HeatherN tackles another set of questions from GMP readers about feminism and the feminist movement.
This week I’ll tackle two issues. One’s a question about the structure of feminism itself, and another is sort of a follow up to one of my answers last week. Let’s dig in:
Alastair, Wellokaythen and Tom all wanted to know whether feminism is more akin to a religion (a system of beliefs) or a movement based on evidence and facts. The answer, I suppose, depends on which version of feminism you’re talking about. Academic feminism is classed under “the humanities,” which means though it’s academically rigorous it doesn’t follow the same rules as the hard sciences or the social sciences. It is evidence based, but it’s not something which uses the scientific method or experimentation to prove its theories. The two big “humanities” subjects people might be familiar with are philosophy and English literature, and I think those are two helpful subjects for comparison. Philosophy is all about thinking “outside the box” (such a clichéd phrase for being unique) to try to better understand humanity, and English literature is all about analysing the stories we tell. Cultural narratives are basically stories and a lot of gender theory is about trying to understand humanity, sometimes through really weird ways of thinking about things.
Activist feminism often relies on academic studies which come out of the social sciences. All the statistics that gender theorists cite come from one study or another, whether it’s about domestic violence, the wage gap, or any other issue. What’s interesting is how the social sciences have begun incorporating gender theory into their research. Agustin Fuentes (whose book I mentioned back in the first set of answers) is a biological anthropologist and part of that book is a scientific examination of the separation between gender and biological sex. I recently went to a lecture by an evolutionary anthropologist who mentioned Judith Butler’s Gender Trouble as being influential in his work. So though gender studies itself is part of the humanities, it’s being used by people in the social sciences too.
In an e-mail, Matthew asked me to explain some of the more practical ways in which feminism is including men. Last week, I mentioned that feminism (on the whole) does actually include men and among other responses, was a request for some information about what exactly feminist groups are doing. It’s all well and good to say, “Patriarchy hurts men too,” but what are feminists doing about it? On the one hand, this is a bit of an odd question. We wouldn’t ask LGBT rights organisations what they’re doing for straight people, even though heteronormativity hurts straight people too, for example. The difference, though, is that although heteronormativity hurts straight people to some extent, the patriarchy hurts men a hell of a lot. So more and more, feminist groups are including men as people who have also been harmed by gender norms.
The Everyday Sexism project is a website that’s dedicated to “cataloguing instances of sexism experienced by women.” I happen to follow it on Twitter (because of course I do), and just yesterday this tweet popped up: “Just had a women alert everyone of an abandoned baby. Yes the baby 1ft to my left is without it’s mother, she’s my daughter.” Everyday Sexism focuses on women, but the example from a man was included and retweeted. As I’m writing this, it’s actually got 106 retweets and 44 favourites. A couple of people replied that they were surprised this happened, but no one told the man he should leave or that his example of sexism wasn’t “really” sexism. As much as internet activism and Twitter is a “practical example” of feminists including men, this fits.
The big, real world example of feminists working to undo stereotypes of masculinity comes in the form of the fight against conscription back in 1981. The National Organisation for Women was one of the groups which supported the law suit which aimed to get rid of Selective Service, or if not at least make it gender neutral. The Supreme Court struck it down, and that was that for a long time. Recently, the military just made all combat positions gender neutral, so it’s possible this issue will come up again. It depends on whether there’s enough of a case to make our current Supreme Court hear it.
Of course, for every example of feminist groups and people who are working on men’s issues, I could provide an example of a group which is not working on men’s issues. The thing is no one group can work on everything at once.
Update May 14: Originally this article said that Supreme Court’s decision about Selective Service happened in 1991. That’s been corrected to the actual year they heard the case, which was 1981.
Do you have a question for GMP’s resident feminist? Ask it in the comments, or email Heather at [email protected].
Photo: Flickr/nFriedly
Okay, this is sort of question (a bit rhetorical, I suppose) for everyone who’s making the argument that they’d be feminists if only feminism would be more open to critique from outside feminism and/or more welcoming to potential moderate/mainstream allies. My question is why is your agreement with feminism predicated on feminist groups listening to you? Like, I’m a feminist, and I’ve got absolutely no sway within feminist circles. My articles here get about 2,000 pageviews or less (usually less), and my own personal blog is lucky if it gets 20 pageviews in a day. I’ve gotten into shouting matches… Read more »
My question is why is your agreement with feminism predicated on feminist groups listening to you? My guess is that it is being used as an indication of how well things would go when a disagreement happens. How can you align yourself with something that’s just gonna tune you out when you don’t see eye to eye? But for me the wording of that question may be a bit off. I have no problem agreeing with parts of feminism, I just don’t take on the label. I’m wondering why not taking on the label is held against non-feminists (and it… Read more »
The reason I didn’t go into my disagreement with Farrell and Hoff Summers is because every time this sort of conversation starts, it turns into an argument about what Farrell and Summers have said. I’m really not interested in dissecting their ideas here, and then argue about them. That’s not the point…the point is that I’m saying their ideas have been listened to and rejected and so asking for you all to provide voices that you consider “good” critiques. If you want to know about feminist responses to Farrell and Summers, I guess Google it? They have been listened to;… Read more »
I don’t see that Farrell and Sommers (not Summers) have gotten listened to… has any feminist taken Farrell’s idea that if God is She, then the Devil also has to come as a she seriously? And how can anyone reasonably reject that idea?… but I guess I won’t convince you of that. I’ll leave what I consider the best for last. David Benatar in “The Second Sexism”, though focusing on discrimination against males, does offer something of a critique of some feminists/feminisms. Daphne Patai got mentioned here. I’ve gotten halfway into her Heterophobia, and that book as well as her… Read more »
I have some follow-ups:
1) Do you, Heather, believe a man can be good if he rejects feminism? (No fair saying, “Yes, if he just hasn’t considered it yet,” because I’m asking about one who disagrees with Fem 101, not a blank slate.)
2) Regardless of your personal answer #1, do you think online feminism in general conveys a message to male readers that feminism is but one path to goodness for men, or that it’s impossible to be good without it?
I also notice often when feminism is criticized, feminists will respond along the lines of “that’s not my feminism” or “there are many different kinds of feminism.”
Feminism suddenly becomes this nebulous, impossible to define thing with a billion permutations.
So my question is, what are the core tenets of feminism? What is the absolute bare minimum you need to believe/accept to be a feminist?
Heya,
So part of my first set of answers was to provide a bit of a “this is the core of feminism.” Here’s a link 🙂 https://goodmenproject.com/gender-sexuality/ask-the-feminist-answers-definitions-recommendations-and-media-violence-against-men/
Ok, thank you!
There’s quite a bit of material, so reading it may take a while, but it looks very informative.
“Philosophy is all about thinking “outside the box” (such a clichéd phrase for being unique) to try to better understand humanity” No. Logic is not about understanding humanity. Epistemology is not about thinking outside of the box, but rather understanding how knowledge does, or ideally will, work in the first place. Much the same goes for other branches of philosophy. The common viewpoint is by no means necessarily thought outside of when doing philosophy. Aristotle’s views on ethics is such an example of doing philosophy, but NOT thinking outside of the box. “Cultural narratives are basically stories and a lot… Read more »
Right well, epistemology is about people…it’s about the accumulation of knowledge….types of logic, the ways in which people gain knowledge, so on and so forth. It’s dealing with people’s interaction with the world. And second, the whole reason philosophers are remembered and what they said is considered so important is because they were saying things and thinking things that others at the time weren’t. Even Aristotle. That’s about as “out of the box” as it gets. — HRC is the big mainstream LGBT rights organization. It’s logo is an equals sign and HRC stands for “Human Rights Campaign.” They deliberately… Read more »
“Right well, epistemology is about people…it’s about the accumulation of knowledge….types of logic, the ways in which people gain knowledge, so on and so forth. It’s dealing with people’s interaction with the world.” You’ve used the term “people” to refer to humans. Epistemology simply is not confined to humans. Epistemological theories can hold for other animals, aliens from other planets, or even machines. Also, epistemology isn’t about how we interact with the world. Sometimes philosophy students study how we know that the Earth moves about our local Sun. But, we interact with the world such that the Sun moves and… Read more »
And now we’ve gone straight into pointless arguing of minutiae. So let’s agree to disagree or whatever and stop that line of discussion now.
As for LGBT rights organizations making the claim they are fighting for equality for everyone. Yes, there are various statements/articles about LGBT rights organisations talking about how discrimination against LGBT people hurts straight people, and thus what they want to accomplish will help straight people too.
Heather I guess I have one question I’d like to ask. Who gets to speak for feminism, and who gets to decide what feminism is? Because every time feminists such as you and Joanna are confronted with examples of snarky, misandrist, or radical feminists, I always hear that one nasty voice doesn’t represent the movement as a whole, or that they don’t represent “true feminism.” Even though Jezebel and Feministing have much larger readerships and feminist followers than the two of you combined, most likely. So is that just a No True Scotsman argument on your part, or are the… Read more »
Maybe we hit the thread count and got cut off, but I can’t reply directly. “Feminists are not making demands of the privileged group” That’s just patently false. Feminists make a lot of demands (as opposed to actually engaging with people they disagree with, this is a huge, awesome exception). Feminism is involved in a global campaign against rape, for instance, and I think “Teach men not to rape” is a stark demand. There’s a demand for pay equality. There’s a demand for respect. Demands don’t create bad circumstances, themselves, but when you demand and then shut out the people… Read more »
In the name of the patriarchy, the privilege, and the oppression. Amen.
This may be making the subject even more complicated. It’s probably harder to define “religion” than it is to define “feminism”! I don’t remember asking if feminism is more like a religion than an evidence-based activity, but I write a whole lot of rubbish on a regular basis and I have a faulty memory, so maybe I did. For me, the issue is more specifically about being open-minded, having intellectual humility, and taking a relatively objective look. That’s compatible with some forms of religion, but certainly not all religions. What I associate with many religions and/or superstitions is that many… Read more »
I’ll try to get to this to reply more later (I’m off for the moment). Basically it was Alastair who asked, I believe, and you and Tom mentioned that you’d like it to be answered to. 🙂
How does feminism respond to the solid evidence produced by Patai that the feminist academia mainly is pseudo science and indoctrination and that [produced by Straus and others that shows that feminist researchers bias and misrepresent domestic violence data to make it conform to Patriarchy Theory?
edit
is pseudo science and indoctrination and evidence produced by Straus and others that shows that feminist researchers bias and misrepresent domestic violence data to make it conform to Patriarchy Theory?
I think the reason why I reject feminism is because the mentalities of its defenders so often remind me of those I saw among Christians. And I rejected those mentalities then, so there is no reason why I should not do so again when they are reprised by feminists. I’ve lost count of the times I’ve been confronted with some daft argument for why X is privilege, or Y is misogyny, and then been confronted with the notion that “if you’re disagreeing that just shows how you’re privileged”. Echoes of the mental gymnastics Christians go through when confronted with someone… Read more »
This is an old post, but I feel the need to comment. I’m female and this post by OirishM is exactly how I feel about modern feminism. It’s full of circular arguments and these days calling someone on their “privilege” is no different than calling someone a “sinner”. I don’t believe that “feminism is the radical notion that women are people” at all. In my experience feminism is obviously a rigid, pseudo-academic worldview that views “heretics” with disdain. Why should I “check my privilege”? Sorry, I’m too busy working towards improving my situation in life through hard work and education.… Read more »
interesting….
Dam. I just lost what I wrote because the page refreshed.
Feminists like Daphne Patai lay out a very case that modern feminism isn’t much more than mythology and political indoctrination. Other academics have made a very strong case that patriarchy theory is propped up by the practise of omitting female perpetrated abuse data and presenting problems like family abuse as largely gendered when they are not.
Given the evidence laid out by these various people, how can we argue that feminism is a legitimate science and not something more akin to religion?
“On the one hand, this is a bit of an odd question. We wouldn’t ask LGBT rights organisations what they’re doing for straight people, even though heteronormativity hurts straight people too, for example.”
It’s a natural question given that the normal reaction to any attempts to deal with men’s issues get’s the reaction that such efforts are unnecessary since feminism is already doing it.
We’re so bound up in the hurt and suffering, we forget that the goal is happiness. We wallow in the hate and suffering, without a concern for the best way to make it better.
“Academic feminism is classed under “the humanities,” which means though it’s academically rigorous it doesn’t follow the same rules as the hard sciences or the social sciences. It is evidence based, but it’s not something which uses the scientific method or experimentation to prove its theories. ” Evidence based upon what? Interpretration of what the academic thinks something means? Eg conscription to some is misandry, to others it’s just misogyny as it denied women fighting ability. “It’s all well and good to say, “Patriarchy hurts men too,” but what are feminists doing about it? On the one hand, this is… Read more »
Archy, the last couple of sentences in the quote you provided are what are key, here. As I said, the DIFFERENCE between asking that of LGBT organisations and asking it of feminist groups is the degree to which patriarchy hurts men. Heteronormitivity hurts straight people marginally; patriarchy hurts men a hell of a lot. This is why that question, though strange/odd, is still perfectly legit, and why I answered it. Also, the assumption that the only options are MRA + feminist or gynocentricm is to completely miss the part where feminism is examining patriarchy and men’s issues without ever looking… Read more »
Sorry, meant Mra as in advocate for male rights, not just the well-known MRM, so people whom identify as anything that simply advocate for men. Personally I think society is way too fluid n complex to ever have a simple answer, even the men have power mentality fails to recognize female’s huge levels of power with sexuality (if every woman said no sex for a month unless you do X, X would probably be done by most men), children (kids have far more time with mother or female influence), etc. We can only really get a basic idea of society… Read more »
Archy, I wanted to expand on some of what you say here. Just a few basic points: 1) The way that Feminist publications and aggregation sites (Jez and Feministing are the best examples) treat Feminism is often hyperbolic and just shy of fear-mongering. If you were to show an individual with no social knowledge those sites, they’d come away with the impression that “being a woman” inherently means that you’d be harassed constantly, discriminated against at every turn and essentially seen as nothing more than a sex-object for men who always have power, money and the ability to turn violent… Read more »
This is…well it’s off topic from the original article, but I’d like to address it. There’s a bit of negative generalisations going on in there…like the thing about 10 years ago most men willing to say they’re feminists but today not so much, and somehow that’s feminism’s fault. Or suggesting that the MRM only exists because feminists are so concerned with ideological purity. Those are really sweeping, really negative generalisations…and frustrating and oddly about blaming feminism for something that might not even be true and even if it is true, certainly isn’t the fault of feminism (as a collective entity).… Read more »
Just one more thing, this kind of goes back to that first question I answered about feminism and consistency, and my example of the guy standing up for me to take his seat on a bus. Is it better for me to be the most feminist I can be all the time (and thus potentially alienate those in the mainstream?) Or is it better for me to sometimes moderate my feminism so that it doesn’t end up being seen as rude and intrusive? Is the answer different on an individual level than it is on a systematic level? Should feminism… Read more »
The current model states that white men should moderate their voices to appease Feminists. I hate this idea that “rude and aggressive = empowering”. It isn’t, and most men who don’t have Daddy’s trust fund learn this the hard way, as well. It’s better for everyone to “moderate” the voice for the ability of discourse and an ACTUAL exchange of ideas. Right now men speak up and they’re told they’re either good lap dogs or they’re awful human beings. And we’re not seeking Ideological Purity, that’s the most warped turn-around that is based on the simplistic idea that “if you’re… Read more »
The point about the bus isn’t that a man stood up for me to take his place because he’s trying to screw me over. Quite the opposite. He probably stood up for me because he was being polite and was trying to be nice to me. His INTENT was to be nice and I’m willing to bet he wasn’t even thinking about it in terms of gender. It is entirely possible he didn’t even think about the fact that (chances are) he wouldn’t do the same thing for a young man. But the action he took still ascribed to gender… Read more »
“But the action he took still ascribed to gender norms which suggest that women aren’t quite as capable as men.” Is that your value judgement, or the judgement of the culture? Feminist theory says that’s a cultural judgement, but that’s also wrapped up in a lot of intersectional issues with generation gaps and the HUGE leap between the under-30 and over-30 crowd. Is that you impressing your own anxiety on the interaction? Part of this is the inability for Feminists to understand that change takes time. The old guy might give you a seat, but the teenage boy is more… Read more »
Of course it’s intersectional. The fact that I’m white probably has something to do with it…an older British man (if he’s racist) probably wouldn’t offer his seat to me if I weren’t white. Class might have something to do with it…are rich people more or less likely to offer their seat (well, they’re less likely to take the bus, obviously). Region definitely plays a part…I’m in the north of the UK, and there is a different culture of politeness up here than in the south. But just because it might ALSO be about age, and race, and region….doesn’t mean it’s… Read more »
Its not just about tailoring your ideas for the mainstream, its about welcoming help from people who recognize the same problems as you without buying into all of your ideological theories as well as opening yourself to real debate and criticism from outside your group. Theres a reoccurring theme I see in these comments sections where people are saying that they’ve tried to challenge feminists on commonly held feminist views and found it akin to challenging a religious fundamentalist on scripture. This is clearly a problem that I haven’t seen adequately addressed and though you talk of feminists tirelessly reworking… Read more »
Challenging feminism is a reoccurring theme…but, again, it’s all about where the person who is doing the challenging is coming from. Feminism is about challenging a system which privileges men’s voices, and regardless of whether you believe that is reality or not…that’s where feminists are coming from. So a man who challenges feminist ideas risks doing so from a place of privilege…from exerting their privilege by assuming their voice should be heard. This goes back to Jamie Utt’s article about listening, which I’ll link here. Yes, everyone wants to be listened to…but some groups are listened to more than others,… Read more »
And when “the system” becomes more important than the actual, practical effect, you’ve already lost your way.
Care to elaborate, because I’m actually not sure what “system” you are referring to.
Because you’re so focused on the ideology that states your a victim and oppressed, that you can never NOT be a victim and oppressed and maintain your own identity. So much is wrapped up in this formulation of oppression (I mean, huge parts of peoples’ identities!) that to lose that is to lose a part of themselves. It’s cyclical and a catch-22.
I don’t think anyone is asking feminists to immediately fold when challenged. Of course people defend their ideas, but theres a way to have these debates without attacking the other person personally, or immediately making them out to be a misogynist, or simply shutting them out of the conversation all together rather than addressing their critiques. Honestly, I don’t feel the first part of your post addresses what I said. Ok so feminists want to give special attention to voices that are not given a fair share of space in the mainstream and people who are privileged need to truly… Read more »
“There have been changes, usually from other female feminists who proposed new ways of understanding feminist ideas, but usually worked more or less within an accepted frame work with few exceptions.” Except that’s not true. When Margaret Atwood wrote A Handmaid’s Tale, she was critiquing feminism as well, and it wasn’t from within an “accepted framework.” It was from outside the mainstream feminism of the time, and which has eventually come to be included in feminism. The open letter I linked, directed at Eve Ensler might very well be written by a woman who doesn’t identify as a feminist. I’m… Read more »
“As for this idea that feminists are trying to find an “other.” No, that’s also not quite true. It’s more like feminism recognizes the way in which mainstream society has “othered” women. Within some groups, certainly, part of the response to that is to then reverse it and “other” men. But that’s what literally every single social identity/group and political group has ever done in the history of the world. It is extremely difficult to create an ideology/identity without also creating an “other” to help you define what you are.” Well, exactly. Unless you’re a group of middle-class white women… Read more »
I am drawing a distinction from “feminism” as a collection of sometimes differing ideologies, and “some feminist groups” which most certainly do not represent the whole. As I said, yes SOME feminist groups “other” men, but that “othering” is not a core element of feminism. And, the sort of privilege you’re talking about is not at all what identity privilege is about. Straight privilege, for example, has nothing to do with education. Straight privilege is about how heterosexuality is held as so normal as to be natural, and about how straight people don’t suffer discrimination because of being straight, etc.… Read more »
Writing a book called “understanding patriarchy” was exactly what I was talking about before, a new way of approaching feminist ideas. Second wave feminism is where much of these ideological ideas came from and where they took shape, so of course I’m not talking about something like the second sex as being a challenge to feminism since it kicked off a lot of this to begin with. I’m also not saying that feminists always agree with each other as they clearly don’t (like the letter, which again I don’t see as relating to what I’m talking about really) so feminists… Read more »
Here’s a link to Understanding Patriarchy, cuz it’s an article and it’s really good. But anyway, a lot of the ideas I’m talking about actually aren’t really second wave feminism. And the reason I keep mentioning this article is because it is VERY different to the framework that came before. bell hooks uses the same term “patriarchy,” yes…but she’s talking about something very different from the feminists who talked about patriarchy before her. (She’s not the only one who did this, but she’s a good example of it). When Butler talked about the “performativity” of gender, she was operating under… Read more »
Before I forget, thanks for the effort you’re making with this. In response to your point that men are more likely to be listened to in the mainstream, which men (man) do you mean? While a man may get listened to, I see a pretty fierce competition to be that man. I agree that a man’s perspective may be heard above a woman’s, but who is to say that man, by virtue of being a man, represents “men”s” interests? Or mine, anyway. I guess what I’m saying is that I’m a man and I don’t feel especially heard, nor do… Read more »
Well thanks for thanking me. 🙂 Anyway, yeah, what you bring up is an excellent point. This is where intersectionality comes into play. Because, yeah, in western culture the vast majority of the voices which are listen to are rich (or upper middle class), straight, white, cis-men’s voices. So, of course, you don’t always feel like you are especially heard, but your gender is. Your economic class might not be heard. Your sexuality might not be heard. So on and so forth…but your gender is heard. And you, individually, are not dismissed because of your gender. When you speak, your… Read more »
I don’t have time to respond to everything you wrote right now, but I just want to address that last point: “The problem with this ideal, that what matters is what’s being said, not who is saying it, is that it’s not the way the world works. Seriously. By virtue of being a man, the MOMENT you (or any man) starts talking about things, the mainstream is more likely to listen to you. It’s not your fault…but that’s the way it is. But that means that when you critique feminists about gender, you are more likely to be listened to… Read more »
I think my last post is still in moderation, but just to add onto that, feminist theory has now worked its way into most humanities programs I know of in universities. Its was taught to me and it will be taught to any children I have most likely. It can also affect how we as a culture address various social issues. So to answer your question again, its my place to speak up in these conversations because these theories directly affect my life.
@HeatherN, I don’t expect you to have an answer for what I’m about to say. I also don’t think what I’m about to say in any way invalidates the goals you seem to have as a feminist. If anything, I’m looking for common ground. I’m a white, heterosexual, middle aged and middle class man. I come from an upper middle class background. My point is that to the extent that those demographics form my identity, I’m much like the men who we hear speaking so often. And they speak a language I just don’t comprehend. On both sides of the… Read more »
Intersectional feminism doesn’t argue that sex/gender is all that’s needed to gain membership to the “club.” It does, however, suggest that social identities play very important roles in gaining membership to the “club.” (Radical feminism and certain types of gender essentialist feminism would certainly argue that sex/gender is the most important factor, I’ll admit). But okay, I guess the question is, specifically with regards to gender, do you have politicians advocating for things for your gender that you disagree with but have no way to voice your dissent? Is your gender spoken about? Or is your gender doing the speaking… Read more »
US politicians are too often elitist, too corporate, too religious, and generally too much a product of a marketing campaign for me to relate to them. I understand why this is so, and I appreciate how difficult it is to get elected. Also, I don’t claim it’s a new development, although modern technology pushes all of those “toos” along except religion, I suppose. Regardless of why or how this came about, I can’t relate to the candidates this process produces.
Makes sense to me. The corporate, religious and nationalistic aspects of American politics put me off too. I can’t relate to a lot of the candidates either, regardless of their gender, class, sexuality, etc. However, having women in power means that there are powerful voices who will speak for women…and not in a patronising way, but from a place of having experienced it. I might not be able to relate to most of the women in politics, but most of the women in politics can, at the very least, relate to what it’s like to be a woman in our… Read more »
Perhaps, PERHAPS, within feminism women’s voices are listen to more often, but feminism is not the majority voice in the mainstream. In the mainstream men’s voices are privileged, which does not mean feminism ignores men. It does mean that feminism DOESN’T privilege men’s voices, which might at first seem like ignoring men when men are so used to being the privileged voice. So hypothetically, if a site consistently favored feminist voices over non-feminist voices by not just ignoring the latter, but suppressing such expression through frequent deletion, would you call that a feminist site, or would that be the mainstream… Read more »
Heather, First, I do appreciate you taking the time and massive effort to hold this series of articles, it’s what needs to happen for aspects of the larger issues to be addressed. However, I notice that you tend to zoom in on the negatives and assign “fault”. This is another recurring theme within Feminism which is cause for some alarm: in many cases, the Feminist perspective seems to require blame and fault to be assigned concretely. To be honest, I really don’t ascribe blame to Feminism in my post for the “less men showing hands” or the existence of the… Read more »
I admit I am no expert on either feminism or the men’s rights movement, but… It seems to me that while advocating almost exclusively for women, feminism has publicly presented itself as THE movement for gender equality. Then when men came forward with their problems and their experiences of sexism they were either dismissed as “privileged males” or told “if you care about men, then start your own movement.” Now that the men’s rights movement is growing and drawing more attention, feminism is backpedaling and saying “Men don’t need their own movement; feminism is for everyone.” Except they still refuse… Read more »
This X 1000. This is why there is so much confusion of feminism. I so often hear of all the good feminism does for men, yet it’s quite difficult to find a place to discuss male issues in a feminist setting. There’s nothing wrong with a gynocentric feminist movement, but the advertising it as gender neutral and helping men is causing a lot of trouble online where men are trying to find the gender neutral areas and get cut down with snark n insults. Either include men’s rights/issues too and work on them or stay separate and allow a men’s… Read more »
this is an old thread, so sorry for such a late response, i’m only just reading it. I have several points that I would have made, were this an active thread, but I’ll just make two: your article fails to respond to the question, which I find normal, though less troubling than the fact that in the above response, you conflate ‘speculation’ with ‘evidence’. I will say that your responses to reader’s objections and questions definitely settles the question though. feminism IS a religion. I would like to thank you though, quite seriously, for providing the information that I needed… Read more »
I find certain concepts impossible to question with my feminist friends and I do find that to come up against a wall like that in a debate feels like I’m up against a religious dogma. For example, if the patriarchy hurts men and women, how can it, by definition, still be considered the patriarchy? I think that philosophy has to keep moving and be open to challenging its own concepts or it stagnates entirely. If someone is sure the patriarchy exists, why can’t they explain it when challenged? I consider myself a feminist but I’m not dogmatic. I’m open to… Read more »
I find that sometimes questioning certain concepts with my gender essentialist friends, they treat science like a religious dogma. One of the great things about science is that it can be challenged and changes. Often, though, the public treats any sort of “study” that comes out as though it has the authority of a religion behind it. My point is that there are lots of things which aren’t religious in nature, but which are treated like a religion by some people. I would reply to the rest of the comment, but I think I’m probably going to address part of… Read more »
“It is evidence based, but it’s not something which uses the scientific method or experimentation to prove its theories.”
So yes, it’s like a religion.
Given the fuss caused by Atheism+ within the Atheism movement and the suspension of skepticism when it comes to feminist claims, yet, it does seem a hell of a lot more like a religion.
Would you say that philosophy is like a religion, then? I bet not; it’s just a bit less linear and rigid in its application of logic than something like physics, or whatever. Religion is faith-based…you believe a thing and no amount of facts against (or even for) the thing you believe in changes your opinion. Feminism (like philosophy) is evidence based, and the theories and ideas which develop within feminism are reworked and changed over and over to better fit the facts. Scepticism within feminism is essential, really. It’s begun on scepticism: scepticism that the status quo of gender norms… Read more »
Philosophy is an attempt to find truth, religions is an attempt to impose it. Just because they both deal with abstracts it does not make them the same
Of course they aren’t the same. I didn’t say they were the same. I said feminism is more akin to philosophy than religion. Thus, philosophy and religion are different.
As someone who *actually* studied religious theory, you’re both very wrong. Philosophy and Religion are separated by discourse and not by effect. Philosophy and Religion are the same enterprise: they both seek to create worldviews which maximize benefit. The difference is rather (in a modern context) that religion takes an allegorical and experiential and humanist approach while Philosophy is a process of modern scientific theory. Neither is, necessarily, more “correct” than the other, and both have the ability to be employed for nefarious means. When Feminism is criticized for being “like a Religion”, it’s almost always from the Atheist (or… Read more »
Well as someone who *actually* studied philosophy, I’d argue you’re actually wrong about philosophy. It’s not a process of modern scientific theory. In fact, particularly anything that’s post-modern or post-structuralist, it’s a critique of modern scientific theory.
—
Also, could we take the rhetoric down a notch? It’s getting quite hostile and while I’m actually quite enjoying our conversation, the constant jibes at feminism and feminist groups is getting exhausting.
Perhaps, then, you understand how the constant jibes at men get exhausting to those who live as men everyday. But I’ll be somewhat opposed to you suggesting that my education is interchangeable with your experience/education because I’m afraid that capitulating to such is tantamount to an idea that “nothing matters” aside from a certain extent of political give and take. Perhaps it’s a turnabout to the sort of nasty hostility that men get when they try to engage themselves as individuals within the Feminist movement, I do find myself rather opposed to the sort of Feminism that is excused in… Read more »
Really? REALLY? That’s where this otherwise really good conversation is going to go? Excellent…well then, “okay maybe after all the jibes feminists give men, you’ll now understand the crap women have to put up with whenever they speak…pretty much anywhere outside feminist spaces.” So on, and so forth. You put up your own education as something which gives you authority to speak about religion, and so I do the same with regards to philosophy…and yet you are unwilling to concede that my education gives me authority, while claiming yours does for you. Wonderful. Brilliant. So yeah, let’s go around and… Read more »
Religion is not entirely faith-based. Most religious people look for evidence, either fictional or actual events to support their beliefs. Philosophy is not entirely evidence-based. One need only look at the philosophies that inspired wars at the beginning of the 20th century for proof. Each one relied on “evidence” and were “reworked” over time, yet their ideas are based on pure assumption. The only distinction between religion and philosophy really is the weight given to objective evidence compared to the weight given to the core theories. In that regard, one must ask which feminism gives more weight to: the core… Read more »
First I’ll point out a mistake/typo: The fight against the conscription was in 1981, not in 1991. NOW with it’s current stance against presumptive shared parental responsibilities/joint physical custody doesn’t seem so helpful anymore. We wouldn’t ask LGBT rights organisations what they’re doing for straight people, even though heteronormativity hurts straight people too, for example. Well, I must admit that I have never heard a LGBT rights activist or organization claim that what would help straight people is more LGBT activism, I haven’t heard any LGBT rights activists or organizations say that they are working on straight people’s problems. In… Read more »
The reason feminist groups are constantly talking about how they are helping men, is because people ask. No one’s asking LGBT organisations how they’re helping straight people…because no one even considers the possibility that it’s their job to do so. But as I said, the difference (and it’s a big one) is that patriarchy hurts everyone a hell of a lot, whereas heteronormitivity hurts straight people only somewhat. Thus it does make sense for feminist groups to work on men’s issues.
Also, thanks for pointing out the type-o. I’ll fix that now.
I’ve been talking to feminists about male rape for a number of years. My impression is that feminists are now talking about how they are helping men as a reaction to men (and women) trying to help men outside the feminist framework. Both the Marcotte and the West article I linked are clearly reactive pieces.
“The reason feminist groups are constantly talking about how they are helping men, is because people ask.”
Some of those same feminist groups, recipients of government funding to provide services to the public, refuse to help those who are male and frequently deride those males asking for help. The victim who “asks” is very likely to be abused by those funded to help victims.
@ HeatherN
Does heteronormalcy actually hurt straight people? I’m trying to come up with an example, but I’m drawing a blank. I’m wondering if this is one of those theoretical things that isn’t actually seen in the real world.
Yeah, heteronormalcy privileges a very specific and very rigid kind of heterosexuality. Any straight person who deviates from that strict definition is harmed. So, monogamous, lifelong marriage is part of heteronormitivity…so any heterosexual person who doesn’t practice monogamous, lifelong marriage is considered somehow deviant. Heteronormalcy also privileges very few types of sex: the “missionary” position for vaginal intercourse is considered the most acceptable. Even though something like oral sex is accepted now, it’s still considered a little bit “dirtier” and a little bit “raunchier” than plain old vanilla missionary sex. So anyone who is straight, but is considered not quite… Read more »
I think what you’re saying is accepted by a lot of people interested in gender issues, and there is a certain surface logic to it that flows well enough. However, how are people who are a bit creative sexually harmed by people who aren’t? My sex life is private, and unless I choose to share some information about it, who would know? Is anyone really burdened in any significant way by refraining from saying he or she goes down on his or her partner? I can see where my knowing that others disapprove of something I do privately might make… Read more »
On an individual level, yes your private life is private and no one is harmed by you (individually) adhering to the most strict definition of straight. Collectively, systematically, however it’s a different story. Let’s look at sex education in schools…because of heteronormalcy (well really heteronormativity + Puritanical values, but whatever), it’s been a really difficult fight to get comprehensive sex ed in schools. This means that for a queer person, for whom sex=procreation doesn’t work, what little sex ed we have in schools is all but useless. But this ALSO means that for anyone who is engaging in sex that… Read more »
“So, monogamous, lifelong marriage is part of heteronormitivity…so any heterosexual person who doesn’t practice monogamous, lifelong marriage is considered somehow deviant.” I’d expect that we could agree that hereditary monarchies are almost always patriarchal. I don’t think that Henry VIII got considered deviant by his own people. “Heteronormalcy also privileges very few types of sex: the “missionary” position for vaginal intercourse is considered the most acceptable.” The Wikipedia entry on the missionary position, under the history section, indicates this as simply not true: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missionary_position “So anyone who is straight, but is considered not quite straight enough, is harmed.” I don’t… Read more »
I wasn’t trying to suggest that missionary position actually IS the most common position. I’m saying western culture/society acts as though it is.
And I wasn’t saying patriarchy is necessarily heteronormative. They are very interlinked in our own society, but as you point out they aren’t always.
Not all Western cultures have acted as the missionary position is the most common position. “According to Canongate, ancient art shows missionary as being less popular than woman-on-top positions in Ur, Greece, Rome, Peru, India, China and Japan.”
“In Greece, the missionary position was originally an unpopular position. Beds existed, yet not as we know them today, and men married girls 14 or 15 years of age, which created a height differential. These factors made the rear-entry standing position more convenient.”
How do you know that patriarchy and hetero-normalcy are interlinked in our society?
Right well we’re veering well off topic and getting dangerously close to arguing semantics, but basically, I’ll answer both your questions here. I didn’t say ALL western cultures privilege the “missionary” position. But it is a common theme among modern Western European and North American cultures. That’s what I’m saying…and it dates back to specific ideas about procreation and sex as only for procreation that come from Christianity. The reason I know that patriarchy and hetero-normalcy are interlinked in modern western society is because I study this stuff, basically. That sounds a bit pompous, sorry. But basically, throughout modern history… Read more »
“The reason I know that patriarchy and hetero-normalcy are interlinked in modern western society is because I study this stuff, basically. That sounds a bit pompous, sorry.” No, I don’t think of such as pompous, but I don’t know what sort of evidence your texts provide you with for that claim. You once referenced on here Bell Hooks on patriarchy who wrote she used the phrase “imperialist white-supremacist capitalist patriarchy”. Given that we live in that sort of patriarchy, I simply don’t see how hetero-normalcy is interlinked with patriarchy. Gay bars, which as far as I know are legal in… Read more »
Right, basically, we’re going wildly off topic. I did a bit of a Google search and this blog post here seems like it explains how the two are linked pretty well: http://japansociology.com/2011/11/30/patriarchy-heteronormativity-and-the-closet/
Other than that, I’m going to stop this particular discussion not because it’s bad, but because it’s just become a bit of an argument about something that wasn’t really all that essential to the original article.