I've struggled with feminism for a long time, and have felt generally schizophrenic about the whole idea since probably junior high. It's been hard for me mostly because if you say that you're not 100% on board with feminism you tend to get lumped in with the misogynists, and that's certainly not descriptive of me; that being said I am certainly not 100% behind feminism as I have often encountered it. What's stuck in my craw with the majority of the feminist approaches I've found is that they seemed to have sprung up as as a polemic to misogyny and as such they end up turning into righteously indignant misandry masquerading as real change. I very much believe that gender equality is an essential component of a healthy psyche and society, but as long as the discussion is predicated on a polemic paradigm I don't foresee much progress in the future. If it were possible, however, to move towards a more dialectic approach to gender relations ... well, then, we might could be getting somewheres.
The upshot of all this thinking about reworking the antagonistic concepts in gender relations has me thinking about the whole idea of pitching women's rights to men. In my experience, presentations about gender relations have focused on the damage that inequality has wrought on women and I completely agree that gender inequality has visited a host of evils on the women of our culture. I am not a woman, so I can't fully empathize with the experience, but I fully believe that cultural messages about the feminine have a profound impact on self esteem, efficacy, and perceived vocational options for the females. This approach no doubt has moral justification, but can easily end in the polemic and antagonistic mess mentioned above. What gets lost in the shuffle, however, and where the dialectical approach brings some wiggle room is how damaging women's inequality is to men. Discrimination necessitates dehumanization, and dehumanizing the feminine is a profound tragedy. Dehumanization of the feminine is devaluing the love of a mother, discounting the exhilaration of erotic connection, and denying the joy of providing nurture. No wonder so many guys today hide their faces in microbrews and fantasy football stat sheets and interminable rounds of Halo ODST. Men: Gender relations isn't about being guilted or intimidated into acting in a politically correct manner, it's about recognizing the incalculable value of the feminine in both the women around you as well as in your own self.
I'm still polishing my ideas on the subject, and if you're a guy or a girl or know one of either, I'd love to hear what you have to say about the topic.
7 comments:
I've been thinking about this topic a lot lately. Nothing deep or fancy, mostly thinking about it through the lens of motherhood. Many of my friends are choosing names for their daughters that are traditionally male, such as Riley, Michael, Paris and Ariel. Yet, no one is considering naming their son Melissa, Patricia, or Christy. Not that they should.
Lots of my friends will supplement their baby girls' wardrobe with hand-me-downs from big brother. No one plans to supplement their son's wardrobe with clothes from big sister unless they have no choice financially.
Being a tomboy is cute. But boys who want to dress nicely are pigeonholed into an assumed preference.
Worldwide, things are different. But my American experience is that borrowing names, fashion, etc from boys is cute and cool. Borrowing these things from girls is degrading and embarrassing. It's not that I want change in these specific areas. But I don't love that feminine preferences are uncool.
-Melissa Stephenson
Nice post, Micah! I think one of the interesting connundrums we get into when talking about "feminism" is that we apply the same term to myriad ideas. I think that there is no such thing as "feminism", but there are many feminisms, and this makes things confusing, for example, when someone asks you point blank if you're a feminist. I do think that you don't have to subscribe to every idea that has ever been included under the umbrella term in order to be a feminist; you can't, anyways, because there is so much debate and disagreement among feminists about what the goals, objectives, methods, etc. of "feminism" should be. Personally, I don't associate misandry with feminism, and it's no part of my feminism (and I'm card-carrying feminist). My feminism is polemical against unjust systems, which pit groups of people against each other, and set some groups of people above others. The problem is the system(s), and not, in general, the individuals caught in the system (though I do think that individuals can make choices to be part of the problem or part of the solution). I agree that a structurally sexist society is harmful to both men and women (though let's make no mistake who bears the brunt of this harm). Likewise, our structurally racist society harms white people, too, though again, let's be clear who gets harmed more by this arrangement. The harm that the group on top experiences is well worth talking about and adressing very frankly and openly, as long as it doesn't overshadow those beneath. This, I think, is a difficult but important tension to struggle with.
I'm inclined, at least in my head, to think you really are a feminist according to my understanding, though I won't call you one if you don't want. It's just that it's so shocking how often you do meet people who believe that the shape, size, color, etc. of someone's body really should determine their lot in life, and so anyone who believes that women and men should be given equal opportunity to make their own life choices, should be equally valued and respected, is "feminist enough," or at least has enough of the same fundamental moral assumptions as I do to be able to talk about it.
I would say that as someone who has lost out on things for being a white male, I have been harmed. I'm not sure how it's possible to quantify who gets harmed the most.
I would also say that many many males paint their nails, wear women's jeans, and are dressing more and more "feminine" every day.
I definitely still feel sexism on a near daily basis in academia. How conversations take place, how often men cut off women when they are speaking, the crude jokes, and in my discipline the very consequential (in terms of getting a job, getting published, etc.) bias in favor of research on "real security concerns" like bombs and rockets (nuclear weapons, nuclear weapons in Russia, nuclear weapons in China, nuclear weapons in Iran, you get the picture) over the "softer" subjects of hunger, AIDs, development, and human security more broadly. And who dominates the "hard security" arena? Men. And thus who dominates the field? Men. There are 4 women in my class of 17. The nat'l average for women political scientists is ~30%. It's nuts.
As for the type of feminist you describe in your post, though, Micah, I haven't met many of them. Most women I know (who would call themselves feminists) are pushing for gender equality, not polemical man-hating. In many ways, I think your post has created an unhelpful image of feminists as extremists, which I'd take issue with. Or maybe I've just drunk the Kool-Aid... :)
-M.
"they end up turning into righteously indignant misandry masquerading as real change." I take issue with this comment for several reasons: 1) this is assuming a whole lot, about an entire movement, 2) there is a place for righteous indignation, and 3) indignation does not equal hatred, although it can get blurry sometimes and 4) anger gets people moving, and in the early stages of the feminist movement I think anger was necessary.
Also, while I would certainly agree that men have suffered as a result of lack of women's equality, I think this skirts the issue of responsibility. This is where the discomfort may lie for men: they don't like to see themselves as perpetrators of a system that hurts people. This is true of most persons of the priveleged class; as a white person, I don't like to see how my whiteness has contributed to racial discrimination, but I need to take responsibility for the ways, if even subtle ways I have participated in that system, if the system is going to change. Similarly, I think men need to take responsibility for the ways in which they have disregarded female voices, called their friends' "pussies," objectified female bodies, and refused to hear the cry of their sisters for help. Our friend, Tucker, wrote a great blog post about the issue of privelege: http://tuckerrussell.wordpress.com/2011/11/01/coming-to-terms-with-privilege/.
Also, Jesus was totally a feminist. I think it's a label you should wear proudly as a husband and father to a little girl. I don't know any feminists who hate men; that statement feels like an inadvertent attempt to silence a voice that makes you uncomfortable.
-Brooke
Hooray for generating feedback!
I want to have time to compose a significant response to the cogent criticisms that yall have brought to bear, but it might be a little bit while I get my thougths together and then write them down.
Just want to make sure that yall know just because I haven't responded yet doesn't mean that it's not important to me.
If I were to break this into three controlling ideas, they be:
"What's stuck in my craw with the majority of the feminist approaches I've found is that they seemed to have sprung up as as a polemic to misogyny"
"This approach no doubt has moral justification, but can easily end in the polemic and antagonistic mess mentioned above."
"Gender relations isn't about being guilted or intimidated into acting in a politically correct manner, it's about recognizing the incalculable value of the feminine in both the women around you as well as in your own self."
Post a Comment