wow, what a week in comments! boy oh boy! all the criticism of feminism a girl can handle!
Well, the title of this post says it all. Let’s break it down, yes?
1. Feminists hate men. As Tigtog says over at Finally, a Feminism 101 blog,
“Feminists hate misogyny, not men. Kinda like that “hate the sin, not the sinner” thing, sometimes it’s easy to separate the behaviour from the enactor and sometimes it’s not.
But it’s understandable how sometimes criticisms of misogynists come across as generalisations about all men, when read by someone who isn’t used to the jargon shorthand and feminist perspectives. Time to lurk and learn.”
Well, yeah. Pretty much. But to make a further point, sure, some feminists DO hate men, usually with good reason, like that they’ve been raped or abused or mistreated by a man, or maybe by multiple men, maybe once, maybe for their whole lives. After all, patriarchy encourages reminding women at all times where they stand, and a lot of men are willing to do carry that out, sometimes with force.
And, as Sage explained recently, that makes all men suspect until proven innocent. And yeah, maybe that seems unfair, and maybe it sucks, and maybe it shouldn’t be that way. But in response, I say it shouldn’t HAVE TO be that way. Repeated histories of abuse and domination tend to make an oppressed group suspicious, wary. Like Sage said, it’s a survival mechanism. So instead of getting all pissed off that you’re being held under suspicion of misogyny, maybe you should extend your understanding a bit and think about what may have been that woman’s reality that would cause her to place you under suspicion. And, maybe you need to check your privilege (EVERYONE needs to GO AND READ THIS POST and ALL THE LINKS, and especially this one) and stop getting your nose out of joint when it’s pointed out to you that A) you actually have privilege that you haven’t earned, and B) you’re not actually doing anything to make the situation any better. by holding onto privilege and refusing to acknowledge that you even have it in the first place, you are participating in patriarchal subordination of women. Like I said earlier, oppression is made up of both subjugation and privilege. If you don’t experience one, you’ve got the other. And, for the gazillionth time, men are not oppressed under patriarchy. So do the math. And go check out this post about male privilege, while you’re at it. And then try to actually think about it instead of knee-jerking.
UPDATE: But apparently, male privilege doesn’t exist, feminists are just stupid.
2. Feminists don’t really want equality. Well, sure. We feminists just want to rule the world. That’s what this is all about. ;)
Here’s the thing: equality doesn’t mean bringing ourselves up to oppressor status. We don’t want to rule the world, because that would mean having power over someone else. We want to eliminate oppression based on gender differentiations that are socially constructed. And, since oppression is made up of both subjugation and privilege, that means eliminating unearned privilege. We don’t want unearned privilege, such like is given to men under patriarchy. We want nobody to be privileged over anyone else.
And here’s the other thing: you can’t treat unequals equally. That only furthers oppression (read: both subjugation and unearned privilege). And that’s not actually equality. So that means, for feminists, that the emphasis on our revolutionary work is always going to be on women. Why? Because men have the full weight of privilege afforded them as men by patriarchy behind them to further them along. And this is exactly what needs to be dismantled. Simply pretending that the playing field is level and that all players have come to the field as equals, is not even a shred helpful. It’s simply not true.
3. Feminists should count their blessings, take what they can get, be grateful for the scraps they’re given from patriarchy’s table. Well I’m sorry, but NO. THIS IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. I’m not going to sit and congratulate some guy in a comment thread for not being quite so bad as the misogynists just because he thinks women deserve equal pay, or that rape is evil, or that child molestors should be strung up by their balls, or that it’s cool his girlfriend makes more money than he does, or that he doesn’t catcall women in the street, or WHATEVER. Yeah, all of that is great. But it’s not enough.
I’m not going to sit back and quit pointing out male privilege when I see it rear its ugly head, just because you seem like a “nice guy” or because your girlfriend supports whatever you’re saying or because you would never dream of treating a woman so badly. That all may be true. However, it’s not really relevant. Good for you that you’re a decent human being who thinks other human beings should be treated with respect. But you know, when you come into a discussion, on a feminist blog, which should be treated like a space of solidarity between like-minded people where perhaps marginalized people can have their say without getting trampled all over by the dominant voices that oppress them everyday in their real lives, and you bring along all your baggage and privilege to wave in everyone’s face while simultaneously insisiting that you’re not like all those asshole misogynists and bigots, don’t be surprised if someone points out to you the inconsistancies in what you’re saying.
See, the world wouldn’t necessarily be a better place if there were more guys like so-and-so Privileged “nice guy” – chances are, it wouldn’t really change all that much, since Mr. Privileged “Nice Guy” actually condones the behaviour of misogynists, and contributes to gender oppression by not checking his privilege at the door. So no thanks, but fuck you very much for thinking of me, I’ll not take those scraps. They won’t fill my empty belly. I need something more substantial than what you’re dishing up.
UPDATE: It occurred to me I should fill my readers in on the specific comments that motivated this post, and the preceding post, yeah, I’m a miserable victim. Here are the specific comments that motivated this post:
Diver said:
I think you are taking a very bias opinion of what p-stone has to say just because of his Male priviledge [sic]…. you cannot accept p-stone because he is a man though he seemingly wants to try and understand the issue and bring up his own beliefs but yet because he is a man you try and turn everything around on him, if we want equality for everyone we have to allow it to everyone on the first go… If we want womens [sic] equality we need to treat each other with equal respect and I think because of todays [sic] society unfortunately there will always be people guys and yes even girls that take advantage of unaware prey. If there were more guys like p-stone around we would be alot [sic] better off than we are now.
Again, from the professional pick-up artists run woman tricking business to help guys get laid thread.
Is there ever a wrong time for an Andrea Dworkin quote?
“Have you ever wondered why we are not just in armed combat against you? It’s not because there’s a shortage of kitchen knives in this country. It is because we believe in your humanity, against all the evidence.”
No, schemanist, there is never a wrong time for Andrea Dworkin.
A concept she brought up in her writing that really stuck with me is that the construction of women doesn’t allow for women’s misuse… that when a woman is treated poorly, abusively, oppressively, etc., what is really happening is that she is being used in exactly the way she has been constructed to be used by patriarchy. A lot of the young women in my class last term couldn’t seem to wrap their head around this idea; they just saw Dworking as calling all women whores, when what she is really doing is illuminating the deeply disturbed nature of patriarchal constructions of womanhood. Just thought I’d throw that one out there for your thoughts.
Amen sister.
I’ve been lurking for a while and really enjoy your posts – intelligent and insightful.
No pathetic gratitude for scraps!
Schemanista-TOTALLY! I remember being awesomed by that one when I was reading Letters from a War Zone.
Thinking Girl: What I read in your post was a valiant attempt to explain some basic facts in a patient manner, and then as the post continued, it turned into a furious, incisive rant (and rightfully so!). What’s with this resurgence of feminist bloggers trying to explain the basics to the uninformed ones that come their way? I really admire the spirit but personally…I just don’t have the patience or the stamina for that.
Saorla – thanks so much, I’m glad you de-lurked and joined in the conversation!
RG – yeah, I know where you’re coming from. for a while I stopped moderating these kinds of comments right away because I didn’t have the energy to deal with them. It is exhausting, but the more this blog gains readership, the more these same basic problems come up over and over and over. So I figure, they have to be dealt with at some point, might as well make it into a post so hopefully more than just the person it’s intended for can learn something (or at the very least get put in his place). It seems like most of it comes from not understanding privilege. And it is definitely tiring… hence addressing it in a post that I can then refer to later. It’s really just laziness on my part. :)
I find that a lot of the time, men ( or white people, or affluent people [both groups that I’m in]) take feminism (or other such movements) as personalized attacks instead of critiques of larger social, political and cultural structures. It sort of leads back to that idea of the liberal individual subject: yes, it’s ALL ABOUT YOU, you unique snowflake not shaped by any historical or cultural forces at all ( which is, of course, the most privileged position you can take up…)
that said, feminist blogs are AWESOME! yours especially!
“you cannot accept p-stone because he is a man” Yeah, I feel so unaccepted by you ;-p
Nie – welcome, thanks for commenting. I think you’re totally right – it’s taken to be personal when what we’re doing is really an analysis and critique of unjust social structures of power. I completely agree – stupid fucking libertarianism!!!!! When is that epistemological and political philosophical position going to be overthrown by something more relational? God!
Marc Andre – yeah I know, right? I mean, I have a LOT of male readers, for a blog mostly about women’s issues, and most of those male readers are what I would consider allies to feminism and gender equality. It isn’t MALES I have a problem with. It’s MISOGYNY, in all its forms and flavours. People need to stop confusing the subject and the object, the argument and the arguer.
TG: You know I love you and all, but there are some things in the Seduction Community thread that just made me cringe on a Practical Level on Common Sense grounds. Ima not gunna start a fight here, I addressed it over at my place, but feminist theory and feminism HAS to blend with responsibility and real world assumptions at some point…and wardrobe is a part of that…as are the tactics of women in the dating scene and the SC.
Thinking girl
Disclaimer: As always throw the tomatoes if this reacts badly and I will try to see your point.
I view and see a few things very differently than you. I don’t believe natural equality is possible. True equality is artificial. It comes from the superiors restricting themselves in the name of equality to bring themselves equal. Many will grow tired of this and choose to re express their privilege while denying it is happening.
Another way to equailty is trade of specialties, this is the old method. I do this better and you do that better so we will merger and make a team. This is when the 50’s model was at it’s rarely seen best. All money was pooled and all resources were community property and all decisions were joint.
I believe if women want true equality the only way to achieve this is to become superior and then the decision is not in male hands. At that time equality is but a decision not a struggle.
Don’t forget that you don’t have a sense of humor either, because you don’t laugh at sexist jokes!
Steve, I may be wrong, but you seem to be saying to women “work harder,” which is reminiscent of the old “pull yourself up by your bootstraps.” There are many structural societal, economic, even biological factors that keep hard work from resulting in superiority or equality.
Also, if you are talking about the 1950s model as men are naturally better for work outside of the home and women are better at being housewives, so he goes out and earns a living while she stays home, you may want to revise that idea a bit. Sure, some people are talented in some ways and some people are talented in others, and they can compliment each other, but the 1950s was not the model for this sort of partnership.
By “equality” we feminists are essentially talking about being treated, heard, and valued as human beings in a world that automatically defines us as “less” or “not the norm.”
Steve,
Feminists haven’t wanted “equality” since the 70’s. What they want is to, if not eliminate, then mitigate the effect of patriarchy on their lives.
They need to get Men-As-A-Group, to treat them as people, then they can discuss “nice-to-haves” like “equality”. Property can’t sue for equality.
Oh, and if MAAG would stop beating them, raping them and killing them and enforcing dominance through a culture of fear and intimidation, that would probably be acceptable to even the most unreasonable feminist.
RenEv – yeah, I can understand that. But for christ sake, at least you are coming at it from a place of respect, and recognizing that patriarchy plays a role in the whole deal. However, my general response re: “common sense” is – whose common sense? why is it “common” sense? which relations of power are upheld by this “common” sense? I don’t wanna simply make any assumptions about this kind of stuff that’s been normalized by the patriarchal order. I’ll repost this comment at your place.
Steve – what Clio and Schemanista said (thanks ladies!). Also, I can understand where you’re coming from, wanting to take a less homogenizing view of individuals based on group identities and recognizing instead each individual’s special talents and abilities. I just don’t think we’re there yet. For now, I don’t advocate treating unequal people equally – and under this white male supremacy, nobody is equal.
TG: I need to out myself as a dude.
While I’m flattered to be considered an honorary woman, I want you to know the truth as a hedge against the day that I say something astoundingly stupid.
Clio
I think you may be missing my point. It is not women work Harder, but rather women dominate.
Not because this is tasteful or attractive but rather because this is the shortest way to your goal. It is like the thought “wouldn’t be nice if everyone were nice” it is an impossible thought as long as those who gain power do not share that view. If you want your view to be heard it must have some power and control behind it. In short achieve dominance and you can then have justice.
Thinking Girl
Yes Yes this is right. No one is equal, but also no one will ever be naturally equal. Equality comes from agreement to interact peacably and sensibly enough to trade skills and worth to create more. Sometimes equality does NOT make sense. A surgeon is not equal to the patient in an operating room. This is situational inequality and it makes sense. However on the street they are both citizens, equal in the law. The rub comes in the unofficial extra legal jockying for social position we all do on a minute to minute basis. This is where women need to establish dominance first to be heard later. You have seen couples amd you know there is never true equality. One is more in control of the relationship then the other, always. It may be kind and respectfull dominance but it is still dominance. The old model was to assume male dominance, it was sometimes a fiction that was politely given credence. Sometimes the wife was dominant but it was firmly and politely ignored. Now the fiction is equality. Couples are rarely equal. If we slide toward the societal assumption opposite to male dominance then a different set of assumptions will be made by society. A man trying to sell goods may be refused without his wifes signature. Or a mortgage may be signed without the husbands signature being essential… This is a possibilty.
If this were to come to pass then women as a group could then choose to be equal by asking that their husbands signature be included rather than cutting him out of the decision.
Then Equality is a simple decision, not a fight.
Steve: you’re eliding over the entire contextual argument that feminism makes. Your argument isn’t wrong in the abstract, but it doesn’t map well to reality.
The equality as a social contract cannot exist given all of the historic and cultural forces at work. The fact that a man sees a woman as a person and as an equal does not negate the argument that men as a class see women as a class as less than human. A woman’s worth at any level is still seen as being less than that of a man at the same level. Equality of opportunity is impossible under those circumstances. The cultural context called “patriarchy” has to change.
Schemanista – oops, my mistake! you know what it was? The “a” on “schemanista”, as silly as that sounds! thanks, thought – makes it even better, actually, since male allies are so needed.
Steve – I see what you’re saying. In order to have equality, you have to be in the position to decide to grant equality. The thing is, feminists don’t really want to “rule the world” so to speak – we don’t want to be in the position of dominance, to be in the position as women-as-a-group to oppress men-as-a-group (that is a helpful distinction, schemanista, thanks). We just want equal opportunity, we want equal treatment, we want equity. We don’t want to replace the patriarchy with a matriarchy – we don’t want any system of rule that emphasizes gender-specific roles at all. That’s the problem – we need to dismantle patriarchy and everything is dictates, especially gender roles that are based on arbitrary characteristics and ignore the true diversity of the human species.
By the way, I promised you a post about standpoint theory… it’s coming, in the works. I’m doing some research about it now, so stay tuned.
I really don’t understand this attitude, maybe someone could help me out? This weird attitude I see all the feminist spouting… “yeah, I know men have oppressed women every fucking chance they get, but rilly we luv youuuu!”
Why do you continue to “love” someone who only keeps you down? Why do you continue to “love” a group who only seeks new excuses for the abuses to continue?
Doesn’t this seem like the definition of a masochist?
The answer is usually as you put it “hate the behavior, not the person”. But when most of the group does the hateful thing over and fucking over, seems like only a total doormat would continue to tolerate the entire group just for the sake of a very few who aren’t like that.
Face it, if most men didn’t enable misogyny to continue, then it would have stopped yesterday.
My attitude is – get the fuck away from me and come back when you can act like a human being. But this attitude of mine is somehow wrong? Why? And this attitude of mine is somehow supposed to be tied to some sort of mental illness or trauma – as if a rational person could not possibly come to this conclusion?
Seems to me like not associating with abusive assholes is the heathy thing to do. If someone continues to make excuses for why I must accept his abuse, wouldn’t the smart thing for me to do would be to get rid of him and move on with my life without the abusive personalities in it?
I really don’t understand why so many feminists profess undying luvvv for the group which continues the injustice.
Seems downright insane.
Johanna – thanks for your comment, although I was a bit puzzled by it….
I guess, for me, feminist is about not being treated by others “as a woman” instead of “as a person” – recognizing that everyone is different, and that the generalizations about “women as a group” are damaging to individual women. So, while I understand and absolutely condone the attitude that “men are sexism suspects until proven innocent,” ultimately treating individual men as a group does the same thing as feminists hate about the treatment of women.
Also, for me, ultimately, I am heterosexual. So I’ve gotta reconcile my desire for and love for particular individual men with all of this, at some point.
does that help?
[…] isn’t that sweet? Jump to Comments A comment from vimi, whoever the fuck he is, on this post. […]
[…] just don’t comprehend, and so on and so on. I responded a bit to these general comments here, here, here and […]
This post rocks… so hard…
When women are ignored as people, it’s not too difficult to be accused of hating men when women criticize them for that negligence.
But, what men don’t know about women’s bodies would fill encyclopedias. It’s possible women can’t really know men’s bodies either. But let’s face it, women’s bodies are more complex, as are their needs.
Nearly every activity known to man, men and women do differently because of gender, including thinking.
Certainly body dynamics requires different approaches for women than for men since the strength women have is not as uniformly distributed as is male strength. Hence, trainers for women must have a variety of different concerns. Women cannot be treated as men.
If the ergonomics world tells us anything, it is that women’s seating should be different: that why they make men’s chairs, and ladies chairs – for the comfort and convenience of each.
Just as clothing is not expected to be one size fits all, so nothing else can be designed to be a one size fits all. But, too often the world is approached as if men counted and women don’t, ignoring the golden opportunities for productivity that works because needs are different.
The decision, therefore, to ignore women is little more than a foreclosure of all possible marketing and production capabilities in design for women. There is a reason small cars are driven mostly by women, known to be smaller than men.
Women have had to adapt to a male oriented world for so long they don’t know how to care for themselves sufficiently to demand a world also made for women. Isn’t it about time?
[…] Perhaps in a parallel world, where all the edges are smoother and everyone’s benevolent, this is merely a question of perspective: there is no problem when so many people don’t see it. Here and now, I conceive of this as a blind spot blotting out the view. The struggle for gender equality began to seem so familiar that it ceased to be treated seriously. Instead, it became common to approach it as a fad. Moreover, as a fad that is long passé. It’s in that smirk followed by “so you’re a feminist,” in all the nonsensical debates about ‘militant feminism.’ What those debates truly are about is best explained here and here. […]
[…] male privilege, et cetera. And– particularly when it’s described in terms such as “privilege you haven’t earned” and “holding onto your privilege”– I find it an odd choice of word. I’ve […]