21 October 2006

of "man-hating" and "misandry," part 2

a while ago i made a post [in livejournal] about men lashing out against feminism as "man-hating". in it i wrote,
i don't know. is it possible to "reclaim" the word man-hater? because if we can realize "man" is just a construct, and define "man" as an embodiment of culturally-sanctioned masculinity -- a sexual egotist, a chest-thumper, blind to his privilege, an abuser, a rapist, the boss, the master, a power-slut, someone who takes what he wants without asking, someone who can't talk about feelings, someone who sees others as objects for his use -- then i definitely hate "men", and i would think that all forward-thinking people should. hell, real-life men ought to be revolting against "men", too. not by attacking women who challenge the conflation of construct and reality, not by calling someone hateful or crazy for putting patriarchy on a stage, not by expressing outrage at the depiction of violence against women in a way that disparages a man -- but by expressing outrage at actual violence against women, which frankly is committed, and justified, in all men's name, and gives men a bad name. if you don't like that, stop condoning it. can't you believe that it's not this playwright who is making you out to be all these things, but the patriarchy? i have a feeling the real offense is that you are used to the patriarchy also giving you moral blessing, and the playwright does not.

[fast-forward sound effect.] yesterday i read a post by amanda of pandagon, and today one by the happy feminist, addressing the "man-hater" accusation and its illogic.

amanda writes about the dixie chicks song "goodbye earl," about a woman and her best friend killing her abusive husband who can't be bothered with restraining orders, and men in texas karaoke bars who "kid on the square that it's man-hating" every time:
This makes me a little nuts, as you can imagine. How is it man-hating, unless you think both that all men beat women and that women should be complacent, or even worse happy, with this? They go to a lot of effort to establish that it’s Earl, a wife-beater, who has to die. At best, this song is wife-beater-hating. I wish they’d be more clear and just say women have no right to self-defense.

The phrase “man-hater” is more an insult to men than to feminists. Anyone who uses it generally means that the person thus accused is a rapist-hater, abuser-hater, sexist-hater. And when you call someone a “man-hater” who is actually hating on sexists, abusers, and rapists, you imply all men are these things. And they are not. So who are really the man-haters when that phrase is being wielded? It’s not the feminists; it’s the men implying that hating rape or hating abuse is the same thing as hating men.

and that about exactly sums up what i was trying to say in my previous post.

HappyFeminist distills the analysis even further:
If you take male dominance as a given that is beyond question, then feminism comes to seem as a rebuke to men, a statement that they aren't doing a good enough job. In fact, feminism is only a rebuke to those men who believe in their automatic right to dominance, not to men in general.

Another common belief is that feminism is an effort to render men unnecessary or superfluous. Again, this belief about feminism only makes sense if you believe that a man's role is to be in charge of women. The distinction that is missed is that feminism only renders traditional roles superfluous, not men themselves. That distinction is easy to miss if you identify men with their traditional roles so thoroughly that you cannot see a value for men otherwise. In fact, feminism is about getting rid of arbitrary roles so that we can all, male and female alike, be seen as necessary and valuable for the individual abilities and characteristics we bring to the table.


amanda also talks a bit about this very common word among a certain subgroup of feminism-backlashers: "misandry". she calls bullshit on it, arguing that to make a word that sounds like the mirror-image of misogyny is fine, except that nobody hates men like women are hated. she refers to the two school shootings in one week, quite recently, in which men told boys to leave the classroom before molesting and/or killing the remaining girls. these incidents are something i've wanted to say something about for a few weeks now, and i just haven't been able to. but bob herbert wrote an op-ed about it for the new york times, and although it's timesSelect (i.e. hard to get to) i think it's worth a quick read, so i'll make a separate post with the text in it: read it here.

anyway. and some dude in the comments argued with amanda that yuh-huh, some women do too hate men. and she argued quite succinctly that there was nevertheless no equivalence between misogyny and what some people call misandry. and she responded "There are people who hate men, notably anti-feminists who think very little of men. However, attempts to equate the two will get you returned to telling me when someone sent the girls out of the room to rape and kill the boys." i thought this was a succinct and solid response, but the dude thought otherwise. then i tried to explicate her comment with a comment of my own, which produced more or less the following:
amanda already acknowledged that "there are people who hate men, notably anti-feminists who think very little of men." there are women anti-feminists who do this, too, so there is your man-hating woman. anytime someone is trying to sell you “boys will be boys,” they are hoping that you’ll think little enough of males to not hold them to a standard of human decency. and that sucks. but, in case you haven’t noticed, such people — men and women — tend to restrict that “hatred” of men to dismissing their humanity and potential for goodness. that is, though they may "hate" men thusly, they still do not go around singling men out for assault, rape, enslavement, or murder.
so there you have it, the "man-hating and misandry post roundup".


update: this topic is making the rounds in the blogs i read, and shakespeare's sister writes about what it is like to talk about sexism in a relationship with a good-intentioned man; reviews sara robinson's post on the subject of male violence, disenfranchisement and our modern, "toxic" culture of manhood/manliness; and addresses what a positive movement for redefining men might be like: "...if nothing else, it would provide that long-absent framework that men who are already interested in such an endeavor have been missing, the tools to finally begin extracting what defines manhood according to men from what defines manhood according to a patriarchy. They are very different things indeed." good stuff.

Labels:


04 October 2006

inaugural post: feminism Q&A! (blog intro to come.)

EDIT -- i am still trying to figure out to use trackbacks when i link to blogs, because it seems like the courteous thing to do, but every blogging site is different and so i'm still a little confused about where to find the trackback links. if you can help me please do.



repost: livejournal entry from 9/14/2006
------------------------------------------------------------------------

ok. i have a proposition. first a little background, which is that i read several feminist blogs.

--and here i have to digress and plug the one i hit up most often, pandagon, which updates several times daily and is pretty fucking good. it covers a wide field of feminist issues, and also race issues, religious fundamentalism, economics and poverty, neo-conservatism and the war, and so forth, and any intersections among those things. it's pretty strongly focused on how these things play out in the states and in current domestic politics, with most of the posts inspired by current news stories, and since i am so tired of most newsmedia lately it's basically where i get my u.s. news these days. hey, it works for me. doesn't hurt that the writing is no-nonsense, trenchant and mostly spot-on smart, AND occasionally wrings out a laugh from a pretty depressing state of affairs. so yeah.--

ok. so amanda marcotte, one of the pandagon writers, wrote a post that led me to check in on another feminist blog, one that i used to read but had lost over the summer. this one is called molly saves the day, and in her latest post molly has invited readers with (honest, good-faith) questions about feminism, no matter how basic or "dumb", to go ahead and ask them without fear of being a nuisance to the more versed feminists or of being sent off to read more stuff. as she disclaims, though, feminists are within their rights when they say things like "it's not my job to teach you about this, it's your job to teach yourself about it". (quick mini-paragraph about this: this is true, and it's something feminists will often say to those questions, the same way a lot of people of color say that they do not want to be teaching "black people 101" or similar such things, and you could imagine the same about queers who don't feel willing to make it their life's work to educate others about being them. i mean, you might think that anyone would WANT to or feel a DUTY to do that sort of thing -- but there is one group of people who essentially never have to do any of that stuff, because everyone else already lives in their reality and has to know about it just to function. and i don't think it makes sense for well-off able-bodied straight white men to demand explanations of everyone else, they ought to have to do some active learning too, and there is plenty of stuff already put out there by people who DO want to spend their time educating everyone else.) but on the other hand, an occasional boost from someone who knows the material like the back of their hand can be really helpful and engaging, and if someone feels like going the extra mile for others then that's great, so molly's offering her (personal, individual) answers to whoever wants. and, since no one feminist speaks for "all of feminism", amanda in this post, and jill at feministe, and who knows who else, decided to do the same.

so, i like this idea, and if i thought more people read my posts, i'd do it too. i'd like to add my voice to the variety of voices, i just don't know if there's anyone reading this who'd have any questions they'd want me to answer. because this is still definitely a "journal" even though i've been running it a little like a "blog" lately, and by that distinction all i am really saying is that i haven't publicized it and strangers don't read it (i think). that said, i'll still extend the offer. so, thing-one is, if you want me to answer any questions in this vein, ask away. thing-two is, if you just want to get a sense generally of what various feminists out there are wondering about and stating, you should visit one of these blog-posts' comment threads. they touch on things like tensions among feminist women, tensions between feminist and non-feminist women, internalized sexism, what men can do to be pro-feminist, reading resources for more edification, etc.

ok, that's all. in the next few days i hope to post some other, really worthwhile blog reading i found recently.

Labels:


This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?