It’s early on a Thursday morning, and I’ve got finals to give and papers to grade. And though at least a good percentage of my mind is elsewhere, I am ready to begin to respond to folks like Piny at Feministe, McBoing at Punkass Blog, Sheelzebub, and Violet at Reclusive Leftist (among others) who have been debating my June 6 post in which I gave advice to a lad named "Pete".
As best I can tell, the problem unfolded on two fronts. First off, a number of voices in the feminist blogosphere felt I took it too easy on Pete when he announced that he wasn’t ready to practice pro-feminism and give up some of his "bad boy" behavior. Secondly, when called on that by McBoing, I wrote in a comment at that blog:
The key thing I would like to stress is that unlike a great many folks who commented, I do the pro-feminist thing FOR A LIVING. I work, in the trenches, to try and bring young men who are profoundly hostile to anything that smells of feminism to a greater accountability in their lives. If I confront these guys, they’ll walk away with nothing at all but an even bigger chip on their shoulders; an incremental approach that encourages small changes is the one way that I have found that really works.
Piny and Violet were as incensed by that comment as by my original post.
Let me see if I can tackle the two related issues in order:
First off, I’m sorry that my original post about Pete gave the impression that I wasn’t interested in challenging him (and other fellas like him) to overcome their sexism and become better, kinder human beings. I think I made it fairly clear in the piece that I was challenging Pete’s notion that pro-feminism isn’t about chronic anxiety and indecisiveness. I certainly didn’t intend to give the impression to readers that I thought that Pete was "just fine where he was", without considerable room for growth. I wasn’t endorsing reckless, cruel, and unthinking behavior with women — regardless of what age Pete is.
But becoming a pro-feminist is a process, not an event. There are hundreds of comments at Feministe and Punkass Blog suggesting that I ought to have been more forceful with Pete, more condemnatory of his "player" attitude, and more firm in my challenges to his worldview. A great many folks were appalled that I chuckled with Pete and let him leave with the seemingly benign maxim to take things "one day at a time." Yet I remain convinced that with some young men, this sort of gradual (even indulgent) approach is best. Before I can hold a young man to account, I have to earn his trust; before I can challenge him to grow, I have to establish my bona fides. And part of earning that trust is acknowledging that some of his concerns (not all) are legitimate, and that living life as a pro-feminist man (particularly in college) isn’t a cakewalk!
As a Christian, I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about evangelistic strategies. I have friends who are faculty members and students at Fuller’s School of World Mission; their field, "missiology", is devoted to the study of evangelism. The great question is always: "How do we couch the Gospel in terms that will be heard by people from different backgrounds and cultures?" I’ve sat in on a class or two in "missions"; it’s a fascinating academic discipline and an enormously important subject in the evangelical world. And as a gender studies professor, I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about how I can adapt some of these missionary strategies to reach young men and women with a pro-feminist message. In missions work, you learn fast that hectoring (the "hellfire and brimstone" strategy) gets you nowhere fast. Though Christianity has a history of aggressive and often violent proselytizing, modern evangelism is an elegant,intellectually sophisticated, culturally sensitive seduction. I’m convinced that those of us who preach feminism should use the same strategies!
Now, I’m not saying this "softer, gentler, one-day-at-a-time" strategy is one that every feminist ought to use. Feminism is a big house, and there is room within that house for a variety of approaches to "spreading the word". Confrontation has its place. All good movements for justice, in other words, need their "Martins" and their "Malcolms"! (Please know I’m not trying to compare myself to either Malcolm X or Dr. King.) I’m more interested in adopting an incremental approach because it’s the approach that I think works best with the greatest number of young men and women. My students always hear me, for example, compare becoming a feminist to getting into a cold swimming pool: a few will find it easiest to just dive in, but most of us will climb down, step by step, shivering all the way, only gradually becoming comfortable. And none of us can fully immerse ourselves forever; we all have to keep a head above water in order to breathe. That image may not work for everyone, but it comes as close as any to describing my "slow and easy" approach to transformation.
And then there’s the second issue: my unfortunate choice of words on McBoing’s blog. I wrote, rather defensively: I do the pro-feminist thing FOR A LIVING. I work, in the trenches, to try and bring young men who are profoundly hostile to anything that smells of feminism to a greater accountabilty in their lives. I posted that comment in haste, and I regret my poor choice of words. I didn’t mean to imply that I am a "better" feminist than those who are not paid to teach feminism. And I recognize that as a man, I can always make the choice to not be a feminist without paying a major personal pricee. It is obvious to me in hindsight that the comment was pompous and patronizing, and I regret that I made it.
My goal was to point out that I do have a decade or more of experience teaching feminism to college students, and seven years of working with teens as a youth leader. I’ve learned, through trial and error, a great deal about what "works" and doesn’t work. When I was younger, I was far more passionate and far more likely to see things in black and white. I’d like to think that my appreciation for ambiguity and incremental change is a sign of wisdom on my part, but I am aware that my critics are more likely to construe it as cowardice, people-pleasing, and privilege. It is possible that at times I am not forceful enough with young men and women who are still "stuck" in certain patterns of thinking and behavior; then again, I know plenty of colleagues of mine who scare off potential converts. This much I am certain of: no one who teaches this subject has anything like a 100% success rate in raising up young feminists and pro-feminists! We are all struggling, as best we can (in the trenches) to carry out the feminist version of the Great Commission: to convey the message that women are full and complete human beings, radically equal to men in every imaginable respect. We who teach and lead will all have our sucesses and our failures, and we do well to always be alert to new and possibly more productive strategies for achieving our goals.
I’ve got another post in mind about the way in which my writing seems to infuriate my potential allies, but that’s for later.
Hugo, the issue is not that becoming more progressive is “a process”, or that people generally don’t go from nonfeminist to feminist instantly. The issue is that you didn’t really challenge Pete’s excuses–that being pro-feminist will kill his sex life, or that treating women as people is something he needn’t worry about until he’s older. You have the luxury of telling Pete to treat women as jizz dumpsters–it doesn’t affect you much.
Mythago, I simply didn’t say that — I challenged him to work at changing his life, with an end goal of treating women as radical equals. The end result is the same, but the pace may be different.
The Christianity/feminism comparison offends me more every time I hear it. It’s not that you occasionally compare them for tactics, it’s that you talk about them as being similar in a very deep way. Let me make it very clear that the offense is not dependent on my being a non-Christian; in fact, for the purposes of this comment I will assume that Christianity is right and true.
But it’s a matter of faith.
One in ten can have an intense conversion experience, one in a hundred can have a mystical revelation, one in a thousand can think they hear the very voice of God, let’s say. But for the majority, faith is the whole point. God is not going to take literal, corporeal form and argue with you about the composition of the Bible for hours on end. God is not going to come to all your parties. and turn water into wine for a party trick. That’s not how it works.
Women are not like God. The fact of women’s equality stares you in the face each and every time you talk to one, which you can do any time you choose. The existence of women’s humanity and equality is not a mystery, sacred or otherwise; it can be seen, felt, heard, and experienced by anyone who has any kind of contact with any woman.
Feminism isn’t about faith. You need faith, perhaps, to believe that feminism will ultimately triumph - but not to be a feminist right now. The truth is not hidden. Women’s humanity is not hidden. The more you talk about how hard and uncomfortable it is to treat women as equal humans, the more some of your students are going to think, hey, wait, it’s not hard for me, it’s instinctive. I must be doing it wrong. The swimming pool metaphor makes feminism into a religion, as if common sense has nothing to do with it. Becoming a feminist takes observation, logic, direct experience and honesty. Not revelation, and not faith.
So you may have other ideas in mind about what infuriates some of your allies about your writing, but for me, this is it.
Thanks for clarifying that, Sophonisba. My faith and my feminism are so inextricably linked that to untangle one from the other would be to try and undo the old Gordian knot; I don’t know that I had understood until now how exasperating that is to other folks.
Hugo - I think there’s a fundamental flaw in your comparison, one that’s been bothering me since the original post:
There’s no such thing as a meaningful deathbed conversion to feminism.
From an admitted outsider’s perspective, Christianity seems very focused on the end result: it doesn’t matter if one is devout from birth, or “lives a life of sin” and later converts (assuming their conversion is sincere). Feminism, on the other hand, is more concerned with the harm that sexism does *now*, and a later reformation doesn’t mean that the prior acts never happened.
mythago–
Here’s part of how Hugo ‘didn’t’ challenge Pete, according to the original post:
“An aspiring pro-feminist man still gets to express his desires and his wants; he doesn’t get to keep a sense of entitlement that tells him that women exist only to meet those desires and wants.”
“Of course, I did tell Pete that the purpose of becoming a pro-feminist man is not to please women or to “get” women into bed. Indeed, doing so only reinforces the worst stereotypes about male feminists! “
“I reminded Pete that I hadn’t tried to sell pro-feminism as a “tool” for using and exploiting women.”
These sentiments don’t seem to be anywhere close to “telling Pete to treat women as jizz dumpsters”. If one wants to argue that these sentiments, while combined with an incrimental technique, aren’t enough, that’s an argument that can be made. But that argument isn’t the same as arguing that Hugo told Pete to treat women as jizz dumpsters, in my opinion.
True, Jeff — but I’m not saying that they are identical; I am arguing that they are compatible, and that the tactics used in missions work and in feminist classes ought to be similar.
Hugo–
I think there is at least one more thread you might address (there are, of course, lots of threads you might address!): piny’s point over at feministe about not explaining to Pete that women aren’t an undifferentiated mass…
It’s good you took some time before responding; I think your response lacks the defensiveness that it might have had given the vehemence with which your points (and, in some cases, your character) and your flavor of feminism have been argued against.
Hugo: what I’m saying is that the difference between being focused on future conversion and being focused on immediate reform are a fundamental difference that implies that the tactics ought *not* to be similar - this is why statements like “one day at a time” are inappropriate with respect to feminism.
Jeff, thanks. JFP, I do think that becoming a feminist is a process measured in small steps. It’s how it happened in my life, and I’ve seen it in the lives of others. Unlearning sexist behavior just doesn’t happen overnight. It begins with a decision to become a feminist, but that decision is lived out in countless smaller decisions every darned day.
I don’t understand your swimming pool. Fine, some people do it as a slow process, some people jump right in. But what does it mean that you can’t be in the pool forever — that it’s important or necessary to take little breaks when you (phew!) get to be an anti-feminist?
No, you can be in the pool forever, but you can’t breathe underwater. It means no one can be a perfect feminist all the time. Our human need to breathe forces us to the surface; the fact that we live in the culture that we do forces us to make at least the occasional compromise.
In confronting Pete (and talking of it) I think it important to distinguish between:
1.) Talking TO Him - to TELL him - a clear message, vs.
2.) Talking WITH Him - hoping to Reach Him - where he is at at now.
3.) Talking to Others (such as us) through Him
In considering the differences:
1.) Often might come from Our Own Issues - e.g. The CRITICAL Importance of Misogyny and Feminism - e.g. “I’ve been badly Hurt and it’s important that you hear this NOW”
2.) Recognizing how 1.) - might serve Your needs, but may simply turn Pete off and may indeed support him moving - away from Feminism
3.) Dealing with All of Our Perceptions and Issues - and various other things.
When I did Men’s Anti-Rape work - 1983-1987 - we had a weekly informational booth - where Men saw us every Saturday in the warm weather months. We also were visible at other events. Men often came to us with: “aha” insights and support - after seeing us multiple times and sometimes getting our brochure more than once. We - as men - and indeed women as well - often don’t see things immediately - we see them as we can take them in and as we can move with them - at our own pace.
Yes - it is good to confront Pete - but How you could have done it most effectively isn’t necessarily - the “politically correct” way of doing it. Pete needs to hear the truth, but hearing “all the truth” may be too much for him.
There is a time and a place for - bluntness and being “out there”. Only you - can determine what is best with your student.
Thanks!
geo - http://www.geoisphere.blogspot.com
Not sure about the Malcolms and Martins thing. Both of those men were courageously confrontational, and the latter went to jail a whole lot directly confronting people about racism.
And Tammy, I’m not advocating disengagement — I’m advocating a gentle challenge that is, in its own way, quite confrontational. Read my posts about porn — I push hard, but I push hard with an appreciation that transformation happens slowly.
No, you can be in the pool forever, but you can’t breathe underwater. It means no one can be a perfect feminist all the time. Our human need to breathe forces us to the surface; the fact that we live in the culture that we do forces us to make at least the occasional compromise.
Okay - wow. I experienced and continue to experience feminism as liberating, freeing, and wonderful. It is a relief and a way out and forward from a history and a culture that says horrible things about and does horrible things to my half of humanity. Most women feminists do. To experience feminism as suffocating, cold, denying of human needs? I can’t even begin to understand where this is coming from. In your metaphor, feminism isn’t the cold water, it’s the air. And yes, it’s our humanity that forces us to come to the surface. It’s feminism that allows us to breathe.
I am arguing that they [feminism/Christianity] are compatible, and that the tactics used in missions work and in feminist classes ought to be similar.
Oy vey.
If you had a racist in your class, would you gently, calmly nudge-nudge-know-what-you-mean slowly try to bring him along, or would you more assertively confront him? I don’t think you’d tolerate racism the same way you might be tolerating sexism, Hugo. I think you would, perhaps not rudely, but sternly, set someone straight on race. Why should women be treated differently? Because you think it’s still more socially acceptable to be a woman hater?
These are some of the many reasons your Martin/Malcolm comparison made me throw up a little.
Gently confrontational is euphemistic. The myth that MLK was less confrontational than Malcolm X won’t die but let me put it this way: Malcolm X focused pretty much exclusively on speaking to black people about racism, and MLK aimed for a larger social message and direct confrontation with white racists. Radical politics are not about tactics, they are about politics. In tactics, the reason Malcolm X was remembered as more radical was he took a hostile tone a lot more than MLK did, but that’s not really why he was more radical. He was more radical initially as a black separatist but eventually it was more that he had a full scale view of black empowerment as something that had to be economic and personal as well as political.
MLK, by the way, came around to Malcolm X’s view on this in a lot of ways.
Here is my question:
Has “Pete” seen all the blog posts and comment threads in response to your initial post, Hugo? Has he said anything to you about them?
(Apologies if I asked this already in another thread. I don’t think I did.)
I have had no word from Pete yet. Pete?
Sophonisba, the different ways we read the metaphor of water and air are very instructive and interesting to me. Thanks.
You know, punkass marc, I think you’re making a good point there, although not the one you might have meant. If Hugo had a student who said a racist thing in his class, I do hope that he would slowly try to bring him along.
The alternative being ‘to sternly set him straight’–which accomplishes what, exactly? Creating one more white person who refuses to talk about race, at all, because they’re afraid of someone getting mad? Who becomes a bit alarmed whenever any topic relating to racial relations is brought up and tries to change the subject or says ‘well I have black friends’ or ‘oh, I’m probably just not politically correct, watch out!’ and who ultimately perpetuates racism because dealing with it requires talking about it, which they are too scared to do anymore?
Looking at the state of white liberals and progressives who nervously dance around the issue of race and talk about an ideal of being colorblind, can you honestly say that the whole calling-someone-out-sternly thing has worked out the way it was hoped to? I sure don’t think so. In fact, I would argue that the whole phenomenon of white people being more afraid to be called a racist than to be a racist, discussed in depth a while back on pandagon, might be the fruits of that approach.
I sure as hell don’t think that people who have had to deal with racism day in and day out should have to hold some white person’s hand while they ask stupid questions and try to figure out how and why they are racist and how to stop being so. I think that’s white people’s job. What’s so frustrating to me about this whole kerfuffle is that what Hugo was doing is exactly what I think should be happening: it shouldn’t be women who have to hold men’s hand and slowly lead them to feminism. It should be men, talking to other men, being patient and answering the dumb questions that reveal sexist biases. I’m glad it’s Hugo, because it’s not my job as a woman to explain this shit to men, and by and large I’d get too pissed off to be effective.
What’s so frustrating to me about this whole kerfuffle is that what Hugo was doing is exactly what I think should be happening: it shouldn’t be women who have to hold men’s hand and slowly lead them to feminism. It should be men, talking to other men, being patient and answering the dumb questions that reveal sexist biases. I’m glad it’s Hugo, because it’s not my job as a woman to explain this shit to men, and by and large I’d get too pissed off to be effective.–AB
What a great point…and not one I’ve seen brought up so explicitly.
Just sayin’.
This is “Pete.” Hugo didn’t use my real name, Carlos. In his essay he mentioned I am of Greek descent, which I am am. I am also half-Mexican, which he didn’t point out. I think I can guess why: Hugo knew that “Pete” was a white sounding name, and if he gave my real name, his readers might connect wht I said to him with my race. I guess that is a whole other issue though.
Hugo sent me an e-mail and asked me to come on here. I read his original post which was accurate and have been really angry at some of the comments that come his way. If you are going to get angry get angry at me, I am the “fella” (Hugo always says “fellas”) who is not so sure about being femnist.
I am not a hard player. I was asking why I shouldn’t try to be one! But I am not sure whether I am a profemnist! I’m 20 years old and I want to do well in school, have fun while I’m young, and find a respectable woman to marry in a few years. Hugo has successfully talked me out of many of my double standards for girls. I used to say I wanted a virgin when I marry, and now I accept that women can have the same experiences I do. I treat my little sisters with much more respect now.
Hugo is right: becoming a feminist is hard work. The water is very cold. Hugo keeps wanting me to go deeper, and I keep standing on the shelf up to my knees. I expect I will take another step, and then another, and then another. Hugo is very good about encouraging that. I disagree with him about some things, like his oppositon to pornography, but I respect what he is trying to do. People should sit in his class before criticizng him. (And Hugo, I did not tell you, but based on your essay here recently, I thought I’d tell you I thought you were completely gay when I first took your class. Your clothes were what made me think that more than any thing, but that is another subject.)
This is frustrating because I can sense your good will and integrity.
But simply “regretting” being “pompous and patronizing” is not the same as apologizing for it. You know, I regret I didn’t invest more in Microsoft and Cisco way back when.
The intellectual act of not apologizing for being patronizing is another (subtle but yet more aggressive) form of being exactly that, pompous and patronizing.
What makes me uncomfortable with both your expressions of Christianity and your Feminism here is the implied sense that these are marketing campaigns that need to be tuned and massaged. Because of this packaging (of salesmanship), I feel I’m being sold on something. Which means there’s an implied cost somewhere.
But there is no cost in seeing women as human. ALL of the cost is in NOT seeing women as human.
There is no cost in not being a JERK and in not PLAYING with women. ALL of the cost is in living life as a JERK and a PLAYER and thinking that’s life.
And I would never attempt to sell God in any of Her many narratives.
Lastly, when ANY of the formal religions openly accept women as priests and formally withdraw every form of the assertion that women caused the Fall, then I will consider the possible logic in your assertion of the gordian knot interrelatedness of Christianity and Feminism.
/ehj2
Where are you going with the pool story?
Feminism makes you pruny?
Carlos, thanks for posting a comment so quickly. You’re right, of course, about the reason I chose the nom de plume I did for you — I hope that wasn’t a poor decision on my part.
Zuzu, feminism isn’t easy for most folks. It is a lot like learning to swim; what begins as cold and frightening quickly becomes warm and familiar. But we all need time to get acclimated, and some of us will get into the pool more slowly than others.
EHJ2, this sincerely confuses me: The intellectual act of not apologizing for being patronizing is another (subtle but yet more aggressive) form of being exactly that, pompous and patronizing.
Are you suggesting that it isn’t enough to regret having written a statement that was construed as pompous and patronizing? Look, I don’t think I AM pompous and patronizing, but sometimes, my inelegant writing does convey that impression. That I regret.
Of course, in the blogosphere, I admit it’s pretty pointless to draw distinctions between one’s prose and one’s identity!
On the previous thread, somebody asked what “Pete” was doing in his romantic life that he thought was incompatible with feminism. Carlos, if you’re still reading this and feel comfortable telling a bunch of strangers on the internet, could you tell us?
To tip my hand here, I don’t think that sleeping around makes you anti-feminist, as long as you treat your partners with respect, don’t lie to them, and don’t hold them to different standards of sluttiness just because they’re women.
Carlos, are you aware that when you say, “I’m not sure I’m a pro-feminist,” what you are saying is, “I’m not sure if I feel that women are full human beings”? No more and no less.
Do you feel that this is an acceptable belief to have?
Carlos, I think it’s great that you came on the thread. I have been wondering over the last couple of days what you have been thinking about all of this.
I think what a lot of people have been objecting to is (a) the notion that women, even feminist women, generally prefer to date assholes or non-feminists (i.e. that women say one thing and do another — a gross and mostly inaccurate generalization, in my opinion); (b) that being a feminist would be incompatible with your ability to get women to date you; and (c) that caring about women’s equality need not be an urgent priority.
There is really no reason for it not to be a priority (especially if you have sisters). As Hugo said, being a feminist doesn’t mean that you have to check your confidence or your sexuality at the door. It just means that you think women’s freedom, equality and dignity are important. Having casual relationships (including sexual relationships) with women is fine as long as these relationships are mutually consensual and you are not deceiving anyone.
I am happy to hear that Hugo has convinced you not to impose a sexual double standard on women, but I am a little concerned by your desire to marry a “respectable woman.” I hope that does not mean that you would demand a different standard of her than you would of yourself.
As for porn, there are a wide variety of views about porn within feminism, but the key, I think, is to examine it from the perpective of whether it is incompatible with the equal freedom and dignity of women in this society.
what begins as cold and frightening quickly becomes warm and familiar.
Hugo, I’m trying really hard here, but this turn of phrase is making me want to tear my hair out. I can appreciate that it takes time to unlearn sexist behavior and that it’s work to understand your own privilege (and that you’ve got strategies for both of these), but this kind of attitude only serves to separate the pro-feminists from the feminists more. This analogy, to me, suggests that there’s something inherently scary about having to treat women as human beings. I can understand that it’s scary to have your worldview challenged, but that’s different. To be challenged in your thinking is the pool. Feminism is not.
when ANY of the formal religions openly accept women as priests
So ELCA Lutherans and Presbyterians (to grab two off the top of my head) aren’t formal religions? I’m not going to claim that any Christian denomination (even Christian UUs) has eradicated sexism, but the kind of overt sexism you cite is no longer universal.
Lastly, when ANY of the formal religions openly accept women as priests
So we Episcopalians aren’t formal? We’ve been ordaining women as priests since the 1970s and as bishops since the 1980s. Not all that long, but it’s happening!
I regret not being clearer. Note there’s no apology there.
Cheney probably deeply regrets shooting his sporting buddy in the face. Wishing he hadn’t done it, and expressing his wish that he hadn’t done it, is not the same as an apology.
Acknowledging one has caused an unintended slight and wishing one hadn’t offers no personal investment in real responsibility, only barely suggests consciousness or empathy of the slight, and forwards no remedy.
I regret not being clearer — by formal religion I meant all of Christianity or Islam or Judaism. Obviously not all sects within these larger structures are equally condemning of women. A more divisive sect than those responding in several comments is Baptist, which constantly debates pulling its children from public schools in favor of home or church schooling. One could ask, why do Baptists hate America and our freedoms? Why, like most minorities, won’t they integrate and learn to accept diversity?
However, what I wrote was, “Lastly, when ANY of the formal religions openly accept women as priests and formally withdraw every form of the assertion that women caused the Fall, then I will consider the possible logic in your assertion of the gordian knot interrelatedness of Christianity and Feminism.”
In my mind, the New Testament of the Christian faith is marred by far too much of the Pauline doctrine of patriarchy … man as the Head, woman as follower … to allow an easy fit of scripture-based Christianity and Feminism.
/ehj2
Evil, actually, I do think there is something very scary — inherently — about feminism. Sometimes feminists make the mistake of assuming that the only reason everyone isn’t a feminist is because either
a. they don’t know what feminism is
or
b. they are hopelessly sexist
There’s a third option, one that encompasses a lot of folks:
c. Feminism is potentially enormously liberating, but adopting it is enormously frightening because it means a huge internal paradigm shift. Folks may be drawn to it, but they need a considerable amount of coaxing to live it out in their lives. Fear, rather than ignorance or sexist hostility, is the biggest obstacle — in my opinion and experience, mind you, which may not be everyone else’s!
I know some folks who aren’t feminist for the first two reasons, but ten times more who aren’t because of the third.
Evil, actually, I do think there is something very scary — inherently — about feminism.
I’d love to hear what you think that is, and what you tell people like Carlos about it. Because all I’m getting from your pool metaphor is that you’re viewing it as something scary and reinforcing that idea among your students.
but adopting it is enormously frightening because it means a huge internal paradigm shift.
Maybe this is a semantic quibble, but I think feminism in of itself isn’t the issue. The change of paradigm is what’s scary, not the theory alone. I think your point is that you can’t shift paradigms without a clutch* (and that you see work with young men like Pete as being said proverbial clutch). There has to be a process of disengagement with old ideas and reengagement with the new. How that process is going to work is an open debate.
*I can’t take credit for this line. It’s from Scott Adams of Dilbert fame.
P.S. In abbreviating my name, you can just go with Fizz, rather than Evil. It feels a bit odd being called Evil by an evangelical Christian. =)
Hugo, do you realize that you just compared sexism and patriarchy to oxygen? Come on, now.
Folks, for heaven’s sakes, stop deconstructing the metaphor. I am not comparing sexism and patriarchy to oxygen; I’m comparing perfection (fully engulfed in the water) to our human frailty (our natural imperfection, symbolized by our inability to live perfectly beneath the surface.) Is it a perfect image? Of course not. Is it a useful one for an introductory course on women’s studies? Eleven years of teaching experience (judging from my reviews, successfully) suggest that it has been helpful. It’s only a small tool, however.
Hey, Carlos. Glad to see you! Basically, my general selling point is that feminism is an absolute blast. It’s a come one, come all, totally fun thing. If your dating goal is a long term partnership, I’d say being a thorough feminist is beneficial to you. The important thing is compatibility and pro-feminist men want women who are equals. Marrying an equal is good for men. We all should be wise enough to challenge ourselves every day in our intimate life by engaging with people who are our equals.
The fun part of being a pro-feminist man is that women relax around you and start to tell you about our internal lives. My experience is that this is a revelation for men, a welcome one.
Hugo, maybe I’m not doing it right, but I just don’t find feminism very difficult at all. This isn’t to say that I don’t screw up in my attempts to be a good feminist. This is just to say that there was no dramatic conversion experience for me. I honestly don’t remember when I started making a conscious effort to be a feminist. It just sort of happened at some point.
May I offer some completely unsolicited advice? The water:air metaphor tells me that you might be connecting feminism with anti-masculism, that there’s an anti-maleness to your pro-femaleness, and that periodically you have to step off the burning coals to let your feet heal a little bit. I don’t think that’s necessary at all. You will never be a perfect, pure, complete feminist. Accept your brokenness. Feminism’s yoke is easy and its burden is light. Do justice, love mercy, walk humbly, and just do the best you can.
**
Carlos, I have to say that I am impressed that you are willing to come in here–under your real name, no less–in the wake of this very heated, multi-blog discussion. I will try to be gentle.
The number one problem I see with regard to your concept of feminism, as described by Hugo, is that feminism has simply received bad advertising. If I believed that “feminism” meant “people who eat babies” or “people who set their hair on fire,” then I wouldn’t be sure I’d want to be a feminist, either. It sounds to me like you have come to believe that feminists are killjoys who live very narrow, sexless lives. That’s certainly the stereotype conservatives try to promote; I read a litany from one feminism-basher last night who described feminists as “mean old ladies who look like they’re sucking on persimmons.” These are the kinds of images that feminists have to fight.
So with that in mind, I want to say that:
(a) Feminism does not mean that you submit and do whatever women, as a group, want you to do. Feminism simply means that you believe that everyone is equal, that you take seriously the problem of sexism, and that you try to address it in both your own life and the broader world. You can still stand up for yourself. In fact, it’d be patronizing if you didn’t.
(b) Feminism does not mean that you can’t have sex; it just means that you recognize you shouldn’t have exploitative sex. As for the sexual prospects question that Hugo referred to in the earlier blog entry: I don’t know if feminists have sex more or less than non-feminists, but they’re certainly less likely to be sexually repressed by religious ideology and more likely to be familiar with safer sex practices. Of course, they’re also more likely to be self-sufficient and less likely to be obsessed with young men. It’s a toss-up, really. I have no idea how much sex people, feminist or non-feminist, have.
(c) Feminism does mean that you have to be aware of your own limitations and the fact that you have blind spots. You will learn a lot if you apply the principle described in paragraph (a) in a consistent way in your own life.
The best thing you can do at this point, I think, is work with some real-life feminist activists of your generation and see what it is that they do. If you believe in the political causes of feminism–the pro-choice movement, reducing domestic violence, and so forth–then you can spend a little time working in those areas. I think you will very rapidly find that feminists are at least as much fun to be around as non-feminists.
This all comes full circle to the idea that feminism is supposed to be some kind of self-sacrifice for men. I personally don’t find it to be; I find it to be liberating.
Cheers,
TH
I was just reading and being mildly amused until I saw this:
Carlos, are you aware that when you say, “I’m not sure I’m a pro-feminist,” what you are saying is, “I’m not sure if I feel that women are full human beings”? No more and no less.
This is trivially false, in that a single couter-example disproves it. Do you have women in your life who are not feminists, but believe that women are full human beings? If you do, then you know the statement is false. I assure you that I consider women full human beings. My feminist daughter would comfirm this, as would my other daughters and the many other women in my life. My middle daughter is a proud non-feminist, and she certainly considers herself and her little girl human, I promise you. I am not a feminist, nor am I a pro-feminist, because I believe the movement is currently damaging to women as well as men, and has evolved into a malignancy in society that is consuming its own. Carlos - you are wading through a den of true believers here, and their voices are loud, but there are other voices. The truth is that you can be a man who honors and respects women, fights against sexism and supports women’s causes without following the path that these voices would have you believe is the ONLY TRUE WAY. There is a lot more input to be had out there than what you have been provided in Hugo’s class and from the true believers on these feminist blogs.
This lie (about what you are if you don’t buy into the feminist faith) is a demonstration of the dark underside of feminism - and there is a lot more where that came from. Witness the beating Hugo is receiving for not behaving acceptably, and Hugo is a good person, as you know. There are a ton of red flags strewn about the feminist blogosphere of late, just from this consideration of Hugo’s talk with you. I advise you not to ignore them.
I will be quiet now. Let the damage control begin.
And I second Amanda’s post: One of the reasons I do feminist activism more than I do other kinds of activism (I’m an officer in the local NOW chapter) is that it’s just plain more fun. Feminists are, by and large, highly intelligent and thick-skinned nonconformists with a wicked sense of humor. I’d rather go to a political strategy session with other local feminists than go to a party any day of the week–which is not to say that feminists don’t go to parties, too!
You should bookmark Feministing. The tone of that blog perfectly captures the attitude of third-wave feminism as I’ve experienced it here in Jackson. It’s a wild, irreverent ride, and may completely change the way you think.
Cheers,
TH
Hugo, I would add a reason to your list of reasons for non-feminism, (it may actually be a sub-category of reason A, but go with me). There are many people who have lived insulated enough lives that many of the things feminism promotes are normal, and obvious. They are the sort of people who think to themselves “of course women are equal, why wouldn’t they be?” These aren’t people who are failing to recognize blatant sexism, these are people who have literally never seen it. I will put forward that these people are most likely to be shy and male, and often the reasons they’ve never seen sexism, is because they’ve never been able to compare and contrast their experiences to those of women.
They are incredibly rare, though they do exist.
Lastly, when ANY of the formal religions openly accept women as priests
Because all the ‘formal religions’ have priests, and any religion that ordains women isn’t ‘formal’?
Hugo, as usual, you’re setting up the overblown metaphor and tut-tutting over how unfair and demanding your critics are being. “Perfection” isn’t the goal (and the pool metaphor is just goofy). Over and over again, it’s been pointed out to you that you preferred to gently present feminism as a maybe-goal someday, and taken criticism of that attitude as some sort of insistenence on 100% perfect feminism right now! Which, being unattainable, you can safely jettison. Handy, that.
jeff, sorry, but when Hugo backs off of a real challenge to idiotic notions about feminism and women by pretending the young man’s interest in sleeping around trumps all, he is indeed saying it’s OK for “Pete” to use women as fuck objects until such time as his consciousness is gradually raised.
a. they don’t know what feminism is
or
b. they are hopelessly sexist
There’s a third option, one that encompasses a lot of folks:
c. Feminism is potentially enormously liberating, but adopting it is enormously frightening because it means a huge internal paradigm shift. Folks may be drawn to it, but they need a considerable amount of coaxing to live it out in their lives. Fear, rather than ignorance or sexist hostility, is the biggest obstacle — in my opinion and experience, mind you, which may not be everyone else’s!
Hugo, you present a false dilemma of sorts here. I am not a feminist. a), b), and c) do not fit my reason for not being a feminist. Here is my reason:-
d) Feminism has morphed into a movement trying to secure new rights for women, whether they gain parity with men, or an advantage over men. It has long stopped about being true equality between the genders. Where are the feminists when there’s a demonstration about unfair family court rulings that punish men? Why do feminists ignore male victims of domestic violence, to the point of lying about DV statistics? What are they doing to help about the age gap between men and women? The suicide rate of men? Equality is a one-way street for modern feminists. It has become elitist, and the fringes of feminism involves out-and-out misandry.
I am tired of being told I don’t treat women as full human beings just because I’m not a feminist. This is the same way religions sell themselves - be healed! You are not a True Believer until you join our club. The ‘patriarchy’ has become The Devil - you can’t see it, but it’s to blame for all of life’s ills.
As stanton says - what about female non-feminists? They don’t treat themselves as full human beings? Can those pushing that line of ‘belief’ not see how ridiculous it is?
Here’s a thing: I would truly become a feminist if it was t-r-u-l-y about equality between men and women. I’m talking a two-way street here. No question. I would sign-up in a heartbeat. And I know dozens more (off the top of my head) who would too. You’d have a hell of a movement. How to achieve that? Weed out the liars. Weed out the misandrists. Weed out the radicals.
Sadly (very sadly), I know this post will only enrage rather than engage other posters here. And that is BIG part of the problem why you aren’t getting more ‘recruits’ than you want.
Why shouldn’t it enrage us, perplexed? Isn’t that the whole point? After all, you did just call us liars, misandrists, and radicals, and suggest that we be “weeded out.”
And since when does using more conservative domestic violence statistics support men’s rights? Are you seriously suggesting that men have a basic human right to beat their spouses?
This is why I don’t take the antifeminist/masculist agenda seriously. It isn’t about equality, and never has been. The masculist movement is a massive castration anxiety support group that attempts to boost the fragile egos of bitterly divorced men by making it harder for women to collect child support payments, prosecute rape or domestic violence, or make decisions about what to do with their own bodies. That is not a legitimate civil rights movement of any kind, and should not be misrepresented as such.
There are issues vis-a-vis divorce and child custody that do represent clear and unjust patterns of discrimination against men, but they do so only because women have been so forced into the “nurturing wife and mother” cookie cutter–the very status quo that the masculist movement works to maintain. Is it any wonder that judges take this role into account when determining which parent children should live with? If you want to fix this situation, the way to do it is to become a feminist–not to fight feminism.
Cheers,
TH
BTW- I’m no liar, and certainly no misandrist, but I’ll own up to the radical label any day of the week. And radical feminism is the only way you will ever see widespread equitable divorce settlements that acknowledge that men can live into the values of motherhood.
Cheers,
TH
Why shouldn’t it enrage us, perplexed? Isn’t that the whole point? After all, you did just call us liars, misandrists, and radicals, and suggest that we be “weeded out.”
You know I didn’t say ALL of you. I feel the need to quote it again:-
Weed out the liars. Weed out the misandrists. Weed out the radicals.
Where does this state that all feminists are liars, misandrists or radicals? I will actually say the same to the MRA movement:-
Weed out the liars. Weed out the misogynists. Weed out the radicals.
In fact, here’s a funny thing. If both movements did just that, they’d be campaigning for the same things - equality across the board - a two-way street with no exceptions or ridiculous games about who is the bigger victim. No blaming. No shaming. Solutions-based thinking. Joined-up thinking. What a concept!
And since when does using more conservative domestic violence statistics support men’s rights? Are you seriously suggesting that men have a basic human right to beat their spouses?
I cannot fathom any meaning from that Tom. I just want the truth to be known, so male victims can be acknowledged and therefore support systems set-up for them too, while female perpetrators can in turn get some therapy for a recognised problem. At the moment, if there’s no problem, there’s no solution. Fact is, there is a problem of female-on-male violence, borne out by independent studies (I can give you sources-a-plenty), but feminists have a strangle-hold on legislation.
Where on earth have I said it’s OK for men to beat their spouses?
There are issues vis-a-vis divorce and child custody that do represent clear and unjust patterns of discrimination against men, but they do so only because women have been so forced into the “nurturing wife and mother” cookie cutter–the very status quo that the masculist movement works to maintain
Tom, there is no excuse to discriminate. You are not using any joined-up thinking here. Equality is equality is equality. By ensuring equality across the board, you eradicate inequality. Heaping discrimination on top of other discriminations/stereotypes is not the answer. You’re simply blaming again, rather than looking for solutions. Of course women are discriminated against because of their gender in some cases. It is true for men too. This is happening to both sexes. None of it is justified or OK.
If you want to fix this situation, the way to do it is to become a feminist–not to fight feminism.
I believe in equality across the board. I believe equality is a two-way street. I believe in personal responsibility. I am not seeing these qualities in modern feminism - I see blaming and shaming without any concrete solutions. I see the belittling of men’s problems (the one-way street of equality). I see little in the way of true personal responsibility - it seems being a victim gives you a pass to denigrate men as a class.
Hey, Carlos. Kudos for showing up. You sound like a sincere and thoughtful guy, and based on your defense of Hugo I’ll give him more credit than I did before.
There are plenty of Mexican feministas, you know. Hugo should be able to give you a reading list, if he hasn’t already, on the idea is that there’s some cultural reason why having a Mexican (or for that matter Greek) background makes feminism more difficult.
And like Amanda said, feminism (or, as a alot of women of color prefer, “womanism”), is neither sexless nor humorless. As someone else upthread pointed out, there’s also no such thing as “a perfect feminist,” and there are different ways of being a feminist, and feminists don’t agree about everything (porn included, btw). Start poking around some blogs (and dude, start talking to the women you know, especially the older ones–I bet there are more feminists around you than you realize, even if they don’t use the label) and you’ll see what I mean.
You’re welcome at my place, if you’re interested.
Can I chime in here in defense of Hugo’s pool metaphor?
People, including men who want to support feminism, are culturally situated subjects. We’re not sui generis. The culture has lied to us just as it has lied to you. The experience of a man who wants to support true equality for women is one of giving up privileges which have been framed by the culture as “natural” and “normal” and not privileges at all.
That ain’t easy! It IS inherently cold and scary! Saying otherwise is utterly dishonest. And it’s unfair to attack well-intentioned men for experiencing the cold and scary thing as cold and scary.
The experience of a man who wants to support true equality for women is one of giving up privileges which have been framed by the culture as “natural” and “normal” and not privileges at all.
Don’t forget that equality is by definition all-inclusive.
It IS inherently cold and scary! Saying otherwise is utterly dishonest
I really don’t think calling people “dishonest” for accurately describing their own experience is a good idea.
In addition to experiencing the strictures of patriarchy as suffocating (even, would you believe it, “cold and scary”) for themselves as men, many men are close to women even before becoming feminists, and so find the prospect of improved conditions for their loved ones to be a happy one. So feminism isn’t an unmixed joy for you. Your personal experience is real, but not universal.
For a lot of people, men and women, finding organized feminism is not like an externally-imposed ice bath. It means finding out for the first time, “I’m not the only one who notices. I’m not the only one who cares.” Which is a great feeling. For lots of us, especially women, the world is a cold and scary place without feminism.
Tom: “Why shouldn’t it enrage us, perplexed? Isn’t that the whole point? After all, you did just call us liars, misandrists, and radicals, and suggest that we be ‘weeded out.’”
No, he didn’t. Pay attention. By “liars, misandrists, and radicals,” he’s only referring to the…well…liars, misandrists, and radicals. If you’re not in that camp, you’ve nothing to worry about.
Tom: “And since when does using more conservative domestic violence statistics support men’s rights? Are you seriously suggesting that men have a basic human right to beat their spouses?”
I keep looking over Perplexed’s statement, and I don’t know for the life of me where in hell you got the impression that that’s what he suggested — unless, of course, you have no legitimate response to his point, and therefore can only resort to lumping him in with wife-beaters.
Maybe feminism is like getting into a heated pool on a slightly chilly evening - it looks too scary to jump right in, but what a relief once you’re actually in the pool :-).
Sophonisba: I didn’t say otherwise. I didn’t call people dishonest for describing their own experience. I was attempting to suggest that men who have the experience I describe, who admit that they find it difficult to give up privileges which are culturally inscribed as normal, are only being honest. For them (us) to say otherwise would be dishonest. And attacking well-intentioned people for honestly describing this experience — even if not every male feminist shares it — is unfair.
Thank you, Lynn — the swimming pool turned into an ice bath right before my eyes in the words of some of the commenters…
Carlos, Let me also reiterate Bitch Phd & Amanada. I’m married to a wonderful, funny feminist and I wouldn’t have it any other way. I’ve dated women who had more traditional idea of a masculine role and it really wasn’t as fun because I got a little defensive about my personality and interests. I certainly have elements of my personality that are “masculine”, but in other areas diverge from that.
That’s where the liberating feeling of supporting feminism comes in. Don’t like football? Ignore it. Want to do crafts? Have at it. Wear nice clothes? Style away brother. Whatever you want. Support others in their choices too.
Here’s the scary parts (for some). You may have conflicts with people because of sexism. Either because you are doing something they don’t like or they are doing something you don’t like. Sometimes people will get angry with you. Sometimes they are right. In your enjoyment of your new found freedom with fun, feminist women, you’ll have to watch that you haven’t just expanded your choices while keeping all your privileges. Being a male supporter of feminism requires some self-improvement and self-criticism that can be uncomfortable, scary or just plain hard. I’m pretty good at the self-awareness part, but not so good at conflict.
This isn’t limited to feminism of course. Every person who wants to grow more kind, compassionate, empathetic and all the good qualities of people (including toughness) have to go through the sometimes difficult work of change.
I’d like to deconstruct the pool metaphor…just kidding.
For a lot of people, men and women, finding organized feminism is not like an externally-imposed ice bath. It means finding out for the first time, “I’m not the only one who notices. I’m not the only one who cares.” Which is a great feeling. For lots of us, especially women, the world is a cold and scary place without feminism.–sophonisba
I think there’s a lot of truth here, and I would also resist the notion that feminism is inherently cold and frightening. That said, I think it’s important to note that the differences in experiences with feminism might fall somewhat (somewhat–not completely) along gender lines. Would it be too obtuse to claim that most men, because of the need for them to give up entitlements that sexism gives them, experience feminism as more frightening than most women? Again, this is not to say that feminism is inherently anything…but that for men, feminism might generally be more scary–and not just because it’s a paradigm shift, but because it’s a paradigm shift that entails that men give up some entitlement, to recognize that men are the oppressors and the like. (Note: I’m also not trying to say ‘boo hoo men have it horrible with feminism’ or anything like that–but I just think it bears some consideration that men might tend to experience feminism more along the lines of the pool analogy-d’oh! I ended up talking about the pool analogy anyway!)
And, of course, it’s at least equally important to acknowledge (and celebrate!) that feminism isn’t anything like an ice bath for some people–men and women alike–and I particularly like that you point out the world would be a pretty cold, scary place for most of us without feminsm. If feminism has taught me anything (with zuzu’s help), it’s that we ought not talk about undifferentiated masses! I particularly like that you point out the world would be a pretty cold, scary place for most of us without feminsm.
The thing is, even if feminism isn’t a ‘mixed bag’ in the long-run (and I think several people have explicitly pointed this out to Carlos here–that feminism is, of course, good for both men and women (and I would add other genders)), it often feels like a mixed bag to men. Often. Not always. Still, often is important too…
Jeff: exactly.
And someone said Hugo chose comfort!
Oh well
perplexed sometimes the UK take on these things doesn’t always carry in the way you might think it does. Just an observation from being here a while. We (UK) seem less strident in general, the main exception being the politicians.
be well
I do owe perplexed an apology for misreading his comment about domestic violence statistics. It was late, and I thought he was making the very common antifeminist claim that domestic violence statistics are overblown.
Utopian, please add me to the list of men who don’t find feminism cold and scary. I’m a pretty androgynous guy, and a total failure by the standards of macho manhood. Feminism affirms me and lets me be who I am.
Cheers,
TH
I’m going to re-argue what I argued last week, more thoroughly.
People who identify as feminists tend to say (quoting from above):
Feminism isn’t about faith…Women’s humanity is not hidden.
Women aren’t an undifferentiated mass
When you say, “I’m not sure I’m a pro-feminist,” what you are saying is, “I’m not sure if I feel that women are full human beings”? No more and no less.
Being a feminist … just means that you think women’s freedom, equality and dignity are important.
If this was all that the average person (e.g., Pete) meant when they said “feminism”, I think that there might be some sense in the criticism of Hugo (and Pete). But that is plainly, obviously, clearly NOT the case.
Let me explain. Amanda Marcotte, bitchphd and sophonisba each have a fairly clear set of ideas about how men and women ought to relate, how the world ought to be structured, and so forth; these ideas are fairly similar (not necessarily identical, but similar). Most people are accustomed to calling that set of ideas “feminism.” However, that set of ideas is not anywhere close to universally held, even among women. I am fairly certain that FlyLady and Elizabeth (of “staking tomatoes”) and my mother would disagree with it in general and in many particulars.
It seems to me that a true respect for women as people would mean paying attention to what the woman with whom you are interacting actually prefers, not to what some theory (whether Aristotle or feminism) says she ought to prefer. So if you are interacting with people who are more like my mother than like Amanda, you should interact with them differently.
But when Pete says, “This way of treating women that I think of as ‘feminism’ seems to be one that the women I know dislike,” and Hugo tells him, “That’s OK; I know it’s hard, do your best” everyone jumps on Hugo.
Isn’t the more likely problem that “feminism” as Pete understands it is not actually doing what feminism is supposed to, which is to treat women as rational people, who are capable of having preferences that ought to be respected in dealing with them?
utopian–thanks for your support; but notice that I *do* disagree with you (and Hugo) saying that feminism is inherently cold and scary. In fact, I would just tend to avoid using that word, if at all possible, because of the philosophic difficulties the concept of ‘inherent’ often brings up.
Maybe we could use a different metaphor ? That feminism is “scary” in the way that coming out of prison is scary. In prison there are hierachies, privileges, securities as well as violence and abuse: it’s a veritable little microcosm of the patriachy. Coming out of prison can be very scary, both for those who are and are not privileged. Of course living free is difficult at times but is still much much better than the alternative.
What I appreciate so much about the pool metaphor is the series of steps into initially cold water that gradually becomes much, much warmer as one becomes accustomed to it.
One of the reasons I do feminist activism more than I do other kinds of activism (I’m an officer in the local NOW chapter) is that it’s just plain more fun. Feminists are, by and large, highly intelligent and thick-skinned nonconformists with a wicked sense of humor.
That is a curious statement, and contrary to the bulk of the evidence. Masochists might find it enjoyable, but most people quickly grow weary of the relentless negativity.
I don’t find it to be relentlessly negative at all, except in the sense that nearly all activism tends to be relentlessly negative because it’s predicated on the idea that the status quo (or emerging status quo, or immediate status quo ante) is not satisfactory.
Cheers,
TH
I do owe perplexed an apology for misreading his comment about domestic violence statistics. It was late, and I thought he was making the very common antifeminist claim that domestic violence statistics are overblown.
Is the truth too overblown for you? Can you admit to something borne out in many research studies conducted lately (sources available if you want): men are just as likely as women to be victims of domestic violence?
Andreas and Stanton: Nope. Didn’t “willfully misunderstand” Carlos and what I said was not wrong.
Yeah, there are women who don’t take on the label “feminist,” but the vast majority of them do actually have basically feminist beliefs. And the ones who don’t do tend to be religious fundie types who don’t believe that women are full human beings the way that men are.
If you believe that women are full human beings, you are a feminist*. That is the basic bottom line. Now, there are many different schools of feminist thought, and in consequence many different subgroups of feminists, but that’s a whole different story.
*of course, I guess we could make the argument that you also have to act on that belief, but I’m still naive enough to think that once you really accept another person’s basic humanity, you will strive to treat them as human
Hugo wrote: “But becoming a pro-feminist is a process, not an event.”
Without checking out and commenting on all the comments either way, let me say that this is the more excellent way.
During an early airplane ride one morning I was blessed to be able to see the sun rising. Watching this incredible miracle of the sun gently but firmly relentlessly pushing back the night darkness the Holy Spirit spoke to me about how to witness the truth to unbelievers. These are good thoughts IMO for imparting any points of truth to the unseeing.
1. be gentle but relentless, no Bible bonking.
2. No attempting to force them to believe
3. never step back, ever.
4. and always love them even when you expose their error
5. unlike the dawning of the morning sun, the dawning of revelation in a human heart takes much more time and preparation. But its a similar process.
The morning light is strong. It is also sneaky and clever. It is relentless but gentle. The shadows cannot escape it. It is either be embraced by the light or run from it. Truth always wins out in the end.
perplexed writes:
Can you admit to something borne out in many research studies conducted lately (sources available if you want): men are just as likely as women to be victims of domestic violence?
Obviously I can’t “admit” what I don’t believe to be true, but by all means, post those sources.
Cheers,
TH
Obviously I can’t “admit” what I don’t believe to be true, but by all means, post those sources.
Sure Tom, as promised:-
–
Men are More Likely Than Women to Be Victims in Dating Violence
Quote: A 32-nation study of violence against dating partners by university partners found that about a third had been violent, and most incidents of partner violence involve violence by both the man and woman, according to Murray Straus, founder and co-director of the Family Research Laboratory at the University of New Hampshire. The second largest category was couples where the female partner was the only one to carry about physical attacks, not the male partner.
Domestic violence isn’t one-sided
Quote: The reality, borne out by independent peer-reviewed studies as well as StatsCan, is that women commit more severe IPV (Intimate Partner Violence), and more IPV in general, than men. For all kinds of relationship types, females are unilaterally more violent than males to non-violent partners. More females strike first in IPV (men are conditioned not to strike first in our society) and, contradicting received wisdom, fear of their male partner is rarely a factor amongst violent women. Actually, both male and female victims of IPV report equal fear levels of “intimate terrorism”.
Family violence soars
Quote: When minor and major acts of violence were tallied, female-to-male violence accounted for 18.2 percent of overall violence and 7.5 percent of severe violence. Male-to-female violence accounted for 13.7 percent of overall violence and 8.6 percent of severe violence.
–
I have much more sources, but these are the most recent ones, so more relevant. They actually point to the fact that women are actually more likely to be violent in a domestic setting than men.
The first link is an exhaustive study - quote: A consortium of researchers around the world collected data from 13,601 students at 68 universities in 32 nations.
Folks, stop this thread now — any further comments on DV will be deleted — Tom and Perplexed, have this aged debate somewhere else.
Hugo, long-time reader first time commenter here.
The thing that I think is so confounding about your blog is that you manage to be so right on about so many things and then so completely wrong about others. I can think of a couple of your posts I have just loved, where they made me say "Wow, that is soooo right — I can’t believe a man is that insightful." And then, you turn around and put your foot in it so unbelievably badly. It’s really quite without equal in the blogosphere. Just a couple of examples I remember (I hope the HTML works) of posts of yours that blew me away, they were so good:
A very long and personal post about men, women, childishness, and responsibility
Some reflections on older men, younger women and integrity
Some lengthy thoughts on feminism, traditional families, contingent happiness and daring to disappoint
And as good as they were, your post (I won’t even link to it) about your wife taking your last name (and your conviction that was a sign of trust in you) was beyond stupid and infuriating. And this recent comparison of feminism to a cold swimming pool is also exasperating and, honestly, confusing.
I like your blog very much. But one of the reasons, perhaps, that people are so hard on you is because we can tell from your writing just how good and insightful you can be. Hence people are all the more infuriated and appalled when you get it so completely and monumentally wrong.
By the way, the commenter who said you shouldn’t use so many exclamation points was spot on. I do like the way you “bold” certain sections, though, it makes it helpful to read your longer posts.
Whoops, in my comment above I didn’t mean end the thread, I meant stop using it to fight the age-old battle over men, women, and domestic violence statistics. Take that somewhere else.
Liesl, thanks. I know I get many things wrong, and am glad when I get some things right.
Liesl,
I agree. When sexist trolls say blatantly sexist things, it’s gross and depressing, but I expect it, and I can almost dismiss it.
On the rare occasion that Hugo writes things that I find sexist or just off the mark, I feel almost betrayed, because the bulk of his writing is so insightful and I consider him an ally to feminists.
Hugo, I’m sorry you’ve taken so much heat lately. It’s only because you’ve raised the bar. Our expectations of you are incredibly high.
As far as tone, I think the criticism is ridiculous. Are we really going to attack earnestness and sincerity? Now, THAT’S depressing.
Peace.
Hugo, if you’re going to shut down my attempt to correct perplexed’s comments about DV statistics, the least you can do is delete his original antifeminist claims. Leaving them and forbidding anyone from rebutting them suggests that you either agree with him, or see the very real problem of violence against women as a mere “aged debate” with which a man of your talents need not concern himself.
Cheers,
TH
TH, sounds like you just want to censor the truth. This is my last comment on this - I respect Hugo’s wishes.
Many people are demonstrating here they don’t know shit from shinola about human transformation. More talk about process might illuminate. Must say it puzzles me to see women disrespect the process, it’s a rather feminine virtue–gestation, patience, the growth principle, non-linear, nuanced; it’s about waiting, maybe that’s the problem, if only people didn’t go at their own pace, wouldn’t it be lovely?
I support your strategy, for what it’s worth.
Hugo said:
Yet I remain convinced that with some young men, this sort of gradual (even indulgent) approach is best. Before I can hold a young man to account, I have to earn his trust; before I can challenge him to grow, I have to establish my bona fides. And part of earning that trust is acknowledging that some of his concerns (not all) are legitimate, and that living life as a pro-feminist man (particularly in college) isn’t a cakewalk!
As someone with a very similar perspective to Carlos̵