Amanda at Pandagon has a fine post up this morning called "The Allure of Tokenism". She touches on many things, but especially on the appeal of being the "only woman" in certain work or social situations:
…there’s something appealing about being the token. It’s fun to be special, like you’re the only person good enough in your group to get into the club, even as you intellectually understand that you’re not the beneficiary of sexism so much as the victim of it, since while you’re the Good Enough to Be in the Club Girl, you’re still just the girl. I’ve found myself in that position a few times, and while it’s sort of satisfying to be basically an honorary man, in the long run, it makes you second guess yourself constantly. Women in power then would do well to imitate our male forebears and see to it that we have a number of people around us that remind us of ourselves. Of course, women with that kind of power shouldn’t go so far in imitation as to actually exclude worthy men, but I don’t really think there’s any kind of danger of female domination looming any time soon.
This reminds me of some of the discussion we had around my "All of my Best Friends are Guys" post six months ago. I said then, and say again:
I think the term feminism encompasses many things, but I’m adamant that one can’t be a genuine feminist if one doesn’t like women! Wanting to advocate for women in general while not forming genuinely close friendships with other individual women isn’t, I think, authentic feminism.
I’m always struck by how many of the young women I know say with pride "You know, I’m not a typical girl." What they mean by "typical girl" is some sort of ultra-feminine stereotype with a passionate interest in the superficial and the exterior. They also, sometimes, seem to associate "typical girl" with weakness, vulnerability, and victimhood.
I’ve spent a fair amount of time in nearly all-male settings where one or two "token" women could be found. And over and over again, I’ve seen (particularly from some of the younger ones) this intense sense of pride at being "one of the boys." When one is the only member of a minority allowed into a club, there’s an understandable sense of flattering uniqueness — "I’m different" can also quickly mean "I’m ‘better than’". Sometimes, I’ve seen young women jealously guard this privileged status against others. After all, if lots of "girls" get into the "boys’" club, then being a girl in the boys’ club doesn’t seem as special, does it? Is it too much of a stretch to compare this internalized sexism to the oft-noted disdain "house slaves" showed for ‘field slaves"?
I’ve felt a different allure of tokenism, too. I’ve often been the only man in the room doing feminist work. Given that we set the bar pretty damn low for guys, wherever I go in the feminist world, I can count on getting tons of praise for the work I do. "We’re so excited to see men taking an interest in feminism", I’m told; "We’re so glad you’re teaching the courses you teach." That has an unfortunate tendency to puff me up a bit. It can also lead me, at my worst, to try and defend my "special status" as the rare pro-feminist man.
Years ago, when I went off to teach for a semester abroad in Florence, Italy, my division dean considered giving my women’s history course to a male adjunct. I remember having very mixed feelings. On the one hand, I am generally supportive of the idea of men teaching women’s studies classes. On the other hand, I felt threatened. I worried that this guy (I didn’t know him save through his vita) would prove to be more popular than I, and would rob me of my "unique status" as the college’s one male women’s studies prof. I was able to work through that anxiety privately, and ended up suggesting we hire the fellow. He ended up not taking the job, and the course was picked up by a female adjunct. I’m embarrassed to say I felt relieved.
I’m uncertain if it’s a sign of enduring sexism on my part that I feel more threatened by another man doing what I do than by a woman. I think it’s more banal than that. It’s not that I don’t think women teach as well as men. It’s that I’m very conscious that I’m not just a teacher, but a male one. And especially in gender studies, I’m aware that the sex of the prof matters. I suppose that like many people, I enjoy being "unique" — and being a straight white man who teaches women’s studies and gay and lesbian history allows me to feel unusual and special. That’s not the main reason why I teach, mind you, but it is a kind of psychological fringe benefit of which I am unpleasantly aware.
The way to overcome one’s less admirable character traits is to take "opposite action." I try and be very proactive about mentoring both young men and women, but I do have a very real interest in raising up young guys to do pro-feminist work. Years from now, I expect to be on a committee to hire new professors in women’s history and gender studies; I’d love to hire a few of my former students of both sexes. Tokenism has its benefits, but by its very nature, those benefits accrue only to a chosen few at the expense of the many.
This post and the “all my friends are guys” post really makes me think about feminism and its role in destroying socially constructed gender boundries. It also makes me think about what is biological and what is societal.
You are right when you say taht one cannot be a feminist if one does not like women. But to say that you can’t if you don’t have authentic genuine friendships with women. ( I’m not sure how you definie this, but I see it as a very close friend who is female) To me this contradicts the whole point of the movement and feminism how I believe in it. If a female seems to get along with males better, so be it. This does not mean she doesn’t respect or care about other females. To me “gender feminism” as some would label it is about breaking the boundries that define women’s lives. This is where the biological argument comes in. I suppose I believe that our hormones are a powerful thing. Though I do believe that males and females are more alike than not, I can’t help but thinking that for some there are set differences that reflect hormones and the way we think.
I found myself seperating myself from my female friends because they did seem to bring more drama to my life ( most likely a reflection of society rather than biology). After awhile I noticed that I was beginning to really crave female companionship. I can’t say what caused this and I can only assume that it was biological. For others, perhaps they don’t need that contact. The problem is that we are still talking as if there are 2 definite sexes. Just cause one looks like a women on the outside doesn’t mean she necessarily has the same chemical set up on the inside. To me this seems obvious. Homosexuality is a perfect example that there is no definite sex.
So my ramblings are to say that you don’t have to have female friends to be a feminist. Now if you happen to be a token because you hate women or don’t care about them, then you’re probably not a feminist.
I mean what if you changed the argument. If you are black and only have white friends, are you than not allowed to fight racism? Or if you are white and only have white friends? Maybe I’m taking it to far. My ideas aren’t set yet I’m just trying to figure this out.
I must say though as someone who is often a token, I have found myself getting jealous when someone else comes into this role. As in hey, I’m the only token in this room!
Marjani, my point was a philosophical one. I have no use for activists who, in the old phrase, “love mankind (or women) but hate individual people.” You aren’t much of a ranger if you love the forest, but don’t also care about individual trees.
“And especially in gender studies, I’m aware that the sex of the prof matters”
How so, taken that you teach women’s history, a masculinity class, and a class on variant sexual behaviors. Can anyone from these groups teach the other courses? Are you referring to the bias perceptions of the students?
If a female seems to get along with males better, so be it.
The issue isn’t whether one’s friends break down by gender, but why they do.
A woman who is a football fanatic will probably have more male friends than female, because in our culture football is something seen as a ‘male’ activity and most football fanatics are men. That’s a little different than a woman who chooses male friends because she stereotypes women negatively.
Marjani: Forgive me any assumptions I’ll make, but I feel inclined to note the following….
From my experience in life, it has been seen that many young women are bound to have more male friends than female friends, with age, this changes dramatically.. due to gender roles in our socialization. When we are younger, social arena’s tend to more often reside in environments where we know fewer of the patrons, are surrounded more by ’strangers’, and (hetersexual) social rituals inevitably nurture competition or cautiousness between women and relatively easy introductions with those of the opposite sex. In bars, one will often see one or two women chatting among a group of men but rarely will witness the opposite. With age, social contexts change. Partnerships, children, work lives and family demands restrict the frequency of social occasions, and life experience changes what we expect from social occassions - more often we are interested in intimate gatherings among familiar friends and family with whom we rarely have quality time. Those with these circumstances are much more likely to desire a “break” by being among those whom enjoy the same personal interests, very often this pools a group of people of the same gender together and relationships are further nurtured. Ta-boot, there are gender politics that become more obvious to us with time, if your best friend is a man, you may find that your relationship changes dramatically when he partners up and ’settles down’. The opposite scenerio may also result in these changes. I’m not advocating all this, just reporting a ‘common story’.
All this to say that, age may indeed change your outlook upon the matter of whom you actually prefer to nurture friendships with. There is just enough reason, due to gender socialization, to find yourself seeking very specifically stronger ties with other women (the same can be said among men, I”m guessing?). Time will most certainly change your perspective on prior friendships too (and this is not specific to orientation). Sexual politics play into many, if not most, of our relationships - whether we are aware of it, want it to be so, or not.
Hugo: What a great post. Thanks!
Thank you, that was a very wise observation. I suppose I am much more cautious in my relationships with other females than with males in social situations. I also do notice the tendancy of friends of the oppisite sex to spend less time with me when they are involved. You seem to answer my personal questions of why I look forward to aging. Perhaps it is because I will begin to form more meaningful bonds with other females, something I have struggled to do.
Marjani,
I would advise that you nurture a few good relationships with women early on. That, to me, seems to make it easier to have better relationships with women later. I’m at a point in my life where I deal much better with other women my age than I did when I was younger, but I still don’t have female friends my own age. The closest is my pastor’s wife, and she and I don’t get to sit down together very often.
I find it much easier to talk with older women, with men, and with teenagers. There still seems to be some small bit of competition with *some* of the women closer to my own age (I avoid those women as much as possible), but the rest are, like me, just too busy to do a lot of “sit down” time to work on a friendship, and none of us have the time to do things like work on projects together.
As ricia posted, it *does* get better as you get older. The competition (mostly) goes away, and it’s easier to avoid those who want to keep competing (for men, figures, kids’ grades, etc). But it still takes time and effort.
Not too long ago I organized a seminar on the Iraq War in which I had several experts speaking on this topic. Being a politically conscious enlightened male, I made sure to invite five women I knew. I wanted to be sure that women knew they were welcome and had the same opportunities as men.
Of course, not a single one of the women I had invited bothered to show up, so it was another “male dominated” event.
I discussed this point with another woman, and she said that if I wanted to have women show up, then I should have organized a seminar about aroma therapy or something related which she stated that women are more interested in.
If this were an isolated event, I could dismiss it. But I have been to numerous conferences on the wars in Iraq and on terrorism, and it’s 95% men, even though women have every opportunity to attend.
Women have choices. If women choose to ignore the information and networking which are vital to understanding the modern world, then what right to they have to claim that they are being excluded from power?