The title of this post, “freshly-hatched gynocratic rage”, is a phrase I came across in an issue of Bitch magazine, lo these many years ago, and I apologize for not being able to dig up the name of the author who originally coined it. She described it, more or less, as the phase every feminist woman goes through where she takes her first women’s studies course, suddenly sees and understands the pervasiveness of the damage and unfairness our society subjects women to, and spends a year or two completely pissed off. Most feminist women I know recall going through this period in one form or another; one always jokes that she’s relieved she got it out of the way when she was thirteen, like finishing your homework early.
Discovering that phrase was one of my click moments with feminism, when it really started to sink in that the knee-jerk gender hostility I’d encountered at my first college was not actually the be-all and end-all of feminist thought, and maybe I should start learning more. As I’ve written before, feminism made a really bad first impression on me. Over the years I’ve spoken to tons of other men, and a lot of women, who feel the same way. The first person they knew who actively called themselves a feminist tended to be… kinda ragey.
Not ragey, I just really love this photo.
Now, you can say I’m just doing the Tone Argument here, but honestly, this is more about marketing than anything else. There is nothing else in the set with feminism, in terms of a movement or philosophy that people broadly agree with all the principles of, and yet loathe being associated with the name of. We’ve all seen plenty of people going “Sure, I believe in gender equality, but I’m not a feminist!” You don’t really see a lot of folks going “Sure, I believe in detaching myself from desire so as to become free of the cycle of reincarnation, but I’m not a Buddhist!” Feminism is more popular as a concept, while being less popular as a name, than anything else I can think of. Obviously, a lot of that is the ugly societal pushback against the gains of the feminist movement, but let’s not deny that a lot of the damage has also been self-inflicted.
It’s difficult; lord knows there are plenty of reasons to be mad at the kyriarchy; I’m mad at it right now. Denying activists’ right to be good and pissed off is to deny activism, and insisting that people only challenge power structures in ways that don’t ever make anyone uncomfortable mean you’re just propping up those structures. And yet, and yet. Feminism accidentally creates its own anti-evangelists, folks who must’ve skimmed Feminism Is For Everybody, because they go around telling various others “Well, it’s not for you, asshole!” That’s also propping up the power structures you’re trying to fight.
I’m not sure what’s to be done about this difficult phenomenon. Human nature tends to get overenthusiastic about new things, whether it’s New Relationship Energy in poly circles (aka the Fuzzy Pink Stupids) or that one friend of yours who just discovered anime or Bob Dylan or what have you, and can’t shut up about it. Discovery of the incredibly pervasive nature of gendered injustice combines the power of novelty with the power of legitimate outrage at something profoundly wrong, and it’s easy to overshoot.
Some feminists never leave this stage, of course, and it’d be nice if there was a special bar where they could hang out with all the MRAs who run on misogynistic resentment (I could have saved five extraneous words there, I suppose) and leave the rest of us alone. Most, though, outgrow it and learn to place things in context a little better. That’s fine, but it doesn’t solve the anti-evangelism problem. Too many people got told “Feminism’s not for you, asshole!” and thought “Well shit, I’ll take your word for it then.” Some of us, like me, later learn better. Others end up writing for Cosmopolitan, and that’s just horrible.
I don’t pretend to have a clear solution here. I’m just a moderately popular blogger who occasionally gets drafted for a typewriter fight. I’m curious what other folks’ stories are, though, your own tales of gynocratic rage and how you, one way or another, learned to move beyond that kind of simplistic nerve-twitch view of gender issues.
Of course, the positioning of feminism as a weapon in the gender wars that women can use against men, while pushed mostly by silly sitcoms, is probably also at fault here. Think of the “frivolously feminist” arguments that characters such as Jill Allen of Home Improvement, Carrie Hefferman of King of Queens, or Deborah Barone of Everybody Loves Raymond use to win arguments with their Dumb Sitcom Dad husbands. In these silly but mainstream shows, feminism is just a shouty way to win arguments with Tim, Doug, or Raymond about feelings, doing the dishes, or not deserving to have sex… Read more »
@Jo: Some of it might be what I have mentioned before, that I don’t compare him to doing everything, or even almost everything, right. To me, it’s not so much about about doing everything right, it’s more that he seems contradictory at times. I guess I’ve found out I have more tolerance for somewhat speculative claims than for claims which are not supported by the evidence presented. But then again, I like a lot of flawed writing too, just rarely in the evo-psych category. But I’m curious (I won’t mind in the least if you don’t answer, this is FAR… Read more »
AB: “Ah, that explains it, I accidentally looked in the newer section, where he answered …” etc. You have put me in a strange place (or maybe I put myself there, or it is a collaboration). Putting on my critical hat I mostly agree with you in your point-by-point critique of him. But STILL I think he is a good read. And still I would recommend him to very many people. Some of it might just be some kind of writer-reader chemistry, I like his temperament and style. Most of my friends are reasonably flawed, and reasonably decent. As most… Read more »
But it’s a bit ironic that the stuff which took hold in popular culture consists almost entirely of concepts few modern psychologists consider valid (penis envy, castration anxiety, the Oedipus complex). It’s a bit like how many people don’t seem to know much about 60s and 70s radical feminism besides “all sex is rape” (which isn’t even the right quote). Would you be surprised that shrinks I saw to get an “official” diagnosis of being trans used Freudian discredited concepts? Namely they questioned the quality of relations with my mother. I found the questions utterly irrelevant. Though in that case… Read more »
@Jo: I don’t apply to a blog partly intended for entertainment and provocation the same stringent demands on presentation I would upon peer-reviewed articles. [snip] I have reread the the blogposts I intended when refering to “some on female social aggression in the older post section” Ah, that explains it, I accidentally looked in the newer section, where he answered a question from a psychotherapist about the hostility towards other girls she sees in her female teenage clients (and ended up participating in herself). Sorry, my bad. 🙂 The Bitch article isn’t much better though. The linked study (the 2006… Read more »
AB: Well, if you’re talking about the idea that women are supposed to be helpless, I don’t think it’s the most damaging aspect of chivalry for them, but other than that, I’m glad we’re on the same page. I should have said, “most commonly mentioned” rather than main. The common ground is nice, and by all means you’re more qualified to say how dangerous they are to women than I am. Chicken and egg situation. You’re right but unlike that that example the leniency we’re talking about here is something that actually needs to be addressed and can’t just be… Read more »
@RocketFrog: I meant “Freud’s theory of personality, specifically as it pertains to women”. You probably know much more about this than I do – I am nought but a humble computer scientist, and what I know about psychology is merely as an interested layman – but is Freud actually taken seriously by real psychologists anymore? All mental health professionals I have been in contact with have regarded him as a relic. (Getting into psychology-mode again, apologising in advance): Not himself, no. But many of his theories live on, though they have been altered and expanded upon. As Protagoras mentioned, the… Read more »
makomk: Daisy Deadhead: there is a huge fundamental difference between talking about your lived experiences and building some kind of philosophical edifice on top of it that involves telling other people that their own lived experiences are invalid or irrelevant, that they should shut up about them, that if they object to this they’re making it all about themselves and attacking other people’s rights… Okay, when I did I do all this? Hello? I am asking if things were different in different countries–is that okay to ask? Apparently I didn’t understand Jo’s question, or answer it correctly… and I did… Read more »
@Hugh Tipping:
Yeah, the ‘always’ part was hyperbole. Consider it retracted.
Then again, I have seen quite a few willing to deflect criticism of him. And if not Stalin, how about Marx?
@Danny: You’ll forgive me for not taking how you meant that. Been too many times I’ve seen that used in a tone to mock men who dare point out that the idea of chivalry isn’t the picnic its made out to be for men. And hopefully you’ll notice that I did mention one of the (probably) main things women are supposed to be just because they are women. I’m all for scraping the whole damn thing. Well, if you’re talking about the idea that women are supposed to be helpless, I don’t think it’s the most damaging aspect of chivalry… Read more »
Jo: The only thing you gave in response (at least in such a way I understood it was directed at me) was a comment on something I had neither asked nor made a statement on. Then you say I had pointed out something I had not pointed out. Jo, I apologize, but I sometimes have a hard time understanding people here. I think its an age thing, I thought I had replied properly, sorry. (?) In that case, I have no idea what you mean. I thought you had pointed out my affinity for movements, which I hadn’t really even… Read more »
AB: “But if you’re Scandinavian, hvad laver du så oppe på denne her tid?” (Rough translation: …, how come you are awake at this hour?) I live way up north, and my circadian rhythm has a strong tendency to go out of whack in the middle of winter, when there is almost no daylight at all, and in the middle of the summer, when there is no darkness at night. Also, that tuesday was the last day of a two and a half week christmas leave didn’t help in keeping regular hours. “He might be, or he might better fit… Read more »
@RocketFrog and @Schala
I think I was referring more specifically to secular humanism, but as you’ve both pointed out ‘humanism’ is really a philosophy rather than a movement. Thanks for clearing that up.
For example, I have noticed a few outspoken humanists like Christopher Hitchens hold misogynist views, or gloss over gender issues. Wasn’t he an atheist not long ago (above on this thread)? To me humanism is not a movement proper, it’s the name for a belief in the full equality of the sexes and in all domains (including trans and genderqueer people). If Christopher Hitchens holds misogynistic views and glosses over gender issues, he’s simply not humanist. It’s like him saying he’s left-handed when he’s obviously right-handed. It’s objectively false. If he claims to be humanist and still holds those beliefs,… Read more »
Glove: When I say “humanism”, I am not referring to the, uh, “non-religious” (?) movement sometimes called “secular humanism”, I am referring to the philosophy and associated movement that all human beings should be considered equal in rights, duties, dignity and value, solely on account of being human beings. By definition, you cannot follow that philosophy if you are a misogynist, misandrist, racist, homophobe or similar. Of course there are humanists who have a number of other viewpoints I find problematic, but the value of the fundamental equality of all human beings is the one part of my personal philosophy… Read more »
@RocketFrog
That seems like a good reason to prefer not to identify with feminism. However, if you don’t mind me saying, is that not also a problem with other labels and movements, including humanism? For example, I have noticed a few outspoken humanists like Christopher Hitchens hold misogynist views, or gloss over gender issues. Do you find that a problem? (I’m not trying to be antagonistic, I’m genuinely interested :))
Glove: There are also approximately as many feminist submovements (radical feminism, Marxist feminism, ecofeminism, queer feminism, etc.) as there are heavy metal subgenres. 😉 But it is precisely the fact feminism is a broad and inclusive philosophy and movement that means that it has to include even people with anti-humanist views: Nobody gets to take away Daly’s Feminist Movement Membership Card, because nobody had to give one to her in the first place. She must be considered a feminist for two reasons: She worked to improve women’s circumstances in society, and she self-identified as a feminist. When I said that… Read more »
@RocketFrog “Feminism to some extent needs to be inclusive of figures like Mary Daly, Valerie Solanas, Gail Dines et al., and that is precisely why I cannot conscientiously consider myself a feminist. ” I can see what you’re saying, but I would contest that actually feminism is very much a polyvocal, and, in many ways, un-cohesive movement right now. Feminism is often criticised because feminists are ‘arguing amongst themselves’ over many issues, which I personally see as simply the nature of the movement. There’s no one ‘feminism,’ after all 🙂 So basically I don’t think many feminists are as concerned… Read more »
@AB
Sure, I think I pretty much agree.
One random point, as someone who has studied quite a lot of primatology, some of Frans de Waal’s views on bonobos are actually pretty controversial. Something to keep in mind when reading.
AB: I meant “Freud’s theory of personality, specifically as it pertains to women”. You probably know much more about this than I do – I am nought but a humble computer scientist, and what I know about psychology is merely as an interested layman – but is Freud actually taken seriously by real psychologists anymore? All mental health professionals I have been in contact with have regarded him as a relic. Oh, and if Freud was a product of his time, I think people should re-evaluate the idea that women in Victorian times where held as superior to men in… Read more »
@JO: What’s wrong with psychology mode? Seems to be your element, eller kanske man ska säga “som fisken i vattnet”? (I assume you have that in danish as well?) Yes we do. But if you’re Scandinavian, hvad laver du så oppe på denne her tid? So he’s flawed. I still like him a lot. And I think he is, on average, more scientific in attitude than much of what I have seen as formal scientific research (peer-reviewed articles published in journals) in both psychology/psychotherapy and medicine. And definitely compared to the average blogger on Psychology Today, licensed psychologists and therapists… Read more »
@AGBirch: This is a type of the ‘why concentrate on x when y is more important’ argument People discussing gender issues in the West do so because they choose to do so, and it is not mutually exclusive with the awareness of, or activism for, other causes, such as the plight of women in a wide range of settings. There are many places to discuss women in Saudi Arabia, be it in the context of feminism, womanism, or another philosophy, but to talk about on this thread is a derail. I can’t speak for Daisy, but I believe there are… Read more »
Thanks to his history of personal attacks and generally uncivil comments, Orphan has been banned.
No. wrong of me. It was there. Rather tired. Sorry.
AB:
My answer is still in moderation, I think. I hope. Not here, anyway.