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.
