Yesterday a man was invited to share his perspective at Jezebel on why women should not complain about women getting hit, for no reason, by men. The title he chose was, “Why is Snooki More Precious Than I Am?“ You can sort of imagine how it evolved from there.
I don’t want to rehash things the commenters adeptly pointed out about how stupid this guy’s argument was in the particular instance of reality television stars behaving like animals. What I want to talk about, and have been thinking about for some time, is this phenomenon of Men Arriving On the Scene of Feminist Discourse to Educate Us All. (I’ll refer to it as “Arriving on the Scene” in the rest of this post.) Understand that I don’t mean men trying to engage, of which there are some, and they comment on blogs like ours and Twisty regularly even though they get some abuse for occasionally being jerks, because frankly I think they want to learn. And I really respect that.
No, what I mean is that dude, you know that dude, who is here to let you know that sometimes feminists are aggressive (sometimes you’re lucky and they cite MLK Jr. or Gandhi), or don’t respect men generally (completely against the rules of the patriarchy under which all men are a priori entitled to respect) or should learn to watch their tone (because men who explain things are always totally starting from a place of respect) or should recognize that men are human beings too (as if it were in actual danger of not being the case among feminists who for the most part are trying to advance anti-racist, anti-homophobic and anti-transmisogynist causes as well, many of which involve, intrinsically, advocating for the rights of men – not that these dudes are ever talking about men of colour or gay men or trans men).
This is, of course, merely a variant of the widespread problem that is the mansplaining phenomenon. But what I find particularly distressing about it in the context of feminist discussion is that this maneuver is frequently the subject of congratulation by other feminists, which boggles me. Feminists will say things like, “we do need to include men’s issues!” and “we need men to be our allies, thanks!” to men like these. It makes me wonder if my reading comprehension skills are poorer than they are traditionally reputed to be. Because these men are not our allies, in my opinion. Why are they not our allies? Below, a list:
1. Men who think that feminists need urgently to know that masculinity is painful have not actually read any feminism. I’d say, despite the standard throwaway lines they usually include with their critiques, à la “I am just as much of a feminist as any woman,” or “I totally think violence against women is a serious problem but,” most of the men who Arrive on the Scene are only interested in feminism insofar as they can explain why it’s wrong. I mean, these guys are not citing other internal feminist discourse to us, though they could had they the least interest in reading any. They’d be shocked to know, actually, that their best sympathizers on this score are usually radical feminists like MacKinnon who say things like that men’s oppression of women will not end until dominance as a mode of social organization is over. But to get to that shock, they’d first have to read some feminism, and this above all, they haven’t time to do. Their pain is in too urgent need of address by the closest self-described feminists at hand.
2. Men whose alliance to feminism (assuming they state one) is dependent on feminism addressing their pain are allied to feminism on highly contingent grounds. It seems frustrating to have to say it, but highly contingent alliances are not alliances. They are quid pro quo bargains. (You scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours.) Their loyalty is purely strategic, not altruistic; what these men are saying is that the liberation of women alone is insufficient reason to ally with feminism. What big hearts they do have, these men. (This is a point other people have made more eloquently than I, but I say it again because I feel like we’re not internalizing this. We’re still telling men who are lecturing and hectoring and demanding things of us that we consider them allies. Ick, you guys, ick.)
3. Men like this want free cookies without actual selflessness. I know I just said these men want a quid pro quo bargain, but usually they’re not even prepared to make what strikes me as the minimum initial commitment of doing something more about women getting raped/beaten/intimidated/discriminated against, the whole shebang, than writing an internet comment in which one damn line is devoted to lip service. For this – for declaring themselves to be not like totally opposed to feminism, just of the opinion that it is myopic – they think we ought to alter the focus of our work. And while this is not universally true, most of the (internet and otherwise) feminists I’ve ever met are doing in the trenches work, and often it’s with men too. This I cannot generally say for the kind of guy who spends his days internet commenting about why “feminism is wrong.”
4. Maybe one day these guys will be feminists sure, but first, they need to learn about self-awareness. Let’s say you and I are at a party. Let’s say we are identical as regards all the usual suspect axes of power: gender/race/class/sexual orientation/cis/trans. Let’s say you got mugged last week. Is it an appropriate response for me to be all, “Right, but when I got mugged it really hurt”? Or is that the response of a self-absorbed asshole? I kind of think it’s the latter, and I’m kind of confused why, in the views of these men, that is an acceptable response. The acceptable response is to listen, to not ensure that the conversation centers around yourself. Because listening? Actually helps someone else. Talking can too easily become you in love with the sound of your own voice.
Oh, yeah, it’s definitely easier, I think, to talk about gender issues with MOC at times, because those issues are so often frankly identical. I swear, sometimes I think I’d rather talk to a MOC about issues of gender than I would some white women. Sigh. My issue, I know, jeez. Not bitter at all. But I guess my point is that, damn, men are men, and Cord’s post sure did prove it, for all the reasons that are STILL popping up that I didn’t get on the first try. As you say, PS, he’s not talking about gay guys, transguys, guys who violate the gender roles….he wants to re-assert power by and for women by discrediting women, by maximizing what harm women do to men and minimizing what men do to women. These guys are NEVER interested in talking about gay bashing, in the bashing of disenfranchised men or people—it’s all about making men into victims.
And to the extent that I talk about men, well, I don’t believe in coating it with sugar. I define people by their actions. If somebody on the block plays their stereo loud, they’re a Loud Stereo Person, and they tend to all act alike, whatever color their skin in, but if you want to scare me? Sic the rich ones on me, rich men are fucking frightening.
For instance, the most glaring sign to me that MRAs and others aren’t serious about stopping violence so much as they are using it is the fact that they’re utterly uninterested in fighting violence against women and/or addressing violence by The Powers That Be against already-abused and marginalized people—-like non-macho men.
Ginmar I’m am not trying to be an asshole, and how privy of you to just flip off someone’s comments instead of saying you didn’t understand and ask the person to clarify their statements like yvanehtnioj and Pilgram.
@yvanehtnioj & Pilgram Soul: I guess it’s just that anytime we (as in society) engage in a topic about sexism it is framed around white heterosexual males. When someone says” these Men’s Rights types don’t care about the rights of minority men and transgender men,” they are missing the mark that there are plenty of minority, non-heterosexual men that hold these misguided Men’s Rights beliefs. While white heterosexual males do benefit the most from the patriarchy it just seems like many feminists turn their blinders on when it comes to just how much other males benefit from it as well, and view those men as a separate category of men or male privilege.
I hope I’ve clarified my point because I don’t want to veer too much off topic, but I do agree your post. However like someone else said on Jezebel, it can be beneficial when someone like Cord comes around because it helps us engaged in a meaningful debate and it may even help someone else see the error of their ways. Those who hold feminist views are created not born.
Aw, lookit the little troll. How nice it took you only two comments.
And anybody who thinks that some stupid shit like that asshole has something useful to say, well…..Yeah. That doesn’t reveal anything at all.
DirtyLaundry is not a troll. Please refrain from making personal attacks like that when it’s not at all warranted.
it just seems like many feminists turn their blinders on when it comes to just how much other males benefit from it as well, and view those men as a separate category of men or male privilege.
I disagree with this, frankly. I haven’t seen evidence of it. I do think it is impossible to maintain that those men exercise their privilege sans context either, though. Keep in mind that I’m pretty sure no one’s saying context excuses misogyny. What I think people are saying is that it informs it, and the more we know about how/where misogyny appears, the more we can do about it.
So blaming feminists for not taking up even more mens’ issues is a feminist thing to do? And accusing some feminists of ‘othering’ some groups of men when we don’t specifically mention them is being discriminatory? Last but not least, applauding the very misbegotten piece of crap this article is about doesn’t indicate a few things? Good to know.
I’m sorry if MOC don’t feel included when I say ‘men’ but that strikes me as another flavor of the bitching when men whine that I don’t qualify it enough—by which they usually mean, in ridiculous amounts of detail. “Some” men, I’m supposed to say, when ‘some’ men do the crime, and many many others write about it, justify it, excuse it, blame it on women, etc., etc., but they only really give a shit when they get called on it. Someone said it far better than me: how come men only give a shit about the patriachy when it hurts them but they’re utterly indifferent to all the damage they and it do to women? And especially after they’re told? And last but not least they want women to fix it all for them.
So, yeah. If this isn’t the place for no holds barred feminism, I’ll be on my merry way.
Ginmar, I’d say we are pretty no holds barred. There’s a lot of disagreement between editors and commenters on a lot of issues. Because we are fighty, though, we have to enforce certain rules of engagement lest threads develop into intranecine snipig. All SarahMC asked is that you refrain from attacks like “troll,” particularly when we have someone who’s been around here a bit like Dirty Laundry. I would say the same to Dirty Laundry: I had already said I did not think you were derailing, and your additional scold of Ginmar was maybe not the best conversational strategy ever.
I think Dirty Laundry is not expressing him/herself well, mind you, because I think s/he agrees with Ginmar in the end. I think she’s now saying what she meant is that she doesn’t like that my comment could be read as excusing misogyny in “other kinds” of men.
Also I think she’s saying the valuable experience is trying to get Cord to reassess his beliefs. I didn’t find it particularly valueable in that way myself, but I do believe that’s different than saying the content of his article was worthwhile.
“I think Dirty Laundry is not expressing him/herself well, mind you, because I think s/he agrees with Ginmar in the end. I think she’s now saying what she meant is that she doesn’t like that my comment could be read as excusing misogyny in “other kinds” of men. Also I think she’s saying the valuable experience is trying to get Cord to reassess his beliefs. I didn’t find it particularly valueable in that way myself, but I do believe that’s different than saying the content of his article was worthwhile.”
Thank You.
I’m glad you at least said you didn’t understand and asked me to clarify. The funny this is I was going to post a disclaimer in my first comment asking repliers not to attack if they don’t understand but to ask me to better explain my comment. However, I didn’t think anyone here would do that.
On the topic of engaging MOC on sexism: now I’m feeling sorry for myself, because I have NOT had good experiences doing so. I always have this little niggling hope that they’ll *get* it, because there’s a framework from which to proceed. It seems we always start out with a really detailed and, I think, productive discussion of race, how racism is structural and not just individual acts of bigotry, how privilege works even for those who don’t acknowledge or understand it, how sometimes the most pernicious effects are ingrained beliefs that are rarely if ever articulated … and then when I bring up gender in the same way, the brakes slam on. “It’s not the same.” “That’s totally different.”
No it isn’t! And I know it’s not fair to set the bar higher (even if only in my head) for other oppressed classes, to expect empathy where I maybe wouldn’t from white men; but damned if I still don’t do it and get disappointed every time.*
*slight hyperbole. I can remember exactly one time I came away feeling I had an ally.
@yvanehtnioj re engaging MOC on sexism
Yes. I totally agree with you. My bf is a MOC, and the discussions I’ve had with him regarding race issues have helped me understand racism much better. I always try to give him the benefit of the doubt – if he considers something racist then I try to accept it at face value and not let my white privilege blind me to seeing it as racist.
I can’t say the same for him regarding sexism. He refuses to acknowledge that he has any male privilege whatsoever. He doesn’t see the parallels between subtle racism and subtle sexism. Sexism is different, according to him. He gets angry and defensive if I point out his own sexist behavior and assumptions, to the point where I don’t think our relationship will last much longer.
I have had similar experiences with other MOCs I have dated and befriended. I do think MOCs are *slightly* better at understanding sexism than whites, but only marginally. And when it comes down to it the difference is pretty negligible.
This is bullshit. That guy made a good point, and offered an opinion on his experience of violence that dared to suggest that even a white, hetero, privileged man can be made a victim too, and that maybe we should contemplate the hypocrisy in our culture that paints men getting hit as funny or not a big deal and dismisses their trauma. It seems unfair to nail him to the fucking wall for that.
Michelle:
That guy acted out of a cultural assumption which got him hit in the face, and he then blamed the existence of the cultural assumption on his lady friend and ladies in general, without ever questioning the actual cultural assumption.
His getting hit in the face was not funny, it was tragic, but not for the reasons he presented.
Normally, this would just be, well, normal, but he posted this essay on a feminist website and last time I checked being ignorant of your audience makes you fair game for wall-nailing.
He was not nailed to the wall for suggesting that male violence (or even violence at all) is deplorable. He was not nailed to the wall for suggesting that laughing at physical trauma (though I saw nothing of that, btw, in that thread) of any type, at any time, is not funny.
He was nailed for attempting to co-opt a story about male-on-female violence, and the mem/trope that evokes in many women, and trying to make it enitrely about him.
He was nailed for vainglorious egocentrism, not for saying hitting is bad. I think we all agree that hitting is bad, most grown-ups also agree that Not Everything Is All. About. You.
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and sometimes that cigar doesn’t have a good gosh-darned thing to do with you, and trying to make it about you just makes you look, well, lame.
This girl getting punched on a reality show (Maude, people watch this?) had nothing whatsoever to do with this guy getting punched because he decided he needed to apologize for the behavior of a female “friend” who felt so violated she believed she needed to resort to food-dumping on a bevy of unknown, possibly dangerous males, to show how upset/unreceptive she was.
Normal people under normal, or even quasi-normal, circumstances do not dump food on strangers. It normally takes either a National Lampoon script, or extremely stressful situations, to bring on this peculiarity.
I feel for the man, that he was hurt so badly. No one deserves that, truly.
But no one suggested it was funny, and no one ever laughed at his pain – they just thouight it rather presumptuous of him to (a) apologize for his female friend for being upset and acting on it, (b) co-opt a totally unrelated incident to Make it All About Teh Man’s pain of years ago, and (c) presume to tell women that violence against women have nothing to do with them, if it isn’t connected, somehow with a man.
And, btw, Michelle, “that guy” isn’t white. He determined that he was hit because the guy “couldn’t hit a woman,” rather than due to his own less-than-totally priviledged state, and I accept that he believes it was because he was only not-female (as opposed to not-white) that he was targeted, but I can’t conceive of anyone here condoning any reasoning for it, at all.
[...] Attention, Ladies! A Man is Here to Help! [...]