My former student Dolly sends me a link to this short Marie-Claire piece by Kathleen Parker, author of the forthcoming Save the Males: Why Men Matter, Why Women Should Care.
It’s hard to tell how Parker’s new book will differ from the standard anti-feminist bromides of everyone from Warren Farrell to Christina Hoff Sommers (two writers whose livelihood seems tied to propagating the notion that our country is somehow at war with men and boys). Then again, misogyny sells — especially, as Sommers and the likes of Ann Coulter have shown, it is being sold by a woman.
In the Marie-Claire piece, Parker writes:
“Boys hear how awful they are day in and day out,” she says. “We seem to understand that girls need high self-esteem to perform in school and society, but we pretend that boys don’t.” Teachers need to dial back their girl-coddling, she says, and society needs to better balance boys’ needs with girls’.
Say what? First off, the “boys are in trouble” industry is a decade old, Kathleen; you’re only the 435th person to get a book deal making the case that we’re overlooking our sons. More to the point, what evidence is there that we’re “coddling” girls? Jeepers, the right-wing can’t make up it’s mind! Half the time they’re whining that we are coddling girls, and the next minute they’re complaining that we push girls and women too hard to be “unnaturally” competitive (witness the recent hysteria about knee injuries for female athletes). In my experience as a youth leader and college professor, I see a lot of young women who are exhausted and anxious and stressed. They’re hardly being coddled; it’s their brothers, too often addicted to the unholy trifecta of pot, porn, and video games, who are being given a free pass by parents and teachers.
Parker continues:
IT’S RAINING ON MEN:
30 to 40% of all American children sleep in a home separate from their fathers.
60% of bachelor’s degrees awarded in this country in 2012 will go to women.
The fact that a great many American men have abandoned their children out of an unwillingness to be burdened with responsibility is, apparently, the fault of the women with whom they conceived the child. Or better yet, it’s the fault of feminism, for daring to suggest that real love between men and women required equality and inter-dependence rather than subjection and need.
As for the 60% of bachelor’s degrees going to women, that’s hardly feminism’s fault. Think about it: young men are much more likely to be locked up in prison or in the military than their sisters, thus reducing the number of males available for college. Blame the war or the prison-industrial complex; blame video games and pot and porn; blame an absence of strong male role models, but for the love of Pete, stop blaming girls and women for their brothers’ collective lack of success.
If there is a “boy crisis”, its roots lie in the decision of a generation of older men to walk away from their responsibility to care for, inspire, and mentor. These men were not pushed away by women, not forced away by the courts, they left of their own free will, abandoning their sons. We are reaping that consequence now. Parker misdiagnoses the cause of the male malaise, and her remedy is radically, disastrously wrong.
As Parker should well know, having been divorced from her son’s father when her son was young enough to need daycare. Maybe on some level she’s trying to atone for something.
“The fact that a great many American men have abandoned their children out of an unwillingness to be burdened with responsibility is, apparently, the fault of the women with whom they conceived the child.”
Again, Hugo, hoping that this time you’ll actually choose to acknowledge and remember it (probably not, doesn’t fit your narrative): Seventy percent of all divorces are filed by the wife.
Contorted reason why it’s always still all the husband’s fault in five…four…three…
Indeed women file for divorce more often. Women also report rape more often than men do. In both cases, they generally act in response to loathsome or irresponsible male behavior. The idea that wives are filing for divorce because they are bored or feel that their children don’t need a father deserves to go the way of Ronald Reagan’s notion that ketchup constituted an adequate vegetable.
And you’ve surveyed every divorced woman in the U.S. before making sweeping generalizations about why they filed the paperwork?
To the best of my knowledge, there’s only one peer-reviewed academic study of why it is that women file for divorce: http://aler.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/2/1/126
I don’t think a copy exists online.
Yeah, I get it Hugo. In general, actions that women take at the expense of the men in their lives are always justified, and any pain that women suffer is always the result of injustice. Any actions that men take are deeply suspect at best and pathological at worst, and any pain that men suffer in their lives is their own damned fault.
Once, just once, I want to see you write a post that claims that women have any moral obligations whatsoever towards the men in their lives. I can easily find dozens where you make claims about the right and moral way that men should treat the women who are close to them. I can’t find one that asserts that woman have any corresponding obligations towards men.
STF, you know perfectly well that is not the stance I take. I write as a man whose primary goal is to challenge other men to transform their lives. There are ooodles of men out there telling women what to do, and I think my voice and my energy are best used in reaching my fellow males.
I dislike her use of the term girl-coddling as its tone is both dismissive and inaccurate. Do boys hear how awful they are day in and day out? I wonder, or does the message of correcting inappropriate behaviors get somehow distorted. There’s a world of difference between correcting bad or inappropriate and destructive behaviors as opposed to telling someone their bad. Girls can behave inappropriately too. If someone hears how terrible they are, yes this can impact their self esteem and she does have a point, if that is her point, but when she tries to make that point by suggesting that girls are coddled she loses credibility. Self-esteem is important for both boys and girls. I think the challenge, and it can be done, is to correct inappropriate behavior while at the same time rewarding appropriate behaviors. I think this can be achieved without hurting someone’s self-esteem. Children need age appropriate boundaries and limits and more importantly, appropriate role models. I also believe that “30 to 40% of all American children sleep in a home separate from their fathers,” is a far greater issue and unfortunately has a long-lasting impact.
Hugu,
I don’t know that “perfectly well” because I can’t find one example where you have ever criticized any woman’s behavior towards a man close to her. Or even a male stranger. I have looked.
I’ll have to take you at your word that you indeed hold such opinions. But must they necessarily be kept private? It seems from some recent controversies that you are more than willing to state opinions about how some women treat other women, and some feminists treat other feminists. But do you consider it off limits for a male feminist to criticize women’s behavior towards men?
I’ve often been very critical of how some women let the men in their lives off the hook, time and again. I think a great many women buy into the myth of male weakness and co-sign a lot of awful behavior by their husbands, brothers, sons and boyfriends.
I don’t really care about Kathleen Parker, and I certainly couldn’t give a rat’s ass about anything in Marie Claire, but “girl-coddling feminists peeing in the pool of male privilege chased all the boys away” is one of the best blog post titles EVER.
Hugo,
That doesn’t count in my book, because in that case you are still assigning primary moral culpability to the men in their lives. The women are just secondary enablers.
I’m looking for an example where you’ve criticized any woman because she - with full agency, and no mixed responsibility in your eyes - mistreated a man.
Okay, let’s try this:
A mother raises her son with traditional patriarchal values, telling him “big boys don’t cry”, insisting he restrain his emotions differently than his sister, refusing to equip him to cope on his own as a skilled homemaker. To the extent that mothers collude in the perpetuation of sexist messages, they mistreat their sons.
That one I’ll take Hugo :)
And sadly, it happens. Reminds me of a painful scene in the last season of The Wire. A mother wanted her young son out on the corner, pushing drugs, so she can be supported in her lifestyle. When she sees he is reluctant and doesn’t have what it takes to run a corner, she mercilessly taunts him, calling him all sorts of names because he isn’t “man enough”
Hugo,
“I think my voice and my energy are best used in reaching my fellow males.”
That may well be so, and you’re the best judge of it. But as a rather recent reader and commenter here, I can tell you the following about myself: As much as I am delighted to hear a male voice speaking about these things, the more I read, the more I wonder if you actually do understand and respect “your fellow males”. Maybe what you say sounds understanding in your ears, most of it doesn’t in mine. I still value your point of view - it’s different, and it’s often challenging, thus interesting and a good read - but to me it doesn’t seem to be an expression of respect and understanding of “your fellow males”, it seems to be a verdict about them, based on your personal experience of change and search for (however defined) “congruence”. I am with STF here - a more balanced, or even only emphatic position concerning the problems, needs and desires of men would strenghten, not weaken your ability to help “men transform”. You say you care about men, but reading your current posts as well as selected posts in your archives, I don’t get that feeling - I’m sorry to say so.
About the “oodles of men telling women what to do” - please. You know exactly what STF means - whenever you’re establishing male responsibility/obligatinos in your arguments, you say something like “it’s not that I’m holding men to a higher standard, but…” and then you continue doing exactly that without even mentioning any kind of need for reciprocity in duty. Maybe you believe that women are moral angels of some sort, but, well, in my experience “they are people, too”. So reminding them from time to time about the duties and not just the entitlements of equality would be a welcome indicator that you do indeed understand “your fellow men”.
On the other hand - how is this part of Parker’s piece different from what you say (”…it’s their brothers, too often addicted to the unholy trifecta of pot, porn, and video games, who are being given a free pass by parents and teachers.”)
“RAISE THE BAR. If you expect nothing of men and assume the worst, they’re likely to oblige. “Guys have no responsibility,” says Parker. “They’re getting as much sex as they can possibly ask for, and as far as they’re concerned, nothing is wrong.” We need to ask more of them and give them something to shoot for — other than horny Guitar Hero champion.”
We need a new male role model, one that can deal with today’s schizophrenic female demands: conforming to classical male standards of beahviour when it comes to women’s biological desires, and complete emancipation thereof pretty much everywhere else. Nothing wrong with that a priori - one women can’t really do anything about, the other is a consequence of economic and philosophical advances that men have to rationally support out of a sense of duty, as you mention correctly, and without regard for the functional problems that this transformation creates. But the functional problems this creates will have to be addressed on some level.
So why get all defensive when someone is suggesting that maybe the myth of the privileged men and oppressed women isn’t exactly (possibly no longer) depicting reality?
Indeed women file for divorce more often. Women also report rape more often than men do. In both cases, they generally act in response to loathsome or irresponsible male behavior.
I can’t bring myself to agree with the semi-implicit statement here that men are more responsible for marriages falling apart than women are. Sorry. As a woman myself, I’ve seen my girlfriends and female acquaintances do some pretty shitty things to men. Women cheat too, and can be emotionally abusive and downright mean, just like men can. Often it’s a shared load of spiralling misery that both partners heap on each other. If I’m missing your meaning and you’re singling out male-perpetrated domestic abuse as the reason that women file for divorce at a higher rate, you might not want to state it so generally.
Karen,
“Do boys hear how awful they are day in and day out?”
Well, it depends how they understand the issue. I for one had internalized this kind of feminist guilt as a teenager and was estranged from my terrible aggressive inappropriate sexuality that I did not even know until then - and because of it I would not know it for another decade in which I would not even talk or touch a girl to avoid becoming one of the male monsters I apparently had the potential to become.
Sure, it’s probably not the majority’s experience, but - yes - this boy heard how awful boys are day in and day out. And he paid with a couple of lonely years. I’m grateful I found a way out of it, which, strangely also has to do with a feminist. But still. It’s a message I suppose particularly those hear who do care, as opposed to those who do not.
Uh … and Parker’s the rightwinger??
As I understand it, Hugo is simply NOT TALKING ABOUT WOMEN’s crap behavior. He’s NOT saying “women are flawless/blameless/angelic,” he’s calling men on their crap behavior. (Hugo, please correct me if I’m mistating the case).
It’s a choice, and it’s a perfectly legitimate one, and I’m glad that someone is doing it. If readers on his site don’t get that, perhaps they need to go somewhere else. If they can’t read about men’s crap behavior without sputtering about women’s crap behavior, as if that excuses the former.
And SamSeaborn, I could take your comment more seriously if you didn’t label female behavior–which is apparently monolithic–”schizophrenic” (those crazy bitches!) and then go on to assert that men no longer have privilege. Puh. Leeeze. Just because *you* can’t get anything you want whenever you want mean “men don’t have power anymore” (and thereby imply that not only did it used to be that way, but that things were better then, too).
Yeah, I should proofread. Lordy.
If they can’t read about men’s crap behavior without sputtering about women’s crap behavior, as if that excuses the former, there are other sites that espouse views they’ll find more comfortable.
Just because *you* can’t get anything you want whenever you want doesn’t mean “men don’t have power anymore” (and thereby imply that not only did it used to be that way, but that things were better then, too).
JW,
“And SamSeaborn, I could take your comment more seriously if you didn’t label female behavior–which is apparently monolithic–”schizophrenic” (those crazy bitches!) and then go on to assert that men no longer have privilege. Puh. Leeeze. Just because *you* can’t get anything you want whenever you want mean “men don’t have power anymore” (and thereby imply that not only did it used to be that way, but that things were better then, too).”
the thing is, JW, I was talking about MY PERSONAL opinions, about what I read in Hugos texts and what I felt when I was exposed to what I felt was a discourse telling ME that men are/I (a man) AM crap by default. As opposed to you, the only time I was generalising was with respect to female behaviour which, and let me personalize it now, isn’t monolithic in my experience, but confused/”schizophrenic” (yes, speechmarks would have been appropriate) with respect to what they want from a man. That’s MY experience.
With respect to the latter part of your argument. I’m doing rather well by now, thanks for asking. Feminism actually helped me getting over feminism’s collateral damage, it’s a long story, and probably not one you’d want to hear, as it would probably sound like “men don’t have power anymore” to you even though I haven’t said that anywhere…
“He’s NOT saying “women are flawless/blameless/angelic,” he’s calling men on their crap behavior. (Hugo, please correct me if I’m mistating the case).
It’s a choice, and it’s a perfectly legitimate one, and I’m glad that someone is doing it.”
Of course it’s a legitimate choice, who said anything else? I just said that I don’t think that this choice is helpful with respect to the aim he stated above - helping his fellow men transform. I think not calling women on their weaknesses and failures reduces his credibility when he’s calling men on theirs.
Well, depending on how you define “legitimate,” SamSeaborn, I would.
Actually, JW, if the closest Hugo can come to criticizing female behavior is to claim that they’re ‘too easy’ on the men in their lives, then yes, he is saying women are angelic.
Offhand, I can’t think of any group (other than ’straight white men’ or some subset thereof) where the statement you made wouldn’t be transparently absurd. If there were a blog which focused on the relationship between two groups the way Hugo focuses on men and women here, and that blog often harshly criticized one group and almost never criticized the other group, how would that NOT be bigotry?
Try it.
A blog focused on Arab American/African American relations which focuses exclusively on the failings of Arab Americans:
He’s NOT saying “African Americans are flawless/blameless/angelic,” he’s calling Arab Americans on their crap behavior.
A blog focused on lesbian/bisexual relations which focuses exclusively on the ‘unfeminist’ behavior of bisexual women:
She’s NOT saying “lesbians are flawless/blameless/angelic,” she’s calling bisexuals on their crap behavior.
See how that doesn’t work?
Such one-sided treatment of the relationship between men and women may be (and sadly, all too often is) considered “feminist” in the “gynocentric” sense, but it sure as hell isn’t egalitarian feminism.
There’s a few things I had issue with in this post myself. One, Christina Hoff Summers calls herself a feminist, and she even clarifies that when she criticizes feminists that it is only certain feminists that she’s criticizing. That’s fair, self-criticism is something that any field needs, and gender studies is no exception. I was also under the impression that feminist circles had already gone through their rather undemocratic “defeminist-ing” phase.
Second, stating that the two reasons men haven’t been showing in college are crime and military service is a simplistic argument at best, since the other likely scenario is that they already joined the work force. Unfortunately, that option doesn’t paint men quite so violently. Not sure if your intention was to whitewash men everywhere as violent, but there it is. Nor is the oversimplistic argument of throwing in college poor grades to the “Unholy trifecta.” Especially when men statistically also show up with some of the very top grades, and not just the very bottom. They tend towards extremes.
Third, I must agree with ballgame, I get that you may be trying to make a general point, but not qualifying statements and generalizing entire genders is not only disingenuous, but there are quite a few numbers that don’t add up if every fault a woman creates can be attributed to society, but every mistake a man makes is squarely on his own shoulders. I wouldn’t dare argue that women have it better than men, since it isn’t the case, but no man would listen to an argument that paints him as morally inferior to the very core. You should probably nuance and qualify your statements if your aim is truly to win over, and not to preach.
Sam,
Well, I don’t know your personal story…we all have unique personal stories. Some young women are sexualized from very early ages…and the message they hear and what they learn is that their value is determined solely by their sexuality and usefulness to males. That they are frosting and nothing more. That isn’t healthy either. I am very sorry though to hear that you heard how awful you were day after day. Girls can hear similar messages and neither is healthy….sexuality is a core issue though and that’s why it is so hurtful.
Ballgame,
If there were a blog which focused on the relationship between two groups the way Hugo focuses on men and women here, and that blog often harshly criticized one group and almost never criticized the other group, how would that NOT be bigotry?
It’s not bigotry when the groups are in an oppressor/oppressed relationship, i.e. when one group really is much more deserving of criticism in the given context. “She’s not saying factory workers are flawless…”
The real disagreement here is about whether men and women are in an oppressor/oppressed relationship (more analogous to that between factory workers and factor owners, in which one group oppresses the other) or some other relationship (more analogous to that between lesbians and bisexual women, who are caught in the same oppressive system).
“…sexuality is a core issue though and that’s why it is so hurtful.”
Sam’s comment encompasses male sexuality as well, though. Being called a rapist waiting to happen (not quite an exact quote, but close) is infuriating; learning that many of the women around you believe that assumption as a matter of course makes you want to swear off the species.
In the interests of full disclosure, I didn’t hear that “day in and day out,” but in a relatively quick flurry upon entering college. Still, it was enough to get the old misanthropy genes firing.
“I think not calling women on their weaknesses and failures reduces his credibility when he’s calling men on theirs.”
Sam,
What exactly would you classify as women’s “weaknesses and failures”?
I ask not because I believe women in general do not have weaknesses or failures, but because it seems to me that whenever anyone tries to discuss men’s general poor behavior, most of the men in the discussion will try to deflect the course of the discussion by doing basically what is happening right now - arguing that women are flawed too and until women stop making mistakes the men aren’t going to listen and try to correct their mistakes….even if the men’s mistakes are generally far more harmful…and generally speaking, they usually are far more harmful.
Also, women are typically held responsible for weaknesses that are general out of their control due to having the inferior status in society. Such as having to go on welfare at much higher rates than men…
“Being called a rapist waiting to happen (not quite an exact quote, but close) is infuriating;”
I don’t know a single feminist who believes that men are “rapists waiting to happen”. That’s a strawman. SOME feminists state that all men are potential rapists. This is not the same as saying all men are rapists waiting to happen no matter how much some men would like to twist it into meaning just that. All men are potential rapists. All PEOPLE have within them the potential to be anything and everything. All PEOPLE have the potential to become rapists. All PEOPLE also have the potential to become murders, child molesters, or terrorists. All PEOPLE also have within them the potential to become saints, wonderful loving parents, and wonderful loving spouses.
But, even though all people might have within them the potential to become rapists, the simple fact of the matter is that more men than women become rapists. Hence the reason feminist women focus far more on male sexual violence, or the potential thereof.
Ryan,
I agree that it isn’t good to generalize either gender and qualifying statements is probably a good idea, although often tedious when one is writing or making a point. I often feel that I must qualify every word, sentence and paragraph that I utter with some people because they are already feeling defensive and ready to pounce on me, given the slightest opportunity to NOT HEAR ME, or dismiss my points. Many people seem unwilling to meet half-way and demonstrate all or nothing behaviors. This my way or the highway type of thinking gets old and is very limiting. Also I don’t feel that Hugo is suggesting as you say here, “…if every fault a woman creates can be attributed to society, but every mistake a man makes is squarely on his own shoulders.” I don’t think he is saying that or making that point at all. And I don’t think he is painting men as morally inferior to the very core either. I would agree though that it is beneficial to nuance and qualify one’s statements, although this can get tedious.
Karen,
thanks, and I know and agree that girls/women are also exposed to problematic messages.
Faith, Craig,
let me say this again: the message I *perceived* was that men are dangerous monsters and better keep their hands off girls if they don’t want to become rapists. I internalised “girls don’t want sex anyway” and “handholding” with a girl you like as a “starter drug” to letting the rapist out. So I didn’t - for a long time. As I see it, the problem for young guys who perceive this message in the way I did is that feminism doesn’t offer anything but blame, nothing constructive - there’s no feminist “code of conduct for teenager boys” or anything positive, anything that made me like myself, my sexuality and somehow allow myself to express my desire for girls in the phase in my life when I began to want to do so. I later confronted feminism head on, and realised that the message is much more complex and diverse, that I was unfortunately confronted to one of feminisms ugliest sides. I can now rationalise all this, but as a teenager I couldn’t - it was the typical freudian sequence: Desire occurs, moral authority one respects explains that desire is bad, desire is repressed, psychological problems occur. That’s me. I’d wish this kind of problem/collateral damage wouldn’t be ignored simply because of a general unnuanced statement like “men are privileged” and “all men are potential rapists”.
I think there IS a feminist “code of conduct for teenage boys,” even if you didn’t hear it (and I’m sorry you didn’t, it’s important for boys and girls both to hear that their sexuality isn’t a disease), and/or it wasn’t called a “feminist code…”
Here’s the code: Women (girls) are individuals who deserve your respect and consideration as fellow human beings. Your desire is what it is, but your actions cannot be allowed to override that respect and consideration.
You say your desire was pathologized, and that this was the fault of “one of feminisms ugliest sides,” but given that feminism is a rather marginalized power, especially compared to that of the Big Three Relgions, all of which have (IMO) rather toxic views of sexuality, I wonder why you choose to blame feminism.
“I don’t know a single feminist who believes that men are “rapists waiting to happen”.”
I didn’t say anything about feminists and you know it (and *I’m* the one guilty of strawmen?). I was referring to several people who said that *to my face*. I don’t know if they were feminists or what prompted their remarks, nor do I give a damn about either.
Karen,
As much as I sympathize with the tediousness of qualifying and not generalizing, I consider it essential, especially in any discussion concerning gender studies or any other academic discussion.
However, whether it be Hugo’s intention or not, the effect of what he is saying is that women are blameless and men are to blame. And he should qualify that. Not only that, in this discussion, a “But what about the MENZ?” question is legitimate, since it was expressly about men to begin with.
Daisy Bond suggested that it is not injust for Hugo’s sweeping generalizations of men because men generally have more privilege than women. I wouldn’t argue that in most contexts men have more privilege, I totally agree. But I do think that the right to non-abusive criticism is a universal value, and not a class-specific one. To suggest that women are suddenly are exempt from non-abusive criticism until that day when every feminist decides we’re all equal seems to me, both far-fetched (since most people aren’t even sure what benchmarks we’d use for an equitable society) and to be not that feminist of an idea.
Just so we’re all clear, I’m not arguing in favor of the belief that men are suffering at the expense of women, I’m not men don’t have the majority of privilege in most contexts. I don’t think gender equity is a zero-sum game. However, I am arguing that in some select contexts, things are either A) not quite what some people are making them out to be, either in quantity or in quality, with regard to men’s legitimate issues, or B) feminism, and specific instances of moral actions that women undertake, should sometimes be criticized.
Daisy Bond suggested that it is not injust for Hugo’s sweeping generalizations of men because men generally have more privilege than women.
Well, to clarify, I was not making a statement about my beliefs, just that: if men are unilaterally privileged and more responsible for the perpetuation of the system, one-sided criticism is not bigotry. If the relationship is more complex — like ballgame’s example of lesbians and bisexual women: one group is more privileged in many, but not all, settings (bisexuals have some access to heterosexual privilege, but lesbians have more standing in most queer communities), and both are disadvantaged overall (neither are straight) — then one-sided criticism isn’t appropriate or fair.
JW,
“Here’s the code: Women (girls) are individuals who deserve your respect and consideration as fellow human beings. Your desire is what it is, but your actions cannot be allowed to override that respect and consideration.
that’s a preamble for a code of conduct, not the code itself. If that preamble isn’t filled with more content, if there are no examples of what constitutes a respectful expression of desire, then that’s insufficient in my book. It just says “don’t touch” - your touch is toxic. And I complied dutifully.
I would have wanted a code that would have told me - you’re not entirely responsible for her, she is a person herself, and she is able to actively express her feelings, positive and negative. You don’t have to anticipate a possible “no” or “yes”. Let her do her thinking. Trying to hold a girls hand is not rape, it’s an expression of affection - if you like her, and you have the feeling she likes you, and she doesn’t touch you herself, why not try to touch her carefully so both of you can stop the escalation at any point. If she likes your touch, she will probably respond in kind, but if she doesn’t, stop and tell her about your feelings and ask if/why she doesn’t seem to want to reciprocate.
“You say your desire was pathologized, and that this was the fault of “one of feminisms ugliest sides,” but given that feminism is a rather marginalized power, especially compared to that of the Big Three Relgions, all of which have (IMO) rather toxic views of sexuality, I wonder why you choose to blame feminism.”
Well, simple. In my education it wasn’t a marginalized power, as opposed to religion - I did not choose to blame feminism, I felt that feminism blamed me (for something I had no control over). As I mentioned above, I am well aware that my reaction is not particularly common, and not independent of individual circumstances in my upbringing. Still, I feel that feminism/feminists should at least consider the collateral damage they can cause - I do not have the impression that’s a particularly popular thought in feminist debates.
That is to say, what we’re actually arguing about is the structure of the system. Is a Class Man vs Class Woman analysis — basically a Marxist analysis — appropriate?
That is the question. (Which leads to further questions, such as which Woman, which Man?)
“I didn’t say anything about feminists and you know it (and *I’m* the one guilty of strawmen?). ”
Um, no, I didn’t know that, Craig. Since the conversation was about feminists, I apparently made the mistake of assuming you meant feminists. That was apparently my mistake. Regardless, I don’t believe it was necessary to get quite so defensive about the matter. A simple, “that isn’t what I meant, let me explain.” would have sufficed.
And that’s where we differ, Daisy. I consider it just for criticism to come from anyone, as long as it’s A) true, and B) not-abusive. Well-done criticism in my opinion is universal. I can’t see a situation where, if done correctly, it would be out of line, save perhaps in a safe-space. I think if feminism’s out to give women all of the social power but none of the responsibility, then it was definitely not the feminism I signed up for.
I also argue that privilege is not universal but context-specific, since all human interaction is context-specific. Men are privileged in the workforce, in politics, and in other fields because society’s construction of masculinity is also in line with values that resonate in these fields. However, it doesn’t resonate with the home, which is why stay-at-home dads are stigmatized.
This, to me, is clear-evidence as to why privilege often is given to men, but not universally so. Constructed roles appear for both genders, and I might even argue that thanks to feminism, roles for women are more flexible than they used to be (while admitting that they’re far from optimal), but men’s roles have almost remained as rigid as ever.
Ryan,
B)Not-abusive, agreed. A) True, disagree (as I find defining what is true a problematic concept. Yes, some criticism is valid and has merit and I would agree, if done correctly in a safe-space would not be out-of-line. The problem is finding appropriate practitioners of it and I’m hard pressed to find individuals who are merit-worthy. Everyone likes to criticize, but no one likes to be criticized and as far as I’m concerned most people do it badly. However, much of the content of your last post I tend to agree with–constructed roles for both genders and roles for women appear to be more flexible, but I say appear as that is not my experience (personally) and I agree wholeheatedly that it is far from optimal. I do not agree that feminism is out to give women all the social power, but none of the responsibility….I don’t see this objective.
Karen,
It wasn’t straw-feminism, I said “IF feminism’s out to give . . ” I certainly think that feminism done properly wouldn’t concede that. But there have been some who have been more than willing to not follow the logic to its proper conclusion, and it is that which I disagree with.
I’m interested in the disagreeing with truth. Certainly some things are true in more contexts than others, but the context is what determines truth. I certainly don’t believe in capital T “Truth,” in the static sense, if that’s what you’re disagreeing with. But to argue that things can’t be argued true or false defeats the purpose of having a discussion to begin with.
SamSeaborn–I really, really hope you’re not saying that I said, or even implied, “your touch is toxic.” That would be right out.
No one, feminist or not, could possibly write out the “rule book” you seem to have wanted as a teen (I sure hope you don’t want/need it now), partly because there’s absolutely NO way to account for every possibility, let alone every individual woman’s response to every possibility.
Do you feel you need a rule book to get to know men? I know sexuality makes things more fraught, but c’mon now. Making friendships and making romantic relationships are, in my experience very similar enterprises, and both rely on mutual respect, a reasonable amount of risk-taking, and lots of communication. Women are not aliens who speak some weird uterus-language you cannot possibly hope to understand. Were you unable to form relationships with men? Then you have (always had!) the skills to form relationships (even ones filled with Sexy Time!) with women.
The “code” that you rough out in your comment is really just a verbier version of what I wrote You say “you’re not responsible for her thinking,” which is just another way of acknowledging that she’s an individual (”a fellow human being”) who can make her own choices. Et cetera… it follows logically, without the need for the play-by-play of “if she does X, do Y” instructions.
I don’t know your history, and maybe you were given some stink-o info from a feminist (or a “feminist”), but it seems to me that you’ve made it your hobby-horse, rather than realizing that, wherever it came from, it was stink-o, you’re better off ditching it, and that feminism does have something (something? lots of things!) to offer you and all men, but you have to–really, this is the only thing I’d ever say you HAVE TO do–give up the idea that there is a single (different, weird, unnatural) set of rules for dealing with Women. To do less is to Other them forever.
Ooh, bad tagging. “Were” was the only thing that was supposed to be in italics.
JW,
“SamSeaborn–I really, really hope you’re not saying that I said, or even implied, “your touch is toxic.” That would be right out.”
I did not, I said that’s the message I understood back then, not something you even implied. Sorry if that wasn’t sufficiently clear.
“No one, feminist or not, could possibly write out the “rule book” you seem to have wanted as a teen (I sure hope you don’t want/need it now)”
That may well be so, and as I said I managed to get rid of much of my don’t touch problems - partly through enganging in feminism - but mostly due to the help of girls/women who were not afraid to touch me. To this day I’m usually waiting until a woman will kiss me rather than take the initiative - I’m quite good with words now so I can usually work my way around having to escalate myself. But the fear of a “toxic touch” is still there, on some level.
“Women are not aliens who speak some weird uterus-language you cannot possibly hope to understand. Were you unable to form relationships with men? Then you have (always had!) the skills to form relationships (even ones filled with Sexy Time!) with women.”
No, I never needed a rule book for friendships, not even with girls. With those girls with whom I wanted to get intimate, I wasn’t able to get past the “no touching border” (yes, I was shaking their hands, and occasionally hugging like a friend, but you know what I mean - I wasn’t able to caress them/touch them sexually). I was too afraid they may not want it, scream, run away and that I would be the “monster” I was so afraid to become. My happiest moment as a teenager was holding the hand of a girl I loved - she took mine - and still I felt I had to ensure I would not let the monster loose while we were sitting there watching the sunset. When I first made out, of course, she kissed me, I wouldn’t have thought of risking to “sexually harass” her by attempting a kiss. At some point she asked me if something was wrong with her breasts since I would not touch them. I said I wasn’t sure that would be ok? So she took my hand and said “someone screwed you badly.” Wise girl.
“The “code” that you rough out in your comment is really just a verbier version of what I wrote…”
Well, I would have needed a much verbier version of what you wrote. I would have needed someone who taught me to say “yes” to my own sexuality, to embrace its positive potential, not just feed me statistics and ideology about how awful men are.
“were given some stink-o info from a feminist (or a “feminist”), but it seems to me that you’ve made it your hobby-horse, rather than realizing that, wherever it came from, it was stink-o, you’re better off ditching it”
Well, as I said, that wasn’t easy in my case. It took a couple of years, “stink-o feminism” reacted badly with my OCD and became a major psychological problem.
“but you have to–really, this is the only thing I’d ever say you HAVE TO do–give up the idea that there is a single (different, weird, unnatural) set of rules for dealing with Women.”
Again, I never had problems *dealing* with women - except for things that involved physical interaction, like physical teasing when you’re flirting. Softly hitting each other, that kind of thing. Mostly I had problems becoming *sexual* with women because I believed that my sexuality is doing something to them that I would not want to do to them. Believe me, I know now I have alienated/confused/disappointed more than one woman by *not* becoming sexual when it would have been appropriate.
Hugo chooses not to discuss much of the bad stuff he knows that some women do. Basically, he is presenting a “case.” It reminds me of our adversarial legal system. An attorney doesn’t present the whole truth in court, rather he/she presents one side with the full knowledge that opposing council will also present one side only. If Hugo went to a truth model I believe that he would be MUCH more effective at helping men actually transform themselves. The down side is that some feminists would stop thinking that he was cool.
Sam,
Well everyone’s education is unique to their experiences, mine and yours and that is filtered through who is educating us–their experiences and their flaws. I wish I too would have had a verbier version about males and their sexuality. I too heard that I was responsible and to blame for males and their inappropriate sexualized behaviors towards me. I don’t care to elaborate here. A 13 year-olds understanding of complicated human behaviors and emotions is very different from that of an adult. And emotions are generally refined throughout our lives. Religion played a much larger role than feminism. Some people are very poor communicators and it’s a skill that most people could benefit from cultivating throughout their lives. Many people just react without knowing why they are reacting and they are always going through life responding to all situations without much thought but knee-jerk reactions. I think it difficult for people to focus on the hurt of others, when they are so focused on their own, but are unaware of why they react as they do or the impact on others. Earlier in this thread you used the word schizophrenic female demands. My response to that choice of word, especially schizophrenic, although I know what you were trying to say was negative for another reason and that was because of my own personal experience of coping and dealing with someone who suffers with mental illness. The actual use of that word evoked a powerful and very emotionally painful images and I reacted, but did not write or lash out at you. That, of course, is something you wouldn’t know. Someone who reacted to that word would probably get angry and lash out at you. Someone who was aware of why they were reacting may try to let you know how they feel and not react. We are all flawed individuals, which I think you know. When you respond with your own personal truth and are willing to share, for someone like me, it earns my trust to do the same and that is how I think we learn from each other. In other words, I think it took courage for you to reveal what you have and I respect and appreciate that. How you said it makes it easier for some to look at it from another angle and to empathize. Angry responses don’t accomplish this, at least not for me. And I do think it appropriate too that feminism/feminists could at least consider the collateral damage they can cause.
Thanks Karen :)
I’d like to affirm Daisy Bond’s further question:
I consider that question particularly apposite in light of your comment that
As it happens, having spent seven years (give or take) as a literacy tutor in prisons and jails, I can tell you that in prison, you can see at a glance the racism that permeates North American justice systems. And while plenty of honourable feminists have spoken about the bankruptcy of the criminal justice system and the “solutions” it offers, many mainstream feminists have enthusiastically endorsed the protection the justice system and the police promise. Somehow, the racism in the prison system, like the racism in “Lorna the Jungle Girl”, went unnoticed by them.
I have disability that might have landed me in dire circumstances if confronted by racism. In my childhood, children of colour who presented with ADHD got shunted into programs for the “educable retarded” while us “white” kids got to serve as the lab rabbits on whom neurologists worked out methylphenidate, dexedrine et. al.. Since a label as “educable retarded might have excluded me from most of the opportunities I have had in life, I have reason to rage against the system that blasted the hopes of so many while I escaped.
By your own account, you too have benefited from this kind of privilege, which to me limits your standing to absolve those who have ignored it and remain blind to it.
Coming from you, Hugo, I find this profoundly offensive. Your own accounts describe mentoring young people in one of the most upper middle class areas and in one of the toniest churches around. And even there, you write about not wanting to pay
Let me put this clearly. These “few problem boys” probably turn into the “boys adrift”. If you want this seen as a problem and addressed by other men, fine, but do not dress down the rest of us for our supposed failure, after having gone on record as not wanting to devote time and effort to mentoring kids with problems yourself.
Goddamn. You know what really chaps my ass about this whole coming-into-people’s-spaces-and-demanding-they-talk-about-what-YOU-think-is-important schtick? Nobody would do it to, say, Roger Ebert. Nobody goes onto his movie review website and says “Hey Ebert, why do you got to criticize movies all the time? You’re making movies look bad.” It’s like, goddamnit people, this is a space created specifically to talk about things men are doing wrong and how to fix them. You want to talk about the things women are doing wrong? Go read the ENTIRE REST OF THE INTERNET.
Leah - lmao. i think i’ll be saying ‘go read the ENTIRE REST OF THE INTERNET’ a lot from now on.
regarding the rapist-waiting-to-happen arguments, i’m reminded of margaret atwood: ‘men’s greatest fear is women laughing at them. women’s greatest fear is men killing them’ (or something like that). ‘men’s greatest fear is women thinking they are a pathological predator…’