible depending on the situation ( such as if you’re triggered or you come up against a hate with which there is no reasoning). If that is the case disengaging is always an option, as is returning to a safer community to debrief/discuss what happened.
Oh, and so as to be a LITTLE more on topic, welcome Julie Gillis! I look forward to reading all of the interesting things you have to say
.
So this isn’t a perfect analogy, but let’s take medical research. All cancer research is important. But all cancer research is subdivided by speciality, yes? Thyroid cancer is different than breast, is different than bone or blood. Treatments are different and money and support is needed for all.
People tend to personalize issues. So if my mother had breast cancer and my dad didn’t have any cancer at all, I might be prone to support breast cancer research.
So if I support breast cancer research, but not prostate, does that mean I don’t support ending cancer?
Like I said, it’s not a perfect analogy by any means. In a perfect social justice world, there would be subdivisions and people would work well and collaborate between divisions of social justice. We’d do our own thing and find the points of intersection and help each other. And often that does happen. I think though that human beings get kind of tribal about stuff and have a tendency to close ranks, create silos, and focus on zero sum (especially because the more politicized and monetized things in a particular subdivision become, the more we want to protect our own stakes in the process).
This means that there is infighting and bullshit. I hesitate to say it’s “natural” in the sense of being good, but it certainly seems predictable and human.
Why care about men? Because they are part of our lives as women are part of theirs. And because in a living system, each part of the system affects the other parts.
How do deal with feminists that bracket men for later? Patiently? Pointedly? With as much grace and humor as can be gathered up all while continuing to do the more intesectional work that you find meaningful?
Why do men deserve compassion? Because all human beings deserve compassion. Misanthropy is the thing I’m against.
Hi Julie. Welcome!
Maybe it’s cowardly of me, but I generally try to avoid introducing myself under any particular label, for two reasons:
1). A given label can be appropriated by anyone, and sometimes I find myself disagreeing
2). I think my stance on certain issues is more important than a label
For example: I dislike hypocrisy, double-standards, and inegalitarianism, and actively confront these practices whenever I encounter them. I don’t like placing arbitrary limits on human behavior — rules should have reasons. Additionally, I dislike putting women OR men on a pedestal — although it’s sometimes difficult for me to stop pedestalizing women (old habits die hard).
So, does this make me a feminist? There are some people who identify as feminists who might not think so.
So I don’t bother with labels for myself. =)
Cheers!
You dislike hypocrisy? Whoah! Now there’s a bold statement that tells us a lot about your position on the issues!
So how goes it Julie?
The name’s Danny, I’ve been around about a year or so (just started contributing in the last 3-4months).
As for what I believe I’m not sure I could sit down and lay it all out on paper like you just did.
Labels are an interesting thing. Sometimes they can be a nice and neat way to know where someone stands on an issue but at the same time they can lead to quite a bit of commotion (which is why for the longest time I’ve only been considering aligning myself with the MRA rather than actually doing it).
Look forward to seeing what you and Ozy come up with.
Take it easy.
As a feminist myself, Julie, I agree with much of what you believe in, though I balk at two of your remarks. I think disposability is very much related to gender. I also don’t think there’s anything inherently wrong with an “ism” that produces money, careers, and political policy. To paraphrase a well-known economist (John Kenneth Galbraith, I think), people who think they’re apolitical are generally prisoners of the political ideology of some ideologue, now long dead.
But to return to the disposability issue, I wonder what your thoughts are about the relative firestorm of controversy surrounding remarks made by Daniel Bosh, for example, and the general lack of reaction to the topic I cover in this post. (Given that my post focuses on a TV producer, I thought you might have a particular interest in it, though if that fact actually makes it professionally awkward for you to comment, I’d understand.)
I read over your post and the link to the interview. I’m not a TV producer so I can comment on it. I had no idea that was a real show, Snapped. Hoo-boy, what a cynical world that we have a show about people snapping and killing their spouses and it’s all revenge fantasies for ladytv or something?
I suspect that there are some inherent biases in place when it comes to what you are talking about. Men can’t make jokes about a hilarious show that involves men killing their wives and covering them in concrete, but women can do the same? Doesn’t seem right to me.
I find the premise of the show Snapped, off putting to put it mildly.
That said, her tone in the interview was super snarky and I was left wondering if the reason she thinks the show is hilarious is because of how it’s produced and written (Over the top dramatics? Terrible music? Timed for maximum ad exposure for lady household products?) and that it’s on Oxygen which is marketed as a really benign ladychannel for ladies and then here is a show about LADIES GONE BAD?
I don’t know if that’s why she’d find it hilarious, that kind of sickly, snarky, end of the world apocalyptic vision of humanity on bad television, but that’s why I would. Not the content or the fact that there are people out there snapping. Or that there are producers making money off of putting shows together about women who’ve killed people they claimed to love and involved their kid in the traumatic experience of hiding a body.
Cause that part isn’t all that funny.
As for why it didn’t light up the nets? Could be lots of reasons such as the whole other standard thing, it was an interview online and not a public show, cause she didn’t call for someone to actually snap and kill someone? Or the audience for that interview wasn’t prone to get upset about any of the above?
Just a few thoughts, randomly.
I hate to say it Julie, but I fail to see your point, your a feminist and you care about men, are we supposed to congratulate you for that?
I can’t say that your congratulations were actually a goal of mine, Ginny.
An introductory post should be responded to with greetings, not spite. So welcome, Julie!