There’s been a lot of discussion in the feminist blogosphere about this February 13 post at Definition: "An Open Letter to All the Liberal, Straight Men." As the comments below the post make clear, the author struck a nerve.
Most days, I don’t like describing myself as "liberal" or "straight". My background in socialism makes me reflexively uncomfortable with the term "liberal", because I still associate it with 19th century ideas about free markets and the moral superiority of bourgeois capitalism. In the debased modern sense of the term, I suppose it’s accurate enough for me.
I’m even less enamored of the word "straight." The opposite of "straight" is "bent", or "broken", and I don’t like to imply that my brothers and sisters in the GLBTQQ community are either of those things. And, as my friend and hero Richard Mouw has pointed out, I’m not that sure that when it comes to sexuality, any of us are really "straight"! When it comes to our sexual desires, most of us have all kinds of nooks and crannies and "brokennesses". I may be a heterosexual man, but Lord knows, I am not straight. God writes straight, but I’m just one of many crooked lines he’s using to do so, and so are most folks I know.
But I digress.
I had a "yes, no, and hmmm" response to the open letter. Here’s what I liked: the author asks men to resist derailing feminist discussions by talking about the various ways in which males also suffer in contemporary society:
So, first of all, it doesn’t all revolve around you. If I am discussing sexism or the unique difficulties women face, I can understand and appreciate the frustrations that men also grapple with in our society. Really, the problem isn’t so much men and women as the fact that all powerful institutions want to make everyone feel worthless, so that we will do whatever they tell us to. But, for now, I am talking about women and women’s unique position in the world, and it is not about the big picture. It is about us. About me. Your tangents derail the conversation and shift the focus so that the issues I want to raise are ignored. This is the problem.
This is symptomatic of a greater issue: the fact that men are trained to keep the focus on themselves. It’s not the conscious insecurity of the male ego which causes this to happen, but rather, the result in living in a culture which focuses on men the majority of the time. When attempting to give women equal time, and an equal voice, the fifty-fifty split (or, since this doesn’t exist yet in reality, even the attempt to approach it) seems unbalanced and skewed to the minds of many men. Women trying to have an equal voice seem to be silencing the men, simply because the men are not the ones currently talking about the current topic.
Resist the urge to assert yourself in defense of the male voice. We’ve already heard it, and doubtless we will hear it again. Save it until we’re finished. Do it somewhere else.
That’s right on. Many well-intentioned "liberal and straight" (and some not-so-liberal or straight) fellas I know do tend to enter a discussion about sexism as if it’s an Olympic competition. If women are to be awarded a "gold medal" for suffering, some men want to ensure that they at least make it on to the podium. They change the subject of the discussion to the various hardships that straight white men face, and while perhaps acknowledging that these aren’t as severe as those faced by their sisters, these guys still demand at least a bronze or a silver medal in the "suffering Olympics." It’s an understandable, but tedious strategy.
One reason why so many "nice and liberal" men tend to try and derail feminist discussions is that they are eager and anxious to prove that they "aren’t like other guys." Too often, young (potential) pro-feminist men seek to establish their bona fides by stressing the various ways in which they happen to be "exceptions to the rule." One way these guys think they’ll establish their feminist credibility is by explaining that they too know what it’s like to suffer from sexism and stereotyping. The goal is not always to derail the feminist discussion, but rather to win approval and acceptance.
But saying "Yeah, I understand, but I’m a victim too" doesn’t help the feminist cause. Men do need to do the vital work of coping with their own very real issues, but we can’t do that by introducing them into a feminist setting. What we need to do is create specific spaces — like men’s studies classes — for focusing in on the myths, structures, and social obligations that create the "masculine mystique." We need to find healthy ways to express our very real pain and frustration — and we need to express that pain to other men. Too often, traditional definitions of manhood force men to only open up to women, thus burdening our wives, girlfriends, sisters and daughters with doing our "feeling work" for us. While we should indeed share our truest selves with the women in our lives, we need to do more of our emotional work with other men — and not make as many demands on the emotional energy of women, energy that might better be spent elsewhere.
If you aren’t guilty of the offenses I’ve outlined, you aren’t defensive about it. You’re one of those guys who reads the whole list and nods along and then genuinely apologizes for your gender (while not feeling the need to defend yourself by insisting you do not represent these men).
No.
I don’t believe that any of us, ever, ought to apologize for the actions of others. I’ve never apologized for all the lousy things men have done to women, or whites have done to blacks, or what-have-you. We don’t overcome sexism by imposing collective guilt on any particular group. That doesn’t mean that most men don’t have plenty to apologize for! We can apologize for all those times we let a sexist remark go unchallenged, because we were too scared of losing the approval of other guys to speak up. We can apologize for the times we have failed to listen, truly listen, to the pain and grief and anger that the women in our lives have tried to express to us. We can apologize for the many things we have done or said that have dehumanized our sisters, and we can apologize for what we have left undone. Frankly, there’s plenty in our own lives for which we need to take responsibility. But there’s no need, not ever, to issue apologies on behalf of an entire class of human beings. Though as men we experience privilege collectively by virtue of being men, we must accept responsibility for changing our lives individually. Blanket apologies won’t do.
In my opinion, men don’t ever need to be made to feel ashamed merely for being men. We must be quick to identify those ways in which we fall short, and we must be better about taking responsibility for our own actions — and our failures to act. But it is no crime to be male. We are not complicit in the great crime merely because we possess a Y chromosome; we become complicit through our own choices, our own deafness, our own selfishness, our own cowardice. The pro-feminist goal is to help men feel more powerful, not through their ability to dominate, but through their ability to effectively relate as loving equals to women.
In the end, progressive pro-feminist men need to do a better job of truly hearing what our wives and sisters are telling us. But we also need to do a better job of identifying the sources of our own frustrations and disappointments, and we need to do that in community with other men. Adding to the emotional burden that our wives and mothers and sisters already carry is not acceptable; learning to tell the truth to other men is.
The apology part of the post rubbed me the wrong way too, but I should point out that in the comments section of the post (in comment 14, I couldn’t seem to cut and past it here), the author admits that she worded the portion about the apology very badly and that it didn’t exactly convey what she meant. She says she didn’t mean that men owe women an apology; she meant to say that she wouldn’t mind hearing a man say,”Oh my god. I am so sorry guys act like that!”
I am not sure exactly what distinction she is drawing but I think she is trying to say that she does not expect individual men to accept fault or blame for the acts of other men, but she wouldn’t mind hearing them express sympathy or an aknowledgment of whatever it is she is complaining about.
I definitely think that the word “apology” with its implications of accepting personal fault and blame should be kept out of the discourse, unless someone actually does need to apologize for a wrong he or she personally committed.
Hi Hugo. I really liked your post, but was concerned by this:
I think this proposal risks continuing to perpetuate the myth that feminist techniques, whether it be in activism or scholarship, can’t tell us anything about men, both straight and GLBTQ. To talk about gender is to talk about both men and women, not one or the other. Toby Dietz, in a 2004 article in Gender and History has pointed to a trend in “The New Men’s History” to ellude discussions of power and women. This depressing fact, of course, leads us to risk of going back to the same type of histories that existed before women’s history.
It seems to me that the best way to avoid falling into this trap is to force discussions of men within feminism, rather than attempting to create a new divide. This, however, is not the same thing as saying that men participating in feminist discussions should not be careful to not derail discussions of women into “me, me, me” free-for-alls and start playing the opression olympics.
Air, I don’t disagree — but I do want to make sure that those discussions about men don’t distract from other vital feminist tasks. Men’s studies, at least in the academic world, is largely informed and shaped by feminist scholarship (my class on the subject certainly is), and in that sense, it is part of a larger feminist/pro-feminist struggle. But for the sake of adequate discussion time and so forth, I think a separate forum is helpful.
to force discussions of men within feminism,
How about forcing discussions of women in Masculism?
Yeah, I know it sounded horrible. It was intended to, just to show how it sounds from the other side.
Well that is one way to win an argument, not let the other side speak.
badteeth: Why assume she’s talking about arguments, much less winning an argument? Usually, when people speak of “discussions” there’s no need for anyone to win. She’s frustrated by habits that derail a discussion because they prevent communication and understanding, not because they make her “lose”.
Nice post. Where’s the Hmmmm?
I largely agree with your “yes” especially, w/r/t as you put it the “suffering olympics” or the harms we suffer from sexism and patriarchy. I do think however, that in discussions of the benefits feminism has brought society, the benefits feminism has brought to men (I tried to write about this in the form of an obit for my Grandfather a while back here, but the short version is that traditional configurations of masculinity and femininity leave us all tragically incomplete. The loss of illegitimate power can be difficult but liberating, and the opening up of what is socially acceptable for men in at least some parts of our culture is precisely that.
I have to dissent a little bit on this:
Men do need to do the vital work of coping with their own very real issues, but we can’t do that by introducing them into a feminist setting. What we need to do is create specific spaces — like men’s studies classes — for focusing in on the myths, structures, and social obligations that create the “masculine mystique.”
I think I’m more old-fashioned than you about the function of the classroom, but I think that’s not the space to focus on the difficulties of cultural configurations of womanhood and femininity and leave masculinity aside (or vice versa). This is why I prefer “Gender studies” as a name for the discipline. In various activist and movement circles I think this quasi-separation is appropriate and necessary. But given the puzzling ways in which configurations of masculinity and femininity mirror each other–and shed light on their mutual incompleteness–it seems intellectually impovershing to insist on different classes geared primarily toward different genders. But my teaching of this stuff has never been from a Women’s/Gender Studies department, so I imagine this is something you’ve already considered.
—badteeth: Why assume she’s talking about arguments, much less winning an argument?
Here’s part that Hugo didn’t quote from the article
5. I hate that I even have to disclaim that, sure, okay, “not all men are actually like this”. I’m sure in some hypothetical world my sweeping generalizations are grossly inaccurate. But, realistically? In the world I live in and with the men that I know and love and interact with on a daily basis?
You pretty much all do this shit at least some of the time.
If you are one of the handful of men I have met who actually treat women like people, though, this disclaimer won’t mean anything to you. If you aren’t guilty of the offenses I’ve outlined, you aren’t defensive about it. You’re one of those guys who reads the whole list and nods along and then genuinely apologizes for your gender (while not feeling the need to defend yourself by insisting you do not represent these men). You don’t need the disclaimer because my stinging man-hating feminist barbs don’t really hurt.
The rest of you, though, might have a a few things to think about.”
Basically she wants to make generalizations about men’s behavior without the annoyance of having men say, “That’s bull, not all men do that, I don’t do that.”
—”She’s frustrated by habits that derail a discussion because they prevent communication and understanding, not because they make her “lose”.
Can you even call it a discussion if alternate viewpoints are discouraged based on the gender of the person holding that viewpoint? Or on any basis for that matter?
To me it sounds more like preaching to the choir, or a pity party, then a discussion.
To me this whole bit
Exactly - more of the same old “Treat men as a group, with collective guilt, but treat women as persons and individuals.” One standard for men, a different standard for women.
Of course, women are then a collective with a “We’ve listened to you…” when it suits. Well, maybe such truth isn’t so self evident, and it has been listened to - and rejected as a crock of bull; mostly because of people saying things like “traditional configurations of masculinity and femininity leave us all tragically incomplete” which im-ly men have pain and a stake in the discourse - but you guys sit down and have a big steaming cup of STFU. We talk about men wanting a bronze medal in the “Victim Olympics” - well, I’ll tell you what, women are sure looking real hard to claim a gold, and arguably trying to claim there should be a platinum one for them.
I got one message for the writer of this - don’t want to listen to me? So be it. Don’t expect me to listen to you. That meme cuts both ways, sistah.
Gonz, remember the letter was written to “liberal” men; I’m quite confident you weren’t in the target audience.
DJW, I do think that in both men’s and women’s studies classes some discussion of gender relationships is vital. But when folks want to get all of this stuff together in one class, I’m reminded of why I refuse to teach “world history” — it risks trying to take on so much that absolutely nothing gets done.
Gonzman: I understood the part about how you think women whine too much, but perhaps that’s because I’m familiar with your oevre. This fun new characterization, however:
im-ly men
went right over my head.
Do you post your syllabi online anywhere? I’d be curious to see what you do in your men/masculinity course.
More the worse, Doc Hugo - wonder if it might be because I’m seen as the enemy for my libertarian/conservative principles and treated as such that I tend to return the sentiment.
I’ll make one observation here - there is a fundamental lack of understanding of what “power” is among far too many women when they talk about the “powerlessness” of women, to wit - if I grant you power, it isn’t yours. What the Good Gonz giveth, the Good Gonz, he taketh away - or at least can if the spirit moves him; if you want power that is yours, you have to assume and exercise it.
So I’ll make two - the second being that all such power has a cost, in the form of the old saying “It’s awfully lonely at the top.” A great deal of the angst that is written by women who have worked hard to “have it all” seems to underline their shock and/or resentment at discovering this is so. And I think a large part of this lies in the fact that woman is just a much more social animal than man.
djw - that should read “imply”
I plead fat fingers.
open debate is good, it exposes you to other people’s viewpoints.
safe discussion spaces with likeminded individuals are also good, they help you solidify your opinions.
they’re not mutually exclusive. each can feed into the other. just because someone wants a “safe” conversation sometimes does not mean they’re never open for a real debate, and there’s lots of stuff in between.
seriously, if my male friends want to talk about how hard it is to be a single man trying to date in the bay area, that is totally cool with me. I won’t turn it into an argument or try to upstage anyone, I promise. It’s actually not that hard. I get other chances to talk about me.
I think it’s significant that she’s largely addressing this to “the men that I know and love and interact with on a daily basis”. Part of having a discussion amongst friends is just knowing when to back off and listen.
When I read “Women trying to have an equal voice seem to be silencing the men,” it really reminds me of is something I heard one time from someone who attended an international conference.
Apparently, a day or two into the conferences a rule was passed to the effect that when an American spoke, the next speaker had to be a person from another country. This was echoed in a comment that someone apparently made: “Just because there is a pause in the discussion doesn’t mean an American has to begin speaking.”
Does this make Americans bad people? No. Is it trying to shut the Americans up? No. Is it refusing to listen to the Americans? No–it’s just trying to make it more likely that the discussions would not digress from an international perspective to international-as-seen-from-America perspective, and that the conversation at an international conference would be no more than 50% American.
The post doesn’t say “I don’t want to hear about men’s problems.” It says that when “discussing sexism or the unique difficulties women face” it would be nice if the conversation could stay on the topic of sexism or the unique problems women face. It’s as if you felt discussing the Dallas Cowboys was a politically urgent task (because the Cowboys were getting stomped every game while the Steelers were Conference Champions), and you had a lot of discussions with lots of people who also felt discussing the Dallas Cowboys was a politically urgent task, and you’d like to have a discussion with me, but every time I enter the discussion, I say something like, “OK, but what about the Pittsburgh Steelers?”
Every once in a while, the Steelers might be relevant. But if I brought up the Steelers again and again and again when you were trying to discuss the Cowboys, you’d probably get really tired of it and say something along the lines of “Resist the urge to assert yourself in defense of the Steelers. We’ve already heard it, and doubtless we will hear it again. Save it until we’re finished. Do it somewhere else.”
In other words, if you want to talk about the Cowboys, come talk about the Cowboys. But if we’re talking about the Cowboys, please don’t start off on the Steelers again. We may at some later point have a conversation about the Steelers. That would be nice. But right now, we are talking about the Cowboys.
Last point: I think the part that is being missed is that this was not “An Open Letter to All the Anti-Feminist Men.” This was not intended as rules of engagement for people who reject basic feminist ideas. If you don’t agree that women’s voices are systematically marginalized, trivialized, and drowned out in our culture (thus creating the need for ground rules to protect the spaces that are carved out for women’s voices) then, No, of course you won’t agree with any part of the letter. Why would you?
RJ,
but when you start talking about how much the Steelers suck…
And I think a large part of this lies in the fact that woman is just a much more social animal than man.
I’m not an animal at all, thank you very much.
And throw a man in solitary confinement, he won’t do much better than a woman and you know it. Human beings are social by nature. ALL human beings. The particular interactions may differ from one individual to the next, but there is a very small minority of people who are truly happiest when they are isolated.
imply–should have been obvious from the context.
Gonzman, if a libertarian who favors Ayn Rand writes an open letter to libertarians who fancy Hayek, I wouldn’t feel compelled to respond, nor would I feel that the fact that they’re have a conversation amongst themselves is about me in any way, or how I’m some sort of enemy. Of course, to them, a dirty socialist like me *is* the enemy, but that’s a conversation for another time. Just because it’s on the interwebs and I can read it doesn’t make it about me.
Three quick comments:
The author writes: ”When attempting to give women equal time, and an equal voice, the fifty-fifty split (or, since this doesn’t exist yet in reality, even the attempt to approach it) seems unbalanced and skewed to the minds of many men. Women trying to have an equal voice seem to be silencing the men, simply because the men are not the ones currently talking about the current topic.”
The thesis that women’s voices in our society aren’t heard, or aren’t heard in proportion to their relative numbers, is a complete crock of bullshit. This is especially true when it comes to the topic of sexism; discussing sexism against men is a taboo subject in our society. We hear women’s voices all the time, to the point of it being ad nauseum. Thus, the fundamental premise that she bases her entire missive on is false, and therefore, everything that flows from it is false.
This is even more irrational because right above it she writes ”This is symptomatic of a greater issue: the fact that men are trained to keep the focus on themselves. It’s not the conscious insecurity of the male ego which causes this to happen, but rather, the result in living in a culture which focuses on men the majority of the time.”
She is truly living in La La Land.
Hugo writes: ”That’s right on. (Actually, what she wrote is complete nonsense) ”Many well-intentioned “liberal and straight” (and some not-so-liberal or straight) fellas I know do tend to enter a discussion about sexism as if it’s an Olympic competition. If women are to be awarded a “gold medal” for suffering, some men want to ensure that they at least make it on to the podium. They change the subject of the discussion to the various hardships that straight white men face, and while perhaps acknowledging that these aren’t as severe as those faced by their sisters, these guys still demand at least a bronze or a silver medal in the “suffering Olympics.” It’s an understandable, but tedious strategy.”
I think that this has nothing to do with men trying to hijack the conversation, prove their liberal, feminist, etc., bona fides, etc., and everything to do with the mode of communication amongst feminists and women in general, who tend to speak from the first person. Gonz noted this in another thread as (paraphrasing) ‘…the three most common words coming from their mouths are “me,” “my” and “mine.”’ I would add the word “I” to that list. Just look at the discussions- it’s quite clear. But it’s not just women, but men like Hugo who embrace feminism and feminist characteristics too. Thus, I think that the reason “liberal, straight” men who hang out with feminists and discuss issues like sexism bring up their own personal experiences with sexism is simply due to the MO of the conversation, i.e., the first person perspective. You know, “the personal is political” and all that.
Apparently the author much prefers the “shut up, listen and agree with me” approach for men, as evidence by her arrogant statement: ”If you aren’t guilty of the offenses I’ve outlined, you aren’t defensive about it. You’re one of those guys who reads the whole list and nods along and then genuinely apologizes for your gender (while not feeling the need to defend yourself by insisting you do not represent these men).”
However, she apparently is unwilling to return the courtesy of even allowing men to speak of their experiences, let alone listen to them. ‘Tis a shame, but typical of her ilk.
Hugo, you said that ”In my opinion, men don’t ever need to be made to feel ashamed merely for being men.” but right before stated: ”Though as men we experience privilege collectively by virtue of being men, we must accept responsibility for changing our lives individually.” However, the entire concept of “male privilege” (white or otherwise) is nothing more than a tool to shame men into feeling guilty for being male and thus granting women even more special privilege than they already have enjoyed.
Conversations are two-way streets (or at least should be) and we need more conversations, but what this writer and other feminists - including apparently you – are advocating is a one-sided interaction when women lecture and men not only listen, but her case ”nod along” and agree with everything she says.
Screw that.
—Last point: I think the part that is being missed is that this was not “An Open Letter to All the Anti-Feminist Men.” This was not intended as rules of engagement for people who reject basic feminist ideas. If you don’t agree that women’s voices are systematically marginalized, trivialized, and drowned out in our culture (thus creating the need for ground rules to protect the spaces that are carved out for women’s voices) then, No, of course you won’t agree with any part of the letter. Why would you?”
What about those in between the two extremes? Those that don’t necessarily reject basic feminists ideas, but don’t necessarily think feminist=inerrant either?
I mean is this part
–If you don’t agree that women’s voices are systematically marginalized, trivialized, and drowned out in our culture (thus creating the need for ground rules to protect the spaces that are carved out for women’s voices”–
something that all feminists agreee defines all feminists? I’ve heard much more soft-sell definitions of feminism in the past.
RJ: “In other words, if you want to talk about the Cowboys, come talk about the Cowboys. But if we’re talking about the Cowboys, please don’t start off on the Steelers again. We may at some later point have a conversation about the Steelers.”
THAT THERE IS NO GUARANTEE of a conversation about “the Steelers” is WHY “Steeler fans” do bring up “the Steelers” when others are discussing “the Cowboys.” We clear?
No. The basic presumption here, without which the “Open Letter” will make no sense is that the Steelers, being conference champions, are getting the majority of the press. Their T-shirts are everywhere, talk about them is ubiquitous, their way of looking at the world is the “natural” way of looking at the world. In fact, talking about the Steelers is usually called “talking about football.” If I bring up the Cowboys, people ask “Why do you have to drag the Cowboys into this? Can’t we just talk about football?”
Yes, conversations about feminism–among women–do tend to discuss what the author calls “the unique difficulties women face.” That’s because they’re feminist conversations. The reason they are that way is that they are spaces which have been deliberately and at great effort carved out for women’s voices.
It’s kind of like storming into a women’s bookstore and demanding that they stock more books by men–it’s a two way street, after all. But the very reason, the only reason that women’s bookstores came to exist is to be spaces deliberately and at great effort carved out for women’s voices. Before women’s bookstores existed (say, circa 1970) what percentage of books in mainstream bookstores addressed feminist concerns? Women’s bookstores came into being partially because of that gross disparity. Women’s bookstores wouldn’t exist today if I could walk into B. Dalton or Borders and find a comparably wide selection of books that addressed feminist concerns.
When the two-way street really is two-ways, with the same number of lanes in both directions, then we won’t need to have this conversation, and Open Letters like that one won’t be necessary.
The author is not asking me to shut up. She’s not asking me to nod along, or even agree. She’s asking men who join women’s conversations about women and feminism to talk about women and feminism. That’s all. It’s about the topic of conversation: “We’re talking about the Cowboys over here, not the Steelers. We’d really like to hear your opinions about the Cowboys.” Does not equal “STFU.”
By the way: the Cowboys and the Steelers are both agents of Satan. I’m an Oilers fan.
In my opinion, men don’t ever need to be made to feel ashamed merely for being men.
As feminist Susie Bright says about woe-are-we men, go hate your penis someplace else.
Gonz: Feminism is not the same as socialism or social liberalism; although there are many socialist feminists, there are libertarian feminists as well. Naomi Wolf called herself a “Power Feminist” in Fire with Fire and probably said some things about other feminist philosophies that you’d agree with: she’s very much about sisters just doing, and no longer hesitating. She’s not conservative, but she’s not Canadian, either.
There are also conservative feminists, and christian feminists: there are marxists and gender essentialists and identity feminist and radical feminists. Hugo would know more of them then I.
What I’m essentially saying is that if your reaction to feminism is based on victim’s rights movements or statism, than there may be feminists who you’d get along with. Although maybe not all the time on this board. I think you and I share some basic ideas about gender roles and the need for shift there; I also share some common ground with bmmg. However, I’m a huge pinko; we’re not going to agree about some of that stuff. My shade of pink is related to how I see class, and I construe class differently than I construe race or gender issues, (although the two intersect. Obviously.) Anyway, you may want to rip my pinko heart out and roast it on a skewer, but that’s a different thing entirely than my feminism.
And Mr. Bad, I just don’t get it. If you’re tired of hearing ad nauseum about the stories of women, etc, why don’t you read Maxim and not Hugo? I’m not saying don’t participate: I find the things you say really help me clarify why I’m a feminist and are often quite illuminating. However, it seems to really, really make you mad.
—”The author is not asking me to shut up. She’s not asking me to nod along, or even agree. She’s asking men who join women’s conversations about women and feminism to talk about women and feminism. That’s all. It’s about the topic of conversation: “We’re talking about the Cowboys over here, not the Steelers. We’d really like to hear your opinions about the Cowboys.” Does not equal “STFU.”
RJ, all your posts sound pretty reasonable, but I’m not sure the original poster from Definition is being quite as reasonable as you are. The author of the original post does say stuff along those lines, but she also says…
—”5. I hate that I even have to disclaim that, sure, okay, “not all men are actually like this”. I’m sure in some hypothetical world my sweeping generalizations are grossly inaccurate. But, realistically? In the world I live in and with the men that I know and love and interact with on a daily basis?
You pretty much all do this shit at least some of the time.
If you are one of the handful of men I have met who actually treat women like people, though, this disclaimer won’t mean anything to you. If you aren’t guilty of the offenses I’ve outlined, you aren’t defensive about it. You’re one of those guys who reads the whole list and nods along and then genuinely apologizes for your gender (while not feeling the need to defend yourself by insisting you do not represent these men). You don’t need the disclaimer because my stinging man-hating feminist barbs don’t really hurt.
The rest of you, though, might have a a few things to think about.”
Which, to me at least, sounds an awful lot like, “STEELERS SUCK, STEELERS STFU”.
Cowboys and Steelers both suck. Vikings all the way! Yes, they may choke, but, ah…they do play football in Minnesota. That should count for something.
That is what is refered to as a “Thread drift”. Discussing football in a thread about gender relations is not on topic. Much like talking about men in a thread about women’s issues.
Badteeth wrote:
Thank you. I try hard to sound reasonable when commenting here (unlike at my place where I rant and rave). Hugo presents a challenge to all of us to argue forcefully, yet reasonably and respectfully.
I could see where you could read it that way. But for me the key’s are “men that I know and love” and “at least some of the time.” I don’t think any of us (even Hugo) would claim to be perfect feminists all the time, everywhere, every day. All the author is doing (albeit in a weary, angry, confrontational tone) is saying “most guys (but not all guys) do at least some of this at least some of the time (but not all of the time).”
That’s not saying STFU, it’s not saying “Guys suck.” In a politer world, she might have said “Nobody’s perfect: here are some ways that well-intentioned straight liberal men (including men that I know and love) sometimes behave in feminist discussions. I believe these habits to be anti-feminist. I’d really like you to either stop, or refrain from engaging in feminist discussions with me.”
I think all that separates the above from what she really wrote is tone–and the whole men-taking-issue-with-women’s-tone-in-feminist-discourse thing is a big hairy whole other topic.
I don’t have a problem admitting that I fall into habits–conversational or otherwise–that are hurtful to women, gays and lesbians, minorities, etc.. I don’t like it, but if someone calls me on it, I’d rather choose “Wow–I’m sorry. I didn’t realize I was doing that,” or “With all due respect, I don’t think I do that,” than “How dare you tell me to shut up.”
[And Antigone–using football teams as analogies does not constitute thread drift. Making quick asides about the relative virtue of the Oilers to the Steelers and Cowboys might begin to verge on thread drift, were they not purely parenthetical references intended to lighten the mood of the conversation. Discussing the definition of thread drift (as I am now doing), however, actually constitutes “meta-thread drift.” Which makes my brain hurt.]
Oh, thought I’d pitch in since we’re talking about apologizing and such.
http://home.comcast.net/~hmillerj/apology.gif
I am very busy, yet I find I simply must post.
The point that men eager to prove their pro-feminist credentials need to learn to shut up about the trivial barriers they face is a good one. But I think Hugo’s suggestion that the solution is “specific spaces — like men’s studies classes” for discussion of male issues is just terrible. He writes that men frustrated with traditional notions of gender need to “express that pain to other men.”
I am an 18-year-old male, and I have been attracted to feminist ideas of late because I think that sex doesn’t matter very much. That, I had thought, was the point: that women and men should be treated equally because they’re not separate species that need to be treated differently and handled differently. So the idea that I need to be expressing things to “other men” specifically is–abhorrent to me! My sex should not be presumed to determine what I have to say and to whom I should say it. I will never join a men’s group or go on a male retreat, because it seems clear to me that from an antisexist perspective, a group that makes sex a prerequisite for admission is not proper. Is not a person’s ideology the only thing that matters?
It is true that I am young and ignorant and probably blinded by privilige, but I must confess that I do not understand how on earth we can hope to fight sexism by segregating ourselves by sex!
If what I have just wrote is infantile and stupid and makes no sense and totally misinterprets what Hugo was actually saying, then I humbly ask for the forgiveness of all those reading.
It’s only that I had to post.
“No. The basic presumption here, without which the ‘Open Letter’ will make no sense is that the Steelers, being conference champions, are getting the majority of the press.”
Here the analogy derails: men do NOT receive the majority of “the press.” If it is unbalanced at all, it is in favor of women, especially in the issues into which men are trying to “inject” their points of view.
Zack, forgive me, but when I was your age… I thought the same thing.
I think you’ll find that most (but not all) folks in the feminist community believe strongly in the creation and preservation of female-only spaces, “safe spaces” for conversation and nurturing. The notion that “sex doesn’t matter” is at most a minority position within the feminist world.
In some bright and shining future, we’ll have no need for separate groups and classes in which to focus on the unique problems of men and women. Until then, those of us who live as men or women have an obligation to connect not only with the other sex, but with our own. Too many men, especially young men in the pro-feminist movement, feel alienated from their fellow males — the need for immersion in a critical examination of masculine culture is vital.
I don’t exclude men from my women’s studies classes or women from my men and masculinity classes; I do believe, however, that they are discrete subjects, and though related, must be studied seperately.
Hugo,
I think that much of this could work for any number or intersections of oppression. I found myself nodding my head in two directions throughout. On the one hand, I agree with you that as a man I must take responsibility for my own actions in how I interact with women, and on the other hand, recognize if I’m inserting myself rather than listening and also being wary of where I go along with systemic privileges. To even get to listen in on the struggles of our sisters is a great privilege.
But I also could relate much of this through being gay as well, and finding liberal supporters sometimes most exasperating (sp?). Thanks. I’ll be piggybacking on this in a discussion I’ve been ruminating over.
I think you’ll find that most (but not all) folks in the feminist community believe strongly in the creation and preservation of female-only spaces, “safe spaces” for conversation and nurturing. The notion that “sex doesn’t matter” is at most a minority position within the feminist world.
I think that is understating feminist hypocrisy somewhat. From my perspective, it seems that for many feminists, gender doesn’t matter if it’s an issue where women feel they are being discriminated against. However, gender is all important if those differences are perceived to benefit women. Female only spaces, as you describe, are a pretty good example.
Like women and their “female-only” spaces, I think more than a few men believe strongly in “male only spaces”, but feminists seem to get the vapours at the mere mention of it. If it is male dominated, it needs to be eliminated or subverted seems to be the prevailing attitude. It’s not surprising to me that , as you put it, “Men’s studies, at least in the academic world, is largely informed and shaped by feminist scholarship.” Anything else would be attacked as sexist or some other such drivel and eliminated from the face of this patriarchal world.
Men do need those spaces, and precisely the reasons you describe. Our young men need this today more than ever. However, much the same way women don’t need men to intrude in their spaces or influence their discussions, men don’t need feminist scholarship to shape them.
So which is it? Is segregating our conversations based on gender a good thing or bad? Or is it simply good when women do it, and bad when men do it. Hypocrisy is so damned confusing.
>Is segregating our conversations based on gender a good thing or bad?
It’s good to do sometimes and bad to do all the time, regardless of who’s doing it. A blanket “good or bad” doesn’t really adequately address it.
testsubject says:
“I think Hugo’s suggestion that the solution is “specific spaces — like men’s studies classes” for discussion of male issues is just terrible. He writes that men frustrated with traditional notions of gender need to “express that pain to other men.”
I am an 18-year-old male, and I have been attracted to feminist ideas of late because I think that sex doesn’t matter very much. That, I had thought, was the point: that women and men should be treated equally because they’re not separate species that need to be treated differently and handled differently. So the idea that I need to be expressing things to “other men” specifically is–abhorrent to me! My sex should not be presumed to determine what I have to say and to whom I should say it. I will never join a men’s group or go on a male retreat, because it seems clear to me that from an antisexist perspective, a group that makes sex a prerequisite for admission is not proper. Is not a person’s ideology the only thing that matters?
It is true that I am young and ignorant and probably blinded by privilige, but I must confess that I do not understand how on earth we can hope to fight sexism by segregating ourselves by sex!”
as a (white) woman in her 50s, a (somewhat vanilla) feminist, a person who feels as leery as hugo about being “stright”, as therapist and a mother of a woman your age, i must say that i had a very similar reaction to yours. i think that the successful end result of any revolutionary movement is a bit of a “so what?” sentiment.
for example, i am very lucky to live in vancouver, canada, where, at least in the circles where i travel, certain distinctions among people that used to be deathly divisive just don’t exist anymore. distinctions along denominational lines, for example, aren’t anything that anyone gets riled up about anymore (a situation that was way different 50 years ago!). the same, although to a lesser degree, goes for sexual orientation.
i understand that there’s still lots and lots to do until we all collectively get to the “so what” stage vis-a-vis patriarchy. however, that doesn’t mean that there can’t be a few of us who contribute to progress by simply assuming that that towards which we strive - e.g. true equality among the sexes - has already happened, and acting accordingly. i am delighted that there are quite a few people in their twenties and late teens who are quite successful at that, and i appreciate their leadership.
and, again as a therapist, i fail to see why men should stop to “burden” their women with their problems/histories/etc. i certainly have no qualms to “burden” the men in my life with whatever i want to talk about. yes, there’s certain things that they don’t get. just as there are certain things that, say, young women don’t get about the joys of menopause. when that’s the case, i have choices: i can educate the other person, i can go see someone else, i can try and figure it out on my own … but why would i want to collectively and forever make the decision to exclude a huge group of people from the story that is my life? yes, go ahead and find yourselves more men to talk to, right on, i applaud that. but why not share yourself with everyone, regardless of what genitals they carry around with them in their undies?
hmmm …. what would god/allah/the goddess/buddha say to all of this …
isabella
Folks, let me be clear. I’m not excluding men from women’s studies classes, or women from men’s studies classes. What I am doing is saying that we need to focus on masculinity issues primarily in men’s studies classes (where folks of both sexes can discuss them) and focus on feminist issues in women’s studies classes (where folks of both sexes can discuss them). Will there be overlap? You betcha. But that doesn’t mean that the primary focus of each class can’t be on the unique and discrete experiences of a specific sex.
We have lots of gender studies departments in the US, but the dominant structure of most classes is still women’s or men’s studies. That’s not such a bad thing at all.
I must be missing something here. The analogies to football teams, writers, and nationalities don’t work because there are more than two of each. If a feminist discussion, even among friends, talks about the barriers women face or the indignities that they suffer, then that means that men have erected those barriers and inflicted those indignities.
Men have, of course, an obligation to listen to these discussions and try as hard as they can to think about them objectively. They also have an obligation to use some common sense about when to speak out with friends and when to hold their tongue. But what if they still do not agree with what is being said ? Are they obligated to just nod their heads and say nothing ? Personally, I am getting tired of being put into gender-based straightjackets like “If you aren’t guilty of the offenses I’ve outlined, you aren’t defensive about it”.
Arwen wrote: “And Mr. Bad, I just don’t get it. If you’re tired of hearing ad nauseum about the stories of women, etc, why don’t you read Maxim and not Hugo? I’m not saying don’t participate: I find the things you say really help me clarify why I’m a feminist and are often quite illuminating. However, it seems to really, really make you mad.”
Angry, nope - why are you trying to spin my particpation as angry? Sounds like a pejorative to me. I participate because the non-feminist male-friendly voice has been absent too long from discussions of “gender.” I come here as an act of defiance to the status quo in order to change the dynamic.
bmmg39 raises what is in my mind the key point, that being that the basic premise of the author’s argument is false, therefore, everything that flows from it is also false. Female voices have not been excluded or suppressed, especially from discussion of sex, gender, discrimination, etc. If anything, men’s voices have been suppressed and excluded except when it comes to feminist and/or pro-feminist male apologists. The fact that we’re ignoring this key point speaks volumes.
The double-standard vis-a-vis male-only vs. female-only spaces pointed out by others is also germane, and speaks volumes about the feminist movement’s respect - or more accurately, lack thereof - for equality, or at the very least, equal rights.
I don’t believe that any of us, ever, ought to apologize for the actions of others. I’ve never apologized for all the lousy things men have done to women, or whites have done to blacks, or what-have-you. We don’t overcome sexism by imposing collective guilt on any particular group.
Hugo, this is the most intelligent thing I have heard in a long time–anywhere. Comments like this is why I keep coming back to your site. Keep it up!
This is symptomatic of a greater issue: the fact that men are trained to keep the focus on themselves.
This is an assertion. Who does this “training”? When does it happen? Is it part of boot camp in the military? Why don’t women then “train” themselves to do the same?
If you are one of the handful of men I have met who actually treat women like people, though, this disclaimer won’t mean anything to you.
I fell for this one when I was younger. I did not open doors for women. I insisted that women I dated pay for their half. I told women that they ought to be drafted, like men. Guess how far that went? Not very! Women do not want to give up their privileges.
The other night I was with a female friend at a Coffee Bean. She spouted the usual feminist line to me all evening. Later, she insisted I walk her to her car (in a lighted parking lot full of people) because she needed “protection” and it was the “gentlemanly” thing to do. Now, I could have told her “A woman needs a man as much as a fish needs a bicycle” but instead walked her to her car.
When women start acting like “people” they will be treated like people.
I’ll make one observation here - there is a fundamental lack of understanding of what “power” is among far too many women when they talk about the “powerlessness” of women, to wit - if I grant you power, it isn’t yours.
This is so. Power is something you seize. Many feminists seem to assume men walk into, say, a corporate recruiting office and they are handed something called “power.” Doesn’t work that way. So we see this feminist obsession with having the government come in and giving women an “equal” share, but if you are relying on the state to solve your problems, you become a serf of the state. Of course, politicians are more than willing to have feminists as a client group as it enhances their own power.
Before women’s bookstores existed (say, circa 1970) what percentage of books in mainstream bookstores addressed feminist concerns?
This true for many other politically oriented books. There’s one anarchist bookstore in San Francisco, and not a single one in Los Angeles.
If you don’t agree that women’s voices are systematically marginalized, trivialized, and drowned out in our culture (thus creating the need for ground rules to protect the spaces that are carved out for women’s voices”—
What is it you would say were you not “drowned out”? Everyone knows the feminist party line. What is it that women would say that is not already being said? I really am interested here—what is it that I am missing?
And when you say women’s voices, do you mean “feminist” voices? We have Anne Coulter, Laura Schlesinger, and Phyllis Schafly. How do you deal with conservative women? Should their voices be heard? Often, conservative women who try to speak on campuses are “drowned out” quite literally by leftwing hecklers. Remember Jeanne Kilpatrick? Since feminsts have supported censorship of pornography, it is very difficult to take them seriously when they demand their turn at the podium.
alexander responded to this: “This is symptomatic of a greater issue: the fact that men are trained to keep the focus on themselves.”
By saying this: “This is an assertion. Who does this “training”? When does it happen? Is it part of boot camp in the military? Why don’t women then “train” themselves to do the same?”
alexander, what the author wrote is a fine example of transference and projection on her part and thus in classic feminist form is patently false. It’s been known for millenia that in general women are the ones who in many cases obssessively focus on themselves - I believe it was Shakespeare who said something along the lines of “vanity, thy name be woman,” and Freud formalized it by noting that “women are self-absorbed and vain.” Once again, the author starts from a false premise, so her observations and conclusions are similarly false.
I’m not an animal at all, thank you very much.
Then I suggest you retake your biology classes, or take them to begin with as the case may be.
And throw a man in solitary confinement, he won’t do much better than a woman and you know it. Human beings are social by nature. ALL human beings. The particular interactions may differ from one individual to the next, but there is a very small minority of people who are truly happiest when they are isolated.
You can dismiss accuate generalizations with extremes all you like; slapping someone in an isolation unit and cutting off all human contact isn’t what I was addressing, and you very well know it, and I’ve come to expect much better from you.
Wait, *your* premise, Mr. Bad, is that women are vain, everyone knows it, and Freud is the speaker of all things true and wonderful?
This hurts my head too much to further contribute to the thread drift…
Once again, the author starts from a false premise, so her observations and conclusions are similarly false.
True, alas.
But I am interested, when the term “women’s voices” is used, does this mean “feminist voices”? Are conservative women included?
evil fizz said: ”
Wait, *your* premise, Mr. Bad, is that women are vain, everyone knows it, and Freud is the speaker of all things true and wonderful?
This hurts my head too much to further contribute to the thread drift…”
No evil fizz, I was quoting Freud (and Shakespeare) to point out that it is an historical fact that it is not (only) men who are, as the author said, ‘always trying to turn the discussion back onto themselves’ and that at the very least women do this too.
Your sorry-assed attempt at a Strawman argument won’t work.
Historically, when women have had power, and then use this power as a platform from which they can not be silenced, they inevitably sound like men in power. Look at Cleopatra, Zenobia, Eleanor of Acquitaine, Lucretia Borgia, Maria Taresa, Catherine the Great, Queen Victory, Golda Meir, Margaret Thatcher, etc, etc. Obviously, the interests of people who have power are not the interests of those who are ruled, male or female.
But, I am still interested in hearing what women would have to say that is unique.
And in determining if by “women” you mean “feminist women” or are inclusive of non-feminist women.
For example, were women’s voices to not be silenced, would women say things like “All sex is rape” or “Women never lie about rape”?
I feel obliged to personally question feminism the way I would question any other supremacist movement. Say the same thing about Blacks and Arabs that many famous feminists would say about men, and they would call you a racist. Saying that all men, as a group, are responsible for getting rid of the evils of some men, and you might as well be saying to Arabs as a group, hey, “you people” are responsible for most terrorism, so clean it up! How condescending. The myth of male privilege is a persuasive one. I don’t make much money, and most of my friends don’t, so what economic privilege do you want me to give up? I will not apologize for men being most of the CEO’s. I don’t benefit from them, and they wouldn’t help me out anyway!Most of the homeless people are men too! Men on average die seven years earlier than women. They are the one that die in wars, outnumbering the men (and women) politicians that send them to war in the first place. Without the inventions of white men that existed, like governments, houses, cars, etc., All of us would be living in a cave with a life expectancy of 40, like some people might do in the third world. Think about that, as you all, like me, spend time in your cushy upper-middle class houses with air-conditioning, and cars, and cushy jobs, or whatever you think you earned! If you understand that we stole land from the Native American tribes, feel free to give it back, and move to another country, and live off the land. Stop being a total hypocrite, liberals.
Try telling the low-income soldier man that was drafted to Vietnam to get shot, that he was unfairly privileged because of his gender. Try telling the Native American man that was thrown off his land that he was unfairly privileged, also. Try telling the black men that he had unfair privilege when he was a slave. End the “testoserone” stereotypes. Don’t worry: if the male population falls from 49 or 48 percent to 35 percent and contains more homeless and suicide-ridden men, you can still blame the “evil patriachy”, which had actually favored women over men. I have met good patriarchal men who have supported their wives and children, as firemen, at risk to themselves, compared to the stereotypes on some websites. Anyway, favoring freeloaders, and biting the hand that feeds us, seems to be a “bleeding heart” tradition. If women won’t apologize about their gender abusing children and elderly at a higher rate than men, and i’m not saying they should, I will not apologize on behalf of the sins of my goddamn gender and race, which I’m damn proud of. You “politically correct” nuts who want to instill guilt in me should look elsewhere. If you believe this feminist movement is about “equality”, then I got some oceanfront property in Wyoming I wish to sell you. You can ignore this post and say it’s a “troll”, or you might try to refute historical facts I mentioned on this post or the other websites I’ve been on. Lets see what guts you have. You just might learn s0mething.