My post last Thursday on men and feminist anger has drawn more than 130 comments, the highest total for any post so far this year. It’s been discussed elsewhere, like at Pandagon, as well as at a couple of the infamous men’s rights advocate discussion boards.
At the MRA sites, some of the comments turn to the inevitable questioning of my sexuality. I’ve written before, here and here, about the typical strategies used by anti-feminists against pro-feminist men. Though pro-feminist men get hit by many slurs, by far the most consistent tactic is to question our heterosexuality. The "if he thinks that way, he must be gay" is a line with which virtually every pro-feminist man is well familiar.
A couple of weeks ago, a male student of mine in my women’s history class asked me about this. "Hugo, how do you handle so many people thinking you’re gay?" He was asking as much for himself as for me; though he is straight, he reported that since he signed up for a women’s studies class, he’s been the target of mild but consistent anti-gay slurs. I gave him a quick answer, ruefully conceding that "being called gay" is something that every man who does this work — even by taking a class in feminist studies — is going to have to endure.
In my elementary school days, the words "faggot" and "queer" were the two most potent insults that boys used on each other. Long before I understood what they meant, I knew that they were "fighting words." I remember getting into a scrap with Ricky De La Rosa in third grade because he called me a faggot; I had no idea what the term meant but I knew it was something I had to deny. I also learned — quickly — that verbal denials were insufficient. The only effective way to fight back against this particular label was to hit. Though I didn’t understand what the word meant at age eight or nine, I did grasp that it was closely correlated with weakness; hitting back "proved" (at least temporarily) that the charge was a false one.
By the time I hit junior high, I did understand what homosexuality was. As we transitioned into puberty, the obsession with rooting out "queerness" and "faggotry" only grew. In my memory, girls rarely called boys "faggots", but they did say "Omigod, that’s so gay!" to refer to anything that they disliked. It was clear that homosexuality correlated with everything weak, bad, "less than"; it was the one charge that had to be denied and the one charge most difficult to disprove.
I probably got called "gay" more than most of my peers. In my childhood and early adolescence, I wasn’t athletic. I was a "drama nerd", and was active in a community theater company. At that age, most of my good friends were either girls or other boys who, like me, were seen as softer, more intellectual, less masculine, and, definitely, "queer." Mind you, I had figured out early on that I wasn’t sexually attracted to men. Though many things in my life were complicated when I was young, I never went through a "crisis" of sexual identity. By the time I was thirteen, every fiber of my being was interested in girls. I may have been too shy at that age to do anything about it, but I was never personally in doubt of my own flagrant heterosexuality. (When I read Phillip Roth in college, I’m somewhat embarrassed to say I winced in recognition!)
But as anyone who remembers this time surely knows, when a group of boys calls you "gay", it’s rather hopeless to reply hotly, "But I like girls, I really do!" One particular embarrassing episode in eighth grade stands out to me. Three of the "popular boys" kept asking me, not very nicely, if I was gay. "Come on, Hugo, you can tell us", they proclaimed. "Just admit it", they urged, like detectives questioning a guilty suspect. I protested that I liked girls, and my tormentors inquired, "Which ones?" I then let slip the name of the one girl — Frances — on whom I did have a huge crush. (Of course, Frances was a bright, outgoing girl who was the best basketball player of either sex in the whole eighth grade. Young and clumsy Hugo always fell for the "jocks", who were utterly unattainable.) The trio smiled, and spread my secret through all of York School. Frances, who had been friendly, stopped speaking to me altogether. It was not a happy time.
That was more than a quarter century ago. Long before I ever took a women’s studies class, I was called a "faggot". Long before I cared about how I dressed, I was called "queer." In junior high school, my clothes came from the Sears catalog. (Tuffskin jeans, anyone?) I may pay attention to fashion these days, but I didn’t when I was a kid, and I can assure you that I heard anti-gay epithets just as often back then. Long before I began to publicly challenge men to change their lives and reconsider what it means to be masculine, I was a target of a tremendous amount of invective. I know full well that I wasn’t alone. I’ve sat in countless groups with other adult men, straight and gay and bi, and listened to their stories about growing up with what has often been called the "fear of faggotry."
Fear of faggotry is the earliest form of social control that young men use on each other. Even before they understand what homosexuality is, they use the fear of being labeled "gay" or "queer" to hold other males in line. Fear of faggotry sets limits and boundaries. Young men learn very, very quickly that certain behaviors (crying in public, being too friendly with girls, not showing an interest in violence) get called "gay" and hence unmasculine. By the time most American boys hit puberty, they’ve been well-conditioned to take often frantic measures to avoid this most common — and most feared — of charges. What they learn is that public displays of compassion, of thoughtfulness, of gentleness, of verbal or artistic dexterity will all earn the epithet "faggot." Fear of faggotry thus renders young men inarticulate; it causes them to obscure and "closet" the softer and more human sides of their nature.
As an adult, heterosexual, pro-feminist man, I don’t spend time trying to disprove the charge of homosexuality. After all, to do so would suggest that I thought there was something fundamentally wrong with being homosexual. Young men who aspire to do pro-feminist work had better get over any internalized homophobia lickety-split! Running around saying "Look at me, I"M NOT GAY!!!" is not only unlikely to impress anyone, it also indicates a profound discomfort with the whole notion of diverse sexualities. If being called "fag" or "gay" makes you quake in your boots, my friend, you still have a considerable amount of work to do. I don’t say that to be unkind or insensitive, but to be brutally honest. One of the litmus tests for whether or not a man is ready and willing to live as a pro-feminist is how he responds to the nearly-certain anti-gay slurs that will be thrown his way. If he reacts with frantic defensiveness (as I did in eighth grade), then it’s evidence he’s got a ways to go on his journey.
Several of my colleagues and a huge number of my students are convinced I’m closeted. "Married four times, eh? Likes to wear tight jeans, Versace loafers and Paul Frank watches? Teaches women’s studies? Something must be going on there…" I’ve heard it throughout my career and I’ll likely hear it for as long as I continue to teach this subject. Yes, some of my personal aesthetic choices go against a masculine stereotype. (Then again, I’m obsessed with college football.) But those who are most likely to question my sexuality do so less because of how I dress or how I walk and more because of my public commitment to feminism. This is by no means unique to me; as I tell my male students, if they decide to live out a pro-feminist life they will have to endure plenty of slings and arrows — the charge of homosexuality chief among them. "You do this work", I tell them, "and men and women will question your sexuality for the rest of your life. Are you strong enough to endure that?" It’s a direct challenge, and, in a not very subtle or ironic way, an appeal to the traditionally masculine virtue of courage.
Please understand, I don’t think I — or any other pro-feminist man — is "heroic" for putting up with a lifetime of anti-gay slurs. Yes, the "fear of faggotry" is real and powerful. But men who do pro-feminist work still have countless privileges that their sisters do not. Though we must put up with endless cries of "faggot" and snarky remarks behind our backs, we still get to walk through our lives in male bodies with all the entitlement that entails. Anytime we want, we can abandon our pro-feminism and reassert our male privilege, something our sisters, wives, daughters and mothers cannot do. Compared to the threats and burdens women face, the charge of "faggot!" — as frightening as it may be to young men — is small potatoes indeed.
I thought the line was that men pretend to be feminists to get women to sleep with them. Which implies that admitting to being anti-feminist is a bad strategy, not necessarily the message such people want to convey, but whatever.
That’s the other slur. We’re EITHER gay OR we’re “wolves in sheep’s clothing.” A few, the lucky few, get accused of both at the same time by the same people.
“At the MRA sites, some of the comments turn to the inevitable questioning of my sexuality.”
And that disgusts me. It’s unfair to you, and it’s a homophobic slur, just like saying “retarded” as an insult. It also demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding toward people who are truly gay. (And would someone who was romantically attracted to other men be a “self-loathing male,” as some of those say you are?)
Hugo–
Thank you for this insightful post. On a slightly different point, why do you choose to refer to yourself as a pro-feminist man, rather than a feminist man? I am sure you have probably tackled this before, but I am a new reader. I had such debates over whether or not men could be feminists while I was in graduate school, but to be honest, I never could see the point why a man couldn’t just claim himself a feminist. I guess I am wary of any essentialism that might underlie “feminism” if we were to circumscribe it to biological women. But, perhaps this is not your intention?
Because it’s an article of faith among many feminists that a mere male cannot truly be a feminist - it’s a woman thing, and the poor benighted males can never truly understand.
Hugo,
Your apparent reading comprehension filter is still intact.
I have not read any posts on any MRA forums that question your sexuality.
I *have* read many comments that you are an unusually pussyfied man.
IOW Emasculated - identifying almost soley with the female and feminine.
“Hugo may be biologically a man, but his personality most definitely has strong feminine characteristics, moreso than most ordinary men. In other words, Hugo’s plumbed like a guy but acts like a girl. That’s why I for one argue that his experiences, etc., are not typical of normal, ordinary, healthy masculinity while Gonzo’s are.”
This has zero to do with whom you have sex with or whom you find sexually attractive.
Emasculated does not equal ‘Gay’.
In fact your well known, and self-admitted hebophilic tendencies are, well, just creepy.
In a very hetersexual way, of course.
All the Best,
Lee
Lee, visit Stand Your Ground to find this gem from Mr. Bad, whom I eventually banned:
“Homosexual? He claims to be heterosexual, married, etc., but frankly with his propensity for wearing pink and pastel colored shirts, women’s jean, his fondness for antiquing and other modes of shopping, etc., to me he comes across as queer as a $3 bill. Maybe he’s bi, or perhaps in serious denial. Who knows?”
I stand corrected.
You have posted one instance. Certainly proves that *a* MRA questions your sexuality, but by no means proof that all, most or a predominance of MRA’s think as such.
“The “if he thinks that way, he must be gay” is a line with which virtually every pro-feminist man is well familiar.”
Well Hugo, as someone who WAS a pro-feminist man in my teens to mid 30’s, the women nor men wouldn’t question me on this because of my beliefs. This is/was a common test young women toss at men these days.
I get tested on this by women to this day - but it’s just a courtship test.
And I am certainly no longer a pro-feminist man.
“softer and more human sides of their nature” ???
“Lee, visit Stand Your Ground to find this gem from Mr. Bad, whom I eventually banned…”
I host my own forum, and I have heated disagreements with some members.
Some I don’t agree with on almost every word they post.
I even have had my own share of trolls, insults and bad attitudes.
Yet I have not banned anyone - there is plenty of room for disagreement on my forum.
This propensity to censure, censor and edit is a strong point of many in the Feminist Camp. It strongly supports the oft-repeated MRA phrase that “Feminism cannot wistand an open debate.”
An open debate and resorting to personal attacks are hardly the same thing, so using Hugo’s banning of an abusive troll as a way to show he fears debate is a pretty weak charge.
OK, so the things that can get one perceived as “gay” are just strange; this is true of both people who think homosexuality is fine and those who don’t.
For example, a lot of my friends thought I was/might be gay. I wear bright colors and bow ties, I am shy and geeky and fairly non-confrontational, and I didn’t have a girlfriend for a long time. I am not at all homosexual. Oh–should note–many of the women who thought I was probably gay were lesbian–they certainly didn’t oppose homosexuality or see it as a bad thing.
I have not read any posts on any MRA forums that question your sexuality.
I *have* read many comments that you are an unusually pussyfied man.
Yeah the comments I read are that ‘pro-feminist men’ are merely pussy-whipped, not gay. Pussy-whipped and gay are two different universes - I would say opposites. A gay man doesn’t feel the compulsion to please women based on his sexual orientation. A pussy-whipped guy is trying to please women to win their approval - for ego and possibly sexual gratification. That is the accusation often thrown towards pro-feminist men, and it’s a common one on MRA boards.
Hershele: it depends who your audience is.
If you’re trying to convince other man that feminist or pro-feminist men are in the wrong, you call them gay.
If you’re trying to convince other women that feminist or pro-feminist men are in the wrong, you say they’re just trying to score.
If you’re in a mixed crowd, you’ll probably just say they’re unmanly.
Gonzman: Who appointed you the spokesperson for feminists or pro-feminists?
Leraconteur: There’s a fundamentally dishonest debate tactic I call the “opt-out blanket statement.” It’s the simultaneous insistence on the near-universality of a general claim (the blanket statement) and the narrowness of all counterexamples (the opt-out). You seem to be doing this.
In addition, why should “I didn’t call you gay, I just called you emasculated” get one a free pass?
“softer and more human sides of their nature” ???
Yeah, I caught that too.
I am not particularly programmed to behave in a traditionally masculine fashion, despite the circular logic of people insisting that I do. I LIKE it that way.
The “more human” reference was awkwardly put; my bad. I did not wish to imply that the feminine is “more human” and the masculine less so. Rather, fear of being labeled a “fag” causes men to hide their human vulnerabilities and APPEAR to be less than human — invulnerable, hyper-heterosexual, etcetera.
Why can’t a man be feminist, according to the saying, “Feminism is the radical notion that women are people” ? If they want to call themselves allies of feminists, that’s fine too.
It does strike me that the Masculinity Race in school serves as a ranking mechanism and social control manipulative tool, just as mastery of the latest gossip and fashion and boyfriend are used to establish ranking of girls.
A gamma or iota or omega guy is labelled wimp or pussy or gay; the equivalent girl is ugly or fat or looks like a dork or can’t get a guy. Junior high is the worst. Animals with raging hormones. We should all have amnesia of jr. high days.
And Leraconteur, what’s with the hebophilia reference?
Gonz, we are ALL programmed by our cultures to some degree. It’s called “learning”. Some people feel congruent with the predominant culture, some people less so. Only asocials (”wolf boys”, kids locked in a bare room all their lives) are not programmed, and they are a mess, if not near-psychotic.
Tuffskins! Wow, I haven’t heard those referred to in awhile.
Amen, Nancy. We should all have amnesia of junior high days.
What resources–books or other–are there for men who want to deal with internalized homophobia? I am thinking of youth group and GenX & Y age.
Great post, Hugo! So what about all those wonderful “CHEFS” who just happen to be male?
Wonder what people call them, huh?
“The “if he thinks that way, he must be gay” is a line with which virtually every pro-feminist man is well familiar.”
The truly scary thing is these men’s inherent claim (buried claim?) that in order to be properly heteroseuxal, you have to dominate and hate women. If you don’t do either, you’re obviously gay.
Very strange indeed.
Q grrl-
I was just thinking this.
I’ve always been told that the kind of boys I tend to like/date- ’softer’ intellectual, emotionally open, egalitarian types that don’t suscribe to ‘traditional masculinity and who are interested in a equal, nontraditional sort of relationship- are ‘probably gay’. If a guy was nice to me- then he couldn’t possibly like me. ‘Cause, you see- if he *really* liked me, he’d push me around and stare at my tits and just tune me out.
The idea *did* seem to be that male heterosexual desire *is* all about disrespect, hatred, exploitation and abusive dominance. It seemed like their kind of ‘masculinity’ was all about being a walking penis rather then a full human being.
I never could figure out why they were so proud of this, And why a relationship with a ‘proper heterosexual man’ who would treat me like crap was sooooo much better then my ‘faggot’ boyfriends. I’d tell them that the logic kinda didn’t compute. They’d usually just start calling me a dyke then- hey, equal opportunity homophobia for *everyone*. :p
Gonzman: Who appointed you the spokesperson for feminists or pro-feminists?
Same person that appointed people like you who clairvoyantly tell us what our motivations and thinking are. I mean, you magically know that by acting “manly” we’re really secretly gay; that our questioning the a priori assumptions of feminism not out of any conviction, but because we secretly want to beat up and rape women, and so on, and so forth.
And, FYI, son - I say that it’s an article of faith among many feminists that a man can’t truly be a feminist because in fact, that is what is said - here’s the first link from my casual search:
http://www.expositorymagazine.net/2004/september/feminism_annmarie.php
I quote, from the bottom of that page:
Many feminists, especially radical feminists, don’t believe men can truly be feminists. In this perspective, male supporters of feminism are usually called “pro-feminist men.” Other feminists believe that men can be feminists, with no qualifiers.
That’s a feminist e-zine, son. The article, a FAQ, was written by Ann Marie Dobosz, who used to be the sysadmin for the Ms. Boards.
And there’s this: http://fistinpacifist.blogspot.com/2006/03/oh-lord-not-this-again.html
Lord have mercy, but know what you’re talking about. Next time do your homework, and you might wind up not looking so foolish.
Young men needing to prove their masculinity seems pretty universal across human cultures - hence the initiation rituals and vision quests in Native American and similar traditional societies. I don’t know if a lot of young guys have a strong enough sense of self to be comfortable right away with a more fluid gender identity. That may be something that comes later in life. Hugo, in your years working with young people, have you found a less destructive way for boys to prove themselves as men? Is a certain amount of rejection of the feminine inevitable at this stage, since they are trying to distance themselves from the weakness of childhood dependence on the mother?
This propensity to censure, censor and edit is a strong point of many in the Feminist Camp. It strongly supports the oft-repeated MRA phrase that “Feminism cannot wistand an open debate.”
Ler, since when are personal insults (Hugo is pussified, Hugo is gay) equal open debate? Open debate is conducted in good faith. If you don’t want to ban trolls at your place, you get a gold star or a shiny new quarter or something, but banning trolls is certainly not the stifling of open debate.
The “more human” reference was awkwardly put; my bad. I did not wish to imply that the feminine is “more human” and the masculine less so. Rather, fear of being labeled a “fag” causes men to hide their human vulnerabilities and APPEAR to be less than human — invulnerable, hyper-heterosexual, etcetera.
The interesting thing is, Hugo, is that it is my experience that men do this most usually when women are around; because even the most feminist women I know have little or no use for a “weak” man.
Ler, since when are personal insults (Hugo is pussified, Hugo is gay) equal open debate? Open debate is conducted in good faith. If you don’t want to ban trolls at your place, you get a gold star or a shiny new quarter or something, but banning trolls is certainly not the stifling of open debate.
Interesting. I’ve been referred to as a “troll” (even once here last year, in fact) for, of all things, posting links when I was asked for cites to back up a statement I made.
Hugo doesn’t need to worry about what I’d say behind his back - if I think he’s full of crap, I tell him, and cite my reasons right here to his face. And when I agree with him, I do the same. I might blog on him if I don’t want to contribute to thread drift here, or really don’t think there is any point in commenting given the direction/tone of the posts, but this is hardly a secret. Even anti-marriage me congratulated him on his nuptuials.
Far too often, though, disagreement is taken as a personal affront, and even more so if the person is dogged in their disagreement, or, God Forbid, backs them up with logic or citations. It’s even been accused that being civil in tone and discourse is dishonest and aggressive and bad faith.
Jendi, think of how beloved the tomboy character is compared to the sissy. A girl who plays baseball and does traditionally masculine things is adorable, but a boy in a dress is a freak. I don’t think that rejection of femininity is exclusive to boys, and I do think it’s strongly associated with kids - whether female or male - who want to earn and use social power that can sway both boys and girls.
As for Hugo’s post, the fag-accusations really are hurled at any guy who doesn’t stick 100% with his gender’s accepted norms. My husband used to have long hair and got some really weird questioning of his sexuality because of that - but really, do you think of a nerdy guy in his 20s with long hair when you’re thinking of a sterotypical gay guy? We all are pretty familiar with the straw-feminist, but I think Hugo is here introducing us to the spectre of the straw-pro-feminist. (By the way, I do feel comfortable calling a guy a feminist, but when we’re talking gender politics, it is often useful to use the term “pro-feminist” just to differentiate between male and female feminists.)
Emasculated does not equal ‘Gay’ (Lee)
Yeah the comments I read are that ‘pro-feminist men’ are merely pussy-whipped, not gay. Pussy-whipped and gay are two different universes - I would say opposites. A gay man doesn’t feel the compulsion to please women based on his sexual orientation. A pussy-whipped guy is trying to please women to win their approval - for ego and possibly sexual gratification. (MVa)
Funny, I tend to think of these insults as reinforcing each other rather than being opposite. When you call a guy gay, the insult lies in the “you are the fucked, the defiled,” with a lot of emphasis on the person being insulted being the passive party, i.e., the cocksucker rather than the suckee. To me, being called gay is like being called a woman: you’re weak, you’re unmanly, you’re not in control of your body, you’re being fucked rather than doing the fucking. Calling a man a faggot and a pussy are just flip sides of the same coin: you’re not a real man.
Doc Schwyzer, remember me from fall ‘04? I’ve got a year left at Fullerton. Serious, everyone reading this, I was in Hugo’s women’s history 25B and he was tight. When I first took the class I was so sure he (you) were gay. Most of the girls were too, and I know some of them still wondering about you. I have not commented since I saw you got married last year but congratulations. I have been checking this blog lately and saw this post and the post last week about men in your 25B class and had to comment. And I never said anything like "I’m going to get killed", you know that, but I remember at least one dude who did. It wan’t most of the guys though, at least with our class I think you might be exaggerating a little bit.
Anyhow, your up to 200 ratings on Ratemyprofs: most people like you, man. I think mostly the ladies are doing the ratings, though!
In all seriousness I learned so much from your classes, and if you are reading this and haven’t taken one of Doc Schwyzer’s classes, you really should. But I still am not a feminist, inspite of his efforts. I will be once I get my "play, boys" faze done with!
Goran D.
Far too often, though, disagreement is taken as a personal affront, and even more so if the person is dogged in their disagreement, or, God Forbid, backs them up with logic or citations. It’s even been accused that being civil in tone and discourse is dishonest and aggressive and bad faith.
Gonz, I was referring specifically to Ler’s disingenous stance: that is, that calling someone a “pussy” or “gay” is the same as disagreeing. It’s not. It’s meant as a simple insult, no argument required; it’s trollery. It also IS aggressive, dishonest and in bad faith to insist, in a perfectly measured tone that doesn’t take other posters’ arguments into account (or distorts them), that Hugo is indeed, a pussified male or gay.
(I don’t myself believe that a gay man, or a so-called “pussified” man, is a bad thing, but most men who use the term “pussified” clearly mean to wound.)
Goram, I do remember you and your brother well. Glad you are doing well at Fullerton! Thanks for the kind words and the link; I’m sorry you’re not yet a feminist. Your words bring to mind a potential paraphrase of Augustine: “Bring me pro-feminism, lord, but not yet!
In response to Lee, I agree with Sara and Jen and Evil. In the hierarchy of schoolyard insults, the worst thing you can call a boy is a “fag”, and the next most harmful thing to call him is a “pussy”. You can’t wound him by referring to his heterosexuality or his masculinity. No boy is hurt by another boy calling him a “dick”, after all!
What hubris some of your posters have, when I think of men’s rights and men’s liberation, I think primarily of the same fundamental right women continue to fight for: to not be pigeonholed into narrow, socially defined roles. Yet here they come defining one another by how “masculine” they are. I have news for you: if you have the physiology, anything you do is by definition masculine. Everything else is an attempt at generalizing the similar behaviors among humans with that equipment and therefore less accurate than relying on the actual demonstrated behavior in front of you. Such conceptions of masculinity and femininity are useful only in the demographic sense. Sociologists, psychologists, and anthropologists, the people that actually study this sort of thing, have been telling us these things for years. Every woman should care when any man outside the acceptable little box is criticized in such a way, most likely it’s men we love who will get that treatment.
>” In the hierarchy of schoolyard insults, the worst thing you can call a boy is a “fag”, and the next most harmful thing to call him is a “pussy”…”
Capt, you probably live in an area where men think of ‘being a real man’ as being a mensch–that a real man is honorable, brave and loyal. The people Hugo is talking about see ‘real man’ as ‘nothing like a woman’. That’s why their worst insults are those that call a man feminine.
It’s kind of sad, because there are honest advocates for men’s rights (like bmmg) and they have to get lumped in with these bozos who think the point of being an MRA is to step on the uppity bitches.
I think guys are calling ‘pro-feminists’ pussy-whipped because of their obsequious behaviour in front of women. I think a pro-feminist man would get the sweats if he was confronted by the dilemma of telling the truth to a woman if that truth could have the slightest chance of causing a pause for thought, heck even minor offense to the woman. It’s the obsequiousness, almost lechery - that many men don’t like to see in other men. If a man acts that way, it is a weakness of sorts. It’s just dishonest, and I think it’s actually quite condascending. Why not treat women as your equal, instead of a delicate flower? It’s also manipulative in that this type of man is just using a woman’s approval to boost his own ego.
Carry on discussing how often ‘pro-feminist’ men are called ‘gay’ (weak strawman to attack) - meanwhile, the most common adjective being raised on MRA boards regarding ‘pro-feminist’ men is ‘pussy-whipped’.
Many feminists, especially radical feminists, don’t believe men can truly be feminists. In this perspective, male supporters of feminism are usually called “pro-feminist men.” Other feminists believe that men can be feminists, with no qualifiers.
Interesting. What’s your take on that, Hugo?
MVa quoted:
“Many feminists, especially radical feminists, don’t believe men can truly be feminists. In this perspective, male supporters of feminism are usually called “pro-feminist men.” Other feminists believe that men can be feminists, with no qualifiers.”
and added:
“Interesting. What’s your take on that, Hugo?”
I’m not Hugo, of course, nor would I presume to speak for him, but the very question presupposes a monolithic “Feminism” to which one subscribes by degrees, and that the existence of multiple Feminist viewpoints is a novelty.
In truth, monolithic ideologies are a fantasy of their opponents. Not even the Nazis were all of one mind.
One would think, to hear some commentators, that all MRA’s were drunks in the middle of bad divorces. To read the average blog comment from some of the same, that might be a reasonable surmise, but we both know that’s not the truth. Let’s extend the same minimal courtesy to the feminists, ok?
It was my experience that boys who were called “faggot” or “queer” in middle school and high school also endured physical abuse and bullying from their tormenters. The name callers didn’t restrict themselves to verbal taunts but accompanied their words with kicks and punches (and destruction of personal property). I am 42 now. It seemed as though the school teachers and administrators turned a blind eye to this gay-bashing bullying (and some teachers, especially phys. ed. coaches, engaged in the verbal taunts against guys who were not good at sports). Guys who were slender, academically successful, who wore eyeglasses, participants in the school choir or school orchestra, good at art or drama (or who just seemed “different”) were targeted for this cruelty. It seems as though many school systems are more proactive about the problem of bullying now. It was horrible when I was a kid. When I was 12 (and lived in South Florida), Anita Bryant and Jerry Falwell were engaged in their very public campaigns against gay rights including large rallies in our community. I don’t even think most gay people wanted to have their marriages recognized at this point (some did, no doubt), Bryant and Falwell wanted to see gay people prohibited from teaching kids in school and discriminiated against in terms of housing, etc. It seemed to me at the time that the political activities of Falwell and Bryant (and others like them) exacerbated the anti-gay bullying in school, especially around 1977. Even at a young age, I made the connection between the bullying behavior I saw at school and the activites of Bryant, Falwell, et. al. which seemed to permit everyone to have open hunting season on gay guys or hetero guys who fit some stereotype of a gay person. When a gay man hit Anita Bryant in the face with a pie at a press conference, several guys were targeted in the school cafeteria to have trays of food dumped on them. The more humiliating and degrading the treatment that got dished out it seemed that the happier the tormenters were. Ironically, one of the homophobic bullies from my school turned out to be a gay man as an adult (perhaps he was taking his internalized homophobia and self loathing out on his victims). And some of the guys who were labeled as “fags” or “queers” got married and have tons of kids. Stereotypes are stupid and most of us have figured out that you can’t shove people into tidy categories. The word “cruel” comes to mind when I think about the hell some guys endured in school. I am gay, by the way. I knew I was attracted to other guys when I was in my early teens. I was terrified at the treatment I saw some guys getting. I gave up things I liked (I stopped playing the violin, dropped out of choir, and intentionally did ridiculously substandard work in art class) to cover my tracks. I overdid it in terms of athletics. When I was 17, I had my parents sign permission for me to enlist in the Army (I had to prove to myself that I was a “real man”). Somewhere along the line I reached a point of self-acceptance. I regret that my fear (terror, actually) had an impact on what I felt I could study and what school activities I could participate in. The only homophobic female I recall from that time was Anita Bryant. None of the girls at school were that cruel. The U.S. Army wasn’t and isn’t exactly socially progressive, but there was and is (with some exceptions) much better discipline in the military than on the school playground (our school system was really horrible). Racism, derogatory comments about women, sexual harrassment, and bullying are, for the most part, not tolerated in the military. In Middle School and High School I remember KKK literature being passed around openly and some guys making lewd comments to females. I saw some guys sexually harrassing female staff (including female teachers being cornered in a classroom and touched by a few guys inappropriately). And I heard just about every racist and ethnic slur you can imagine. I was invited to our Prom by a nice girl and I didn’t go. I also didn’t attend my graduation ceremony. I was fortunate to be around level-headed and kind people as my peers in the Army and it wasn’t until I was in the military that I began to develop some sense of self esteem. When I went to university I took electives that interested me (subjects I would not have risked taking in High School) and I participated in school music, drama and art programs (even though I majored in biology). I started working towards a Divinity degree (haven’t finished that yet). In terms of feminism, Elizabeth Johnson’s book ‘She Who Is’ and “Church in the Round: Feminist Interpretation of the Church” by Letty M. Russell were my introduction to a feminist theological perspective (it seems to me that there are actually “feminisms” as opposed to “feminism” just as there are “gay communities” as opposed to their being one, monolithic “gay community”). I came to understand that what I had learned about being a male in school was a quite sick and destructive way of being a human being. My exposure to feminist theological writing, feminist students at university, and women in the military helped me become a more whole person. In some ways it would have been easier for me to live out the sick male script from my school days — the path of least resistance… just to be a “good ole boy.” If a man is open enough to explore various forms of feminism (and other ways of being human) I see it as a sign of strength and courage (in that they are willing to take risks and are open-minded). I also admire women who live life as they please, do what they want (stereotypes and expectations of others be damned) and who don’t feel as though they must adhere to some narrow pattern or outdated definition of a woman’s life (subservient and obedient to some man). In university I took a Women’s Studies course and I was exposed to some intense anger from women during classroom discussions. This was an eye-opening experience. And it made me understand how some women could not accept or trust a man as a feminist or as pro-feminist (since men have oppressed and exploited women in the past). In some ways, being gay makes it easier for me to be friends with a woman — we’re not going to end up in the sack together and it clears the air for us to be friends (since I won’t be hitting on the woman sexually as some guys do). What makes me frustrated is that is seems that (in the United States in terms of gender and sexual equality) we are regressing. Hugo, you seem to be an open-minded and expansive thinker. It is sad that some males are threatened by your attitude, your philosophy and your academics and feel the need to pathologize your humanity.
Oriscus, I have read your post 4 times now, and still cannot glean any coherent meaning from it. I *think* you’re using some kind of diversionary tactic to discuss how I’m generalising about MRAs and feminists - to which I can only suggest you also take up your complaint with Hugo too:-
At the MRA sites, some of the comments turn to the inevitable questioning of my sexuality. I’ve written before, here and here, about the typical strategies used by anti-feminists against pro-feminist men.
He’s generalising (quite inaccurately) that MRAs (from online forums) are calling pro-feminist men ‘gay’. To which I have responded : no, they are calling you ‘pussy-whipped’ - and made a clear distinction between the two labels. I can’t speak about his own offline experience of course - I’ll certainly believe any testimony he puts forward about that.
In terms of my own experience on MRA discussion forums, my reply is a pretty accurate assessment (in terms of what MRAs are describing men like Hugo as) - and it’s not a label that MRAs would shy away from admitting they make about pro-feminist men too.
I also admire women who live life as they please, do what they want (stereotypes and expectations of others be damned)
I wholeheartedly agree. I also want to live such a life, without stereotypes of me being “broken” (and in need of fixing) just because I am a man, without me being seen as an “old boy” who is priveleged by a “patriarchy” just because I am a heterosexual man, that I am prone to violence just because I am a hereosexual man, potential rapist etc. I want to be believed and supported if I have been physically abused by a woman. I don’t want to be thought of as a potential paedophile just because I’m walking through a park that happens to have a children’s playground. These stereotypes are unrepresentative of your average heterosexual male, yet they are prevalent.
I mean my comment sincerely: heterosexual men are judged unfairly too. You may not see it that way, and I respect that point of view, because from your eyes, we are oppressors since YOU were bullied by stupid, evil guys - who deserve condemnation. Your experience frames your outlook - yes - but we all have differing experiences, and we have to accept our own particular views are subjective (mine included of course). I believe we all want the freedom you speak of and we are all capable of being victims of false and negative stereotyping.
I remember being tormented by gay-baiting as a kid. In retrospect I think the mature reply would probably have been “he who smelt it dealt it.”
People who are confident about their own sexuality just don’t spend much time worrying about anyone else’s.
figleaf
The MRA defense here is downright fascinating. You’re focusing on the wrong childish insult! “My client couldn’t have robbed the bank, your honor, because he was too busy robbing the liquor store.”
Mva, you need to work on your reading comprehension. Nowhere in Mark’s post does he mention any overarching distrust of all heterosexual males being “oppressors.” If he says men have been oppressive in the past, that’s a broad statement in a specific context.
It’s pretty easy to see what his point is - not that all men or all heterosexual men are evil, but that oppressive behavior leaves wounds and anger with the victims and that that anger needs to be recognized as legitimate. He is responding to Hugo’s statements about gay-baiting being used to insult any boy who deviates from the preferred standards of masculinity. He is obviously against this because it is painful and stupid, but as he mentions, not everyone who participated was even heterosexual.
He is also noting that he agrees with Hugo that feminist thinking helped him come to accept himself as a full person who is “allowed” to accept all aspects of himself without rejecting some interests based on other people’s standards. You may feel threatened by any broad description of males misbehaving, but that’s hardly the same thing as the racial slurs and physical abuse he mentions. Learn to hear what the person is actually saying and you may find it wasn’t at all intended to apply to you anyway.
Sara’s precisely right in both who is targetted for playground insults [anyone not a perfect clone of the ideal] and the reason/heirarchy of insults.
From Lee:
I have not read any posts on any MRA forums that question your sexuality.
I *have* read many comments that you are an unusually pussyfied man.
IOW Emasculated - identifying almost soley with the female and feminine.
But aren’t the words “emaculated” and “pussyfied” words that concern Hugo’s sexuality? No, they’re not saying that he’s flat-out homosexual, but they are both words with sexual connotations and denotations. Check out the definition at dictionary.com for the former and urbandictionary.com for the latter (though for that I had to go to “pussywhipped” which I beleive has the same definition and stigma.) In either case, both words have strong connotations of “being less of a man,” which are the same connotations in “gay” that Hugo talks about in his post.
How else can those words be applied to a man where they are not being used to take away from his masculinity? Are they being used in that way? I haven’t seen the message boards where these comments are to be found, so I don’t know. But I’d take a guess that most authors of those comments did mean to say that Hugo was less of a man. They also probably intended to insult him sexually, though I don’t know how conscious that sort of word choice is for most people.
I think that there’s something to think about that a majority of the words that men use to tar other men with (gay, pussy, sissy, etc.) are words meant to feminize them.
Small potatoes perhaps….but painful nonetheless. No one needs to wear tuffskins…I think I wore a purple pair in gradeschool. Something purple from Sears anway.
Anyway an interesting read from a friendly ENFJ in Texas.
Hugo,
A great post. Often as you’ve pointed out these put downs link the feminine and male homosexuality as if both are the greatest danger to boys’ development. As it is, it seems to me the need to create a self over and against others is a quite fragile thing. I had tuffskins in junior high as well, and I couldn’t deny my homosexuality, only remain silent when queried.
“It is sad that some males are threatened by your attitude, your philosophy and your academics and feel the need to pathologize your humanity.”
Maybe some men, Mark, but in my opinion it isn’t his individual attitude that is threatening. It is his politics and the motivations for supporting feminism is what I find a matter of debate and also a bit troubling.
What is curious is that there are feminists out there that have no problem pathologizing men.
“The interesting thing is, Hugo, is that it is my experience that men do this most usually when women are around; because even the most feminist women I know have little or no use for a “weak” man.”
Gonz, many moons ago on a men’s forum I wrote a piece at length about sensitive men. My idea is that, in a nutshell, women don’t want ’sensitive men’ that are in touch with their own needs and wants in part, because women can’t use their own as priorities to overshadow those needs in a relationship. The other factor is that men who are truly sensitive are often painfully aware of any personal injustices committed towards them; this is exactly what so-called ’strong, liberated’ women don’t want, either.
This is also one of the reasons why men in the dating game get confused over signals women are sending out—how they want a ‘Real Man’ yet at the same time a guy who sits down and listens to them, or is inclined towards ‘artsy stuff.’ They think women want to hear about their insecurities as well as their strengths. It is the double standard of how women can use men as CaptainFreeTherapist ™ and complain endlessly, yet still want the stoic, manly man to pick up the slack and take out the garbage when the time for typical ‘traditional’ roles to kick in. I suspect feminist women have trouble with seeing men as emotional equals as anyone else. I haven’t seen much anecdotes otherwise.
A truly sensitive soul would see his own plight and the context in relation to that plight. And objecting and even protesting is often dubbed as ‘whining.’
“Mind you, I had figured out early on that I wasn’t sexually attracted to men. Though many things in my life were complicated when I was young, I never went through a “crisis” of sexual identity. By the time I was thirteen, every fiber of my being was interested in girls. I may have been too shy at that age to do anything about it, but I was never personally in doubt of my own flagrant heterosexuality.–Hugo
As an adult, heterosexual, pro-feminist man, I don’t spend time trying to disprove the charge of homosexuality.–Hugo
Oh yeah? ;)
I’m just teasing here, Hugo, goodnaturedly, and I hope it’s taken that way. But also, I think that the irony of these two statements juxtaposed does point to just how ingrained all of this stuff can be, even for people like yourself who are constantly trying to root out stuff, figure stuff out.
Great post, btw.
You may be right, and juxtaposed it looks as if I am contradicting myself. My purpose in the small autobiographical note was NOT to protest my heterosexuality, but to establish that at least in my case, my sexual identity as a straight boy/man offered me no protection from anti-gay slurs.
There are many types of men that are interested in women’s rights besides the gay ones. You are probably one of the ten types of men who want to empower women. http://epowertv.blogspot.com/2005_06_01_epowertv_archive.html
There are a lot of benefits to men when they coach women in their careers. I’ve done a lot of research that shows there are social and economic reasons, not just sexual, for pro-femanist involvement.
Guys like SR need to get out more, and stop confusing passive-aggressive personalities with being ‘nice’ or ’sensitive’. It’s also wise to avoid the sort of woman who says she wants A and really wants B; they’re the female equivalent of men who whine that all they want is a ‘nice girl’ yet only lust after high-strung psychos.
“Guys like SR need to get out more, and stop confusing passive-aggressive personalities with being ‘nice’ or ’sensitive’. It’s also wise to avoid the sort of woman who says she wants A and really wants B; they’re the female equivalent of men who whine that all they want is a ‘nice girl’ yet only lust after high-strung psychos.”
Interesting. Mythago implies I need to get a life, when I don’t have a lot of time to post here to begin with. Is there something bothersome about the truths of my post?
There is no confusion involved at all. In fact, I think it is helpful for young men to see the signs women give off that may be red flags for an unhealthy relationship in the long haul.
Stop making assumptions, Mythago, about the posters you refer to and re-read their messages again if you are to make a rebuttal.
The MRA defense here is downright fascinating. You’re focusing on the wrong childish insult! “My client couldn’t have robbed the bank, your honor, because he was too busy robbing the liquor store.”
djw, well at least you admit Hugo’s barking up the wrong tree here. He’s contrived this entire post on one poster’s comments (Mr Bad’s comment on Hugo being gay) and then assumes wrongly that all MRAs use this insult. You’ve also fallen for it too. Most MRAs aren’t concerned with name-calling - simply because ‘pro-feminist men’ are extremely thin on the ground. They are a curiosity. Most MRAs say “is this guy for REAL?”. They’re trying to work out a ‘pro-feminist man’s motivation. Most assume it’s an ego-trip of sorts, identifying themselves as a ’saviour’ for women.
More insults from MRAs regarding ‘pro-feminist men’ I’ve seen:- ken doll, mangina. Like I say, some people use these insults. You need to question them individually and find out why - but I personally think it points towards men who are easily manipulated / pussy-whipped. NOT gay.
By the way djw, I’ve been called a dickhead, a ‘man who loves beating the shit out of women’, a misogynist - all sorts of names - from feminists. Why? For providing sources to back-up my statements.
You may feel threatened by any broad description of males misbehaving, but that’s hardly the same thing as the racial slurs and physical abuse he mentions.
Somebody call the waaaambulance - so it’s a case of ‘his hurt is greater than your hurt’? It’s a ridiculous game to play. Example: what about a man who, through no fault of his own, is denied access to his children? Is that less of a hurt than a woman who is condascended to by some men because of gender stereotypes? The funny thing about the victim olympics is that nobody can ever decide who won.
I’m sorry that a post about insults has turned out to be so, well, insulting.
Plesae stay on topic. BTW, I quoted one excerpt from Mr. Bad in the comments above — anti-gay slurs directed at me and other pro-feminist men are very common in the Nice Guys forum and at Stand Your Ground.
Of course, there’s no real distinction between calling a male a “pussy” or a “faggot”; homophobia and misogyny are, in masculine culture, so closely related as to be virtually indistinguishable. In this area of life, they are the identical twins of hate.
Plesae stay on topic. BTW, I quoted one excerpt from Mr. Bad in the comments above — anti-gay slurs directed at me and other pro-feminist men are very common in the Nice Guys forum and at Stand Your Ground.
Could you please show more examples? I do frequent SYG and have never seen this insult given out - like I say, the insults revolve around women-pleasing behaviour - except said in much more derogatory terms :)
Of course, there’s no real distinction between calling a male a “pussy” or a “faggot”; homophobia and misogyny are, in masculine culture, so closely related as to be virtually indistinguishable. In this area of life, they are the identical twins of hate.
“Pussy” tends to mean a fearful person, a coward (as an insult). “Pussy-whipped” means to be obsequious towards women - to be sycohpantic to their needs. “Faggot” means you are homosexual. I’m not seeing any crossover in meaning between those 3 terms.
Mythago implies I need to get a life
No, just a clue.
At Nice Guys forum, I am referred to by Voodoojock at least twice as “The Queen from Pasadena”.
Shades of Pale writes at Stand Your Ground:
“Don’t know many flaming gay men do you tb? Hehe. I actually assumed Hugo wasn’t in the closet; that his “marriages” were to other pansy-boys.
Ol’ Hugh flames like the goddamn Olympic torch honey. Perhaps his misandry is merely a cover so he can continue to deny it to himself.”
Do some thread searches using my name, MVa, you’ll find oodles and oodles more.
You have to wonder where these manly men get their encyclopedic knowledge of what gay men are like, eh?
I did do a search and I found the shades of pale quote and none others. I found a whole thread on “ken doll” pro-feminist men. I found almost exclusively that the number one derogatory term is “mangina”. The way this word is used, I most definitely would equate this to sycophantic behaviour, not your sexual orientation. Sure there are some people who simply say you’re gay for being pro-feminist, but it’s like an MRA saying feminists tend to call him a rapist because one or two did - when in fact the most common derogatory terms feminists throw is to question the man’s alpha-status / shame him (mostly feminists call MRAs “losers”, “deadbeats”, “misogynists” etc - always questioning the status of the man or shaming him). I’m not disagreeing with you that SOME guys call you this - I’m disagreeing with the idea that it’s as common as you say it is.
I found almost exclusively that the number one derogatory term is “mangina”. The way this word is used, I most definitely would equate this to sycophantic behaviour, not your sexual orientation.
Mangina is clearly intended to be an insult on its face. It’s not a reference to sycophantic behavior. It means unmanly, effeminate, and queer, all of which are intended to be insults.
Mangina is clearly intended to be an insult on its face. It’s not a reference to sycophantic behavior. It means unmanly, effeminate, and queer, all of which are intended to be insults.
That’s your take on it without actually reading the context of how the word is used. Most people using that word say things like “what a mangina, sucking up to women no matter what” or “manginas who campaign for women just to get some of that sought after female approval” - it’s all there on SYG. Most of the time, people are pretty explicit with the use of the word.
I just think it’s better to ‘know thy enemy’ than make wild guesses about them.
If knowing your enemy means wading through the bile at SYG to catalogue insults, thank you, but no.
I still don’t understand why you want to make a distinction between calling a man a mangina and queer, as though somehow one’s more forgiveable than the other. They’re both intended to emasculate, right? They’re both meant to be crass insults.
Most people using that word say things like “what a mangina, sucking up to women no matter what” or “manginas who campaign for women just to get some of that sought after female approval” - it’s all there on SYG.
I suspect we’re beating a dead horse here, but how is that defensible? You’re claim that’s not questioning sexuality, but rather calling him a sycophant. How on earth is “mangina” NOT questioning someone’s sexuality in of itself?
But see, it’s bad to call a man queer; it’s OK to insult him by comparing him to a woman’s genitals!
If knowing your enemy means wading through the bile at SYG to catalogue insults, thank you, but no.
I can easily comment on the details of MRA’s insults, because I know very (VERY VERY) well that feminists do not hold any moral high ground here - they have their own lexicon of insults they like to use against anyone disagreeing with their litany of alleged crimes against women.
I suspect we’re beating a dead horse here, but how is that defensible? You’re claim that’s not questioning sexuality, but rather calling him a sycophant. How on earth is “mangina” NOT questioning someone’s sexuality in of itself?
Well, allow me to repeat myself : read the context. People are calling him a sycophant. They’re not calling him gay. I couldn’t care less if they WERE calling him gay, but Hugo decided to base this thread on an inaccuracy.
So, to sum up: two wrongs make a right, and “mangina” is a neutral term meaning “syncophantic towards women”.
Frankly, I don’t give a damn what specific behavior someone wants to insult by comparing a man to my genitals.