Sympathy with the devil
Dec. 30th, 2008 11:31 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
alias_sqbrThis is a very pondery post, I tried writing something considered for January Down Under Feminists Carnival but got this instead. Disclaimer 3b applies, and it's written in the context of my other posts about feminism and gender. Also please keep in mind that the point of this post is "How to make feminism better" not "How does feminism suck". There are LOTS of places on the internet where non-feminists rant about how much feminists suck, but not so many where feminists get together and constructively criticise the movement, please don't derail the conversation.
Something I've been pondering for a while is my uncomfortableness with the more extreme anti-man edges of feminism. The problem with of course is that 99.9% of people who complain about feminism being "anti-man" actually mean "pro-equality": consciously or unconsciously they think men deserve more than women (more power, more authority, more leeway etc) and so any time someone challenges that it feels "unfair". See also Q: Since When Is Being Criticized Like Having Your Limbs Blown Off by a Landmine? A: Since That Criticism Came from Someone with Less Privilege Than You. And let me make it clear: I'm not talking about the particular goals etc a feminist might be fighting for, or the "tone" with which she pursues them, or a justifiable anger and shirtiness, I'm talking about a completely dismissive and unsympathetic attitude towards all men under all circumstances on principle for being men(*). This attitude can extend to any woman (or person of more complicated gender) who is seen as being too much in cahoots with the patriarchy. Also this is a pattern of behaviour some feminists exhibit at some times, I'm not trying to paint all or certain feminists as Bad People.
So I've tended to dismiss these concerns as internalised sexism on my part, in combination with my tendency to wish everyone conformed more to my rather narrow ideal of human interaction. The pros and cons of that ideal being a whole nother subject, but I don't see any point (and can see several dangers) in ranting about how feminists in particular should be more open minded and compassionate when what I really mean is that I think everyone should be more open minded and compassionate. (I hope I haven't done that in this post)
And men can't understand what it's like to experience sexism, and the Patriarchy (as a system of oppression, not a group of people) really is this horrible, subtle power structure which causes huge amounts of suffering and is incredibly hard to fight against. And part of that fight is supporting and privileging female voices which have been drowned out for so long. And I totally understand why feminists get so angry at sexists and sexism, I get pretty angry myself.
But reading MEN AND FEMINISM and Five Things White Activists Should Never Say recently I started thinking about how this relates to a tendency for feminists to want to divide the world neatly into feminists on the one hand (a sisterhood of Good Moral women with a unified experience and vision) and anti-feminists on the other (sexist men and their cronies, working to support the evil Patriarchy which is responsible for all the trouble of Women) Something that really annoys me is the way this can lead to "If you were a REAL feminist you'd agree with me, since you don't you're obviously just a tool of the patriarchy" arguments, when the person being attacked is clearly heavily committed to the same basic feminist principles(**) they just have a different idea of where it should lead.
Women do not all have the same experience: there's all the complex intersections with race, sexuality, class etc, plus more subtle differences based on interests and personality. My experiences being passive, moderately conventionally attractive and interested in "male" subjects will have been quite different to those of a stunningly beautiful or conventionally unattractive woman who is assertive and aggressive and interested in more "female" subjects. And the needs, oppressions and experiences of non-white, non-australian, GLBT etc women will be very different again.
Now mainstream (mostly white) feminists have made some efforts to include the diverse voices of different women. But is a white woman working towards better rights for POC women all that different to a white man working for the rights of white women? We certainly don't seem any better at it.
Where I think this kneejerk anti-male rhetoric gets most destructive is in attitudes to those who don't fit conventional gender divisions. I've posted about transphobic feminism before, and I think prejudice towards trans and intersex people unavoidable if we insist on the existence of a clear gender binary and act as if femaleness is directly proportional to oppression despite clear evidence that gender ambiguity brings a whole slew of different issues. (Not always worse, but different. Looking/acting male for part of your life is going to give certain advantages and change your experience)
But this can affect cismen as well. I was reading a post which said "If people are talking about rape, don't say 'But men get raped too!" it's derailing". Which is in general a perfectly good piece of advice, but a man replied saying "I understand your point, but I'm a male rape victim, and any time I try to talk about my experiences I get told I'm being derailing, which is unfair". The OP apologised and clarified, but several other women were all "But can't you understand that it derails the conversation?", getting caught up in the general principle without acknowledging this particular person's experience.
I think the only way to deal with these issues without throwing our hands in the air and sticking with the status quo (which I am not in favour of :)) is to become aware of the complex intersections and interactions of gender with other identities and experience. Also it's important for POC/gay etc men not to dismiss the opinions of feminists (especially POC/gay etc feminists!) on the basis that we're all racist/homophic etc. Something I haven't really seen discussed much is how to deal with the situation where you, say, have a gay man arguing with straight women about a situation affecting both. Yes, men have male privilege and this affects their objectivity with respect to gender, and yes straight women have straight privilege and this affects their objectivity with respect to to sexuality, but since these are both true at the same time I don't see any easy way to tease apart whose privilege is making who blinkered with regards to any given difference of perception involving both gender and sexuality. I guess you could ask the opinion of lesbian and bisexual women :)
What is not acceptable is saying "Oh anyone who does that isn't a real feminist". Because pretty much every human who has ever existed does stuff like this sometimes, so by that logic noone is a feminist. And it leads to all that terrible "But she can't be racist, because she's nice" crap. And there is no one single "right feminist attitude".
Something which struck me this morning is another reason feminists may not wish to acknowledge intersectionailty. Now the obvious reasons are that it's (a) hard and (b) requires the same acknowledgement of privilege that makes men so resistant to feminism etc.
But it also requires giving up our status as innocent morally unimpeachable Victims of The Patriarchy. It's a lot easier to fight oppression if you can demonise your oppressors and see your fellow activists as like minded comrades working towards exactly the same goals. If you have to create shades not only of grey but of multiple colours and textures then you can't comfort yourself that way any more. The man who oppresses you with sexism may be being oppressed by you with regards to race or ability. You may be inadvertently upsetting a fellow comrade-in-arms with your homophobia. The woman who seems to be supporting the patriarchy by arguing against your cause may in fact be fighting against a particular power structure which only affects those of her class. And if we succeed, and the Patriarchy is dismantled..well the world won't be perfect, there'll still be classism and racism and ablism and all that. Which is kind of dispiriting.
This didn't end up in a very cheery place did it? But none of this means we can't achieve anything, it just means we can't get complacent or let the desire for momentum and cohesiveness drown out different experiences on both sides.
(*)To anyone who think this is true of all feminists please read Feminist 101: Why do you feminists hate men?.
(**)Of course not all feminists have the same "basic principles", but sometimes they do and still come to different conclusions.
Something I've been pondering for a while is my uncomfortableness with the more extreme anti-man edges of feminism. The problem with of course is that 99.9% of people who complain about feminism being "anti-man" actually mean "pro-equality": consciously or unconsciously they think men deserve more than women (more power, more authority, more leeway etc) and so any time someone challenges that it feels "unfair". See also Q: Since When Is Being Criticized Like Having Your Limbs Blown Off by a Landmine? A: Since That Criticism Came from Someone with Less Privilege Than You. And let me make it clear: I'm not talking about the particular goals etc a feminist might be fighting for, or the "tone" with which she pursues them, or a justifiable anger and shirtiness, I'm talking about a completely dismissive and unsympathetic attitude towards all men under all circumstances on principle for being men(*). This attitude can extend to any woman (or person of more complicated gender) who is seen as being too much in cahoots with the patriarchy. Also this is a pattern of behaviour some feminists exhibit at some times, I'm not trying to paint all or certain feminists as Bad People.
So I've tended to dismiss these concerns as internalised sexism on my part, in combination with my tendency to wish everyone conformed more to my rather narrow ideal of human interaction. The pros and cons of that ideal being a whole nother subject, but I don't see any point (and can see several dangers) in ranting about how feminists in particular should be more open minded and compassionate when what I really mean is that I think everyone should be more open minded and compassionate. (I hope I haven't done that in this post)
And men can't understand what it's like to experience sexism, and the Patriarchy (as a system of oppression, not a group of people) really is this horrible, subtle power structure which causes huge amounts of suffering and is incredibly hard to fight against. And part of that fight is supporting and privileging female voices which have been drowned out for so long. And I totally understand why feminists get so angry at sexists and sexism, I get pretty angry myself.
But reading MEN AND FEMINISM and Five Things White Activists Should Never Say recently I started thinking about how this relates to a tendency for feminists to want to divide the world neatly into feminists on the one hand (a sisterhood of Good Moral women with a unified experience and vision) and anti-feminists on the other (sexist men and their cronies, working to support the evil Patriarchy which is responsible for all the trouble of Women) Something that really annoys me is the way this can lead to "If you were a REAL feminist you'd agree with me, since you don't you're obviously just a tool of the patriarchy" arguments, when the person being attacked is clearly heavily committed to the same basic feminist principles(**) they just have a different idea of where it should lead.
Women do not all have the same experience: there's all the complex intersections with race, sexuality, class etc, plus more subtle differences based on interests and personality. My experiences being passive, moderately conventionally attractive and interested in "male" subjects will have been quite different to those of a stunningly beautiful or conventionally unattractive woman who is assertive and aggressive and interested in more "female" subjects. And the needs, oppressions and experiences of non-white, non-australian, GLBT etc women will be very different again.
Now mainstream (mostly white) feminists have made some efforts to include the diverse voices of different women. But is a white woman working towards better rights for POC women all that different to a white man working for the rights of white women? We certainly don't seem any better at it.
Where I think this kneejerk anti-male rhetoric gets most destructive is in attitudes to those who don't fit conventional gender divisions. I've posted about transphobic feminism before, and I think prejudice towards trans and intersex people unavoidable if we insist on the existence of a clear gender binary and act as if femaleness is directly proportional to oppression despite clear evidence that gender ambiguity brings a whole slew of different issues. (Not always worse, but different. Looking/acting male for part of your life is going to give certain advantages and change your experience)
But this can affect cismen as well. I was reading a post which said "If people are talking about rape, don't say 'But men get raped too!" it's derailing". Which is in general a perfectly good piece of advice, but a man replied saying "I understand your point, but I'm a male rape victim, and any time I try to talk about my experiences I get told I'm being derailing, which is unfair". The OP apologised and clarified, but several other women were all "But can't you understand that it derails the conversation?", getting caught up in the general principle without acknowledging this particular person's experience.
I think the only way to deal with these issues without throwing our hands in the air and sticking with the status quo (which I am not in favour of :)) is to become aware of the complex intersections and interactions of gender with other identities and experience. Also it's important for POC/gay etc men not to dismiss the opinions of feminists (especially POC/gay etc feminists!) on the basis that we're all racist/homophic etc. Something I haven't really seen discussed much is how to deal with the situation where you, say, have a gay man arguing with straight women about a situation affecting both. Yes, men have male privilege and this affects their objectivity with respect to gender, and yes straight women have straight privilege and this affects their objectivity with respect to to sexuality, but since these are both true at the same time I don't see any easy way to tease apart whose privilege is making who blinkered with regards to any given difference of perception involving both gender and sexuality. I guess you could ask the opinion of lesbian and bisexual women :)
What is not acceptable is saying "Oh anyone who does that isn't a real feminist". Because pretty much every human who has ever existed does stuff like this sometimes, so by that logic noone is a feminist. And it leads to all that terrible "But she can't be racist, because she's nice" crap. And there is no one single "right feminist attitude".
Something which struck me this morning is another reason feminists may not wish to acknowledge intersectionailty. Now the obvious reasons are that it's (a) hard and (b) requires the same acknowledgement of privilege that makes men so resistant to feminism etc.
But it also requires giving up our status as innocent morally unimpeachable Victims of The Patriarchy. It's a lot easier to fight oppression if you can demonise your oppressors and see your fellow activists as like minded comrades working towards exactly the same goals. If you have to create shades not only of grey but of multiple colours and textures then you can't comfort yourself that way any more. The man who oppresses you with sexism may be being oppressed by you with regards to race or ability. You may be inadvertently upsetting a fellow comrade-in-arms with your homophobia. The woman who seems to be supporting the patriarchy by arguing against your cause may in fact be fighting against a particular power structure which only affects those of her class. And if we succeed, and the Patriarchy is dismantled..well the world won't be perfect, there'll still be classism and racism and ablism and all that. Which is kind of dispiriting.
This didn't end up in a very cheery place did it? But none of this means we can't achieve anything, it just means we can't get complacent or let the desire for momentum and cohesiveness drown out different experiences on both sides.
(*)To anyone who think this is true of all feminists please read Feminist 101: Why do you feminists hate men?.
(**)Of course not all feminists have the same "basic principles", but sometimes they do and still come to different conclusions.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-12-30 02:48 am (UTC)Doesn't that mean that they're actually committed to a different cause, but just happen to use the same word to describe it?
(Cameron's disclaimer: I'm not a feminist and have no particular desire to be one or sympathise with one, so I just skimmed this post briefly.)
no subject
Date: 2008-12-30 03:10 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-12-30 06:35 am (UTC)The implication of that saying - that expressing a POV different from another feminists' partyline can only mean false consciousness - dismisses the capacity for genuine consciousness raising outside orthodoxies, alliance building..and just plain robust debate of ideas.
It's just contrary: you need to be more liberated in your thinking..so shut up and let me tell you how!!
no subject
Date: 2008-12-30 07:21 am (UTC)Hear, hear!
I must say, nothing turned me against 'feminists' quite like spending several years hanging around Murdoch Uni, and having to deal with the rabidly orthodox 'Feminists' that lurked around the Student Guild.
Which is not to say I'm against equal right/privileges for women, far from it. I just think there should be equal rights for everyone, regardless of gender, orientation, race or politics.
Sadly, this idea seemed to make me (somehow) even more of a Tool Of The Patriarchy to these hateful people.
(Years later I was much amused to see several of my queer activist friends shudder at the mere mention of the Murdoch Dykes, and how unhelpful they can be.)
no subject
Date: 2008-12-30 09:53 am (UTC)Similarly, I am personally comfortable with being told to shut up and listen about race/sexuality etc, anything where I'm at the powerful end of a power imbalance and the person criticising me is not.
no subject
Date: 2008-12-30 10:07 am (UTC)This I have a great deal of issue with, as I utterly refuse to buy into, (or even accept,) the idea that because group a is/has been/claims to be or been oppressed by group b, group a has the right to turn around and oppress group b in return. If that's the gist of your argument, then I'll tell you to f*** off, regardless of whether I'm personally part of group a, b or k.
(*) Note, this is painting with a very broad brush, and I claim neither that all people claiming to be feminists at Murdoch in the mid-90s like this, nor even some of them all the time. I'm just saying that enough of them were, long and loud enough to leave that very unfavourable impression from this distance.
Note also: Disclaimer 1a applies, as I've been up since 3am, and am now just a touch hot&tired.
no subject
Date: 2008-12-30 10:32 am (UTC)1) I am aware that as a straight, Caucasian male living in urban Australia, I am the beneficiary of a whole slew of societal privileges
and
2) It is pretty much impossible to really grasp the extent of these privileges for me, because an inherent part of the SWM privilege in this country is invisible.
no subject
Date: 2008-12-30 10:46 am (UTC)Righto. I was moderately sure that's the sort of thing you were talking about, but wanted to cover my bases in case you had a problem with ever being told "shut up and let me tell you" about gender/sexism, as well as the case where you didn't mean that, but someone reading your comment interpreted it that way.
Yeah, I'm hot&tired too, it's making me a bit paranoid about being misinterpreted :/ (Also apparently "The pot only lies on one side". I think I need a nap...)
Anyway, I do get where you're coming from. I'm straight but still feel comfortable strongly disagreeing with those lesbian seperatists(*) who believe (a) all men are evil and (b) all women in heterosexual relationships are traitors to the feminist cause.
(*)And I'm not saying this is all of them, but I have very rarely encountered this attitude
no subject
Date: 2008-12-30 06:46 pm (UTC)Such position is fairly disrepectful of bisexual women, transwomen, transmen, lesbians who are raising male children, and a number of other queer folk, including those queers who experience multiple oppressions and who see fit to join cause with men who share their non-queer oppressions. (But I'm sure nothing in this paragraph is news to you.)
What may be news to you is that, not all of these "lesbian separatists" may even be actual lesbians -- there are a number of straight "feminists" out there who appropriated lesbian sexuality as a cog for their own warped ideas of utopia. I'm not sure how bad the situation is currently -- lesbian separatists are not my social circle -- but a generation back there was a lot of trouble with straight feminists calling themselves lesbians, taking over lesbian spaces, and then attempting to police actual lesbian sexuality. I know leatherdykes who have physically recoiled from me when I told them I was a feminist (and who then spent a while thereafter regarding me with open distrust), because the feminist appropriation of lesbianism was so painful and harmful, and said leatherdyke I was talking to was still carrying the wounds.
no subject
Date: 2008-12-31 02:56 am (UTC)Wow, that must have been.. annoying. Something I've been pondering for a while is the way people who wish to break with mainstream in one way appropriate and stereotype the experience and identity of people who are forced out of the mainstream due to another prejudice. I can imagine the separatists being all "Lesbianism is about making stand against male privilege!" and the actual lesbians going "No, it's about being attracted to women". This is something that's on my mind as a straight woman who reads and writes femslash.
no subject
Date: 2008-12-31 07:31 am (UTC)*is deeply, personally horrified*
But sadly, this doesn't surprise me at all. I wish it did, though.
no subject
Date: 2008-12-30 09:34 am (UTC)Absolutely. (And really, we're all tools of the patriarchy sometimes, the patriarchy is tricksy like that) I was going to say "But some women are pretty misogynistic while claiming to be feminist" but I think even then it's usually better to say they're wrong rather than that they're "not really feminists".
no subject
Date: 2008-12-30 07:22 am (UTC)Yes, this. I think feminism won't progress until we get more visibilty/skills around pluralism across networks. But also, there's a real need for feminist discussion that centers womens experiences in hetero-relations with men when things are mostly OK.
Not in the sense of being appeasing to people who whine about feminism not caring about any men. More in the sense that the intimacies and daily routines of functional hetero relations are a huge part of womens lives, and an area where men's socialization about gender is likely to have included blind spots about their impact on women.
Yet feminist material on womens POV of abusive males or awesome women tends to get more attention re: provoking responses.
no subject
Date: 2008-12-30 07:24 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-12-30 10:06 am (UTC)I remember the first time I saw someone post about the Housework Problem and I was like "Oh god it's not just us!" I felt much better, and gained extra energy for bugging
no subject
Date: 2009-01-04 06:11 am (UTC)indeed. I found myself having "feminist angst" the year that I shaved my head as a fundraiser for research into 'men's cancers'. And then gave myself a virtual whop up the head, when I looked around to see that the three people most important in my life are male (the set of people has changed since then). There was a remarkable amount of guilt (internalised, not from any external source) that if I was going to be sacrificing anything, it should be for the greater good of women.
no subject
Date: 2009-01-05 12:15 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-12-30 07:23 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-12-30 10:31 am (UTC)Glad it's food for thought. Your comments have been interesting, and my brief moment of "Wait is he saying all feminists are bad? No, no, just those particular ones, that's fair enough" reminded me to add a "Please no generic rants about the evils of feminism" disclaimer :) (This is an open post, you never know who will drive by)
My computer just said "The radish was angry at the fishing spot" for no apparent reason. I think I may be going mad...
no subject
Date: 2008-12-30 10:39 am (UTC)"Wait is he saying all feminists are bad? No, no, just those particular ones, that's fair enough"
Actually, it was more "All fundies are bad, and these ones just happen to self-identify as feminists" =)
I am absolutely in favour of feminism if you define it as equality for women.
My computer just said "The radish was angry at the fishing spot" for no apparent reason.
Well, yes, the fishing spot is frequently and deliberately obnoxious, especially towards those of a root vegetable background. ;)
I think I may be going mad...
Cool, while you're there, could you kip me a smoker?
*goes to bed before he starts making even less sense*
no subject
Date: 2008-12-31 03:01 am (UTC)I think I may be going mad...
Cool, while you're there, could you kip me a smoker?
Stop messing with my head :)
no subject
Date: 2008-12-31 07:44 am (UTC)When I get overly tired/stressed/bored my inner Absurdist comes out, cackling maniacally and rubbing his pawses together.
*picture an anthro-otter mix of the Artful Dodger and Fagin*
Got that picture solidly in your mind now?
Good. *smiles evilly*
no subject
Date: 2009-01-02 06:50 am (UTC):)
no subject
Date: 2008-12-30 06:23 pm (UTC)I agree, it is unfair. It's an intersection that women should be paying some attention to, especially since rape of men (in my limited knowledge of it) ties closely with issues that are solidly feminist issues: patriarchical enforcement of gender roles and the "right" kind of male power, societal powerlessness of teens and children, the assumed non-value of individuals who do sex work, etc.
Yes, some men bring that point up to derail the conversation. But others bring it up to try to improve the conversation. It's worth figuring out which is which.
:: Yes, men have male privilege and this affects their objectivity with respect to gender... ::
Yes, gay men have male privilege. (Oh my god, yes.) But there are some gender issues that gay men are more objective about than straight women are, because straight privilege is deeply entangled with gender-normativity-privilege (which I'm not calling cisgender privilege here, at least not without a lot more thought, because I don't want to appropriate trans experience nor deny that I have cisgender privilege), which many straight women possess. Women and feminism have less of a monopoly on gender-related oppression than they tend to think they do.
:: I guess you could ask the opinion of gay women :) ::
Finally! I get to be the expert! Bwahahahaha! I'm gonna make up a bunch of crap and you'll never know!
Although, er, can I please not be a "gay woman"? I'm not the female version of a gay man. Gay experience and lesbian experience are pretty distinct things (and very separate communities for the most part, at least here in the States), even to the point that some lesbians feel that the ubiquitous lumping of G and L together is appropriative, male-privilegey and straight-privilegey.
no subject
Date: 2008-12-31 03:22 am (UTC)Absolutely. Male rape victims are not the enemy, they're victims of the same stuff we are.
Women and feminism have less of a monopoly on gender-related oppression than they tend to think they do.
Oh, yes, well put. Way to sum up my whole post in one sentence :)
Finally! I get to be the expert! Bwahahahaha! I'm gonna make up a bunch of crap and you'll never know!
Curses, you've found the fatal flaw in my plan!
Although, er, can I please not be a "gay woman"? I'm not the female version of a gay man
Crap, sorry, I knew that but my venn-diagram-ing maths brain took over for a bit there *edits*.
no subject
Date: 2009-01-04 06:19 am (UTC)the queer* community in the city where Dr S lives is much less fractured than many other places**, and I have met at least one woman who identified as a 'gay lady' (or similar term). Whether Dr S has or not, I have no knowing. My perception is that it is a term that has gone out of fashion, and thus is more likely to be used by older women (I'm thinking of women of my mother's age, which doesn't help you much...)
* this is the term that I'm comfortable with. It is the term I self-identify with, and the word I use for the community that I'm involved in that is grouped by sexuality, rather than any other commonality.
** I've not travelled a lot, so I only know a bit from personal experience, but I have learnt from talking with people.
no subject
Date: 2009-01-08 07:34 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-01-13 07:03 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-01-14 01:33 am (UTC)