Men in feminism: MRAs, NiceGuys, and unspringig the trap of worthiness

This post is even longer and possibly even ramblier than usual but I'm pretty excited about it. It's yet another breakout of this post based on Scott Adam's snarky "One of the services I provide to hetero male readers of this blog is teaching you how to obtain sex from women who are too good for you."

In comments to that post DevastatingYet of Devastating Yet Inconsequential said

When I told my now-boyfriend about your "women as the no sex class" idea, and sent him here (as well as to some other blogs, though this one resonated the most with him), it really clicked for him in a big way. He remembers that, in high school, he was terrified of women and basically viewed himself as a supplicant towards them. Asking a girl out was like...well, there was no reason she might want to go out with him except to sort of "do her duty" (to society? to eventually propagating the species?) and he wasn't a bad guy to do it with. He had this feeling despite a really egalitarian outlook in general.

Review DY's comment here.

So...

So one of the consequences of men's "no-sex" class paradigm and our assumption that we must prove ourselves worthy is that we're very likely to *approach feminism itself as a quest for worthiness.* (Boy do I remember that reaction -- mine and other men's -- from the early days of the 2nd wave of feminism back in the earlier 1970s! But I digress...)

So anyway, there we sit already indoctrinated to think we're unworthy with regards to women and then we notice there are these people called feminists who believe that men and women are equal.

Woah! Equal huh? From our perspective that's a big step up from unworthy, and by and large we generally *do* agree that (well, except maybe, we think to ourselves, sex) women don't have as many rights so we march up, open our mouths and say "women should be equal. Now will you go out with me?"

This generally does not go over well, and leaving aside women's reaction to us let's just say that whole "unworthy" conversation we thought we could put behind us announces what we believe to be its continuing relevance by biting us squarely on the ass.

Two possibilities are, well, possible at this juncture: Decide that women want to be equal but won't admit we're worthy and so they're big fat double-standard hypocrites who don't mean what they say plus they've got boobies and child custody and don't get drafted and before we know it we're MRAs (Men's Rights Activists) end of story.

The other possibility (possibly just a detour on the path to MRA-ery) is that we take this feminism/equalitarian thing to heart and, believing that if we get feminism we'll become worthy we take another, um, poke at it.

Now at *this* point two *other* possible outcomes are, there I go again, possible. First, we could take another crack at that equality thing, maybe learn some feminist catch phrases but still be thinking mostly about those boobies and how (through clenched, highly irritated teeth) we're still not getting anywhere even though we're now officially... NiceGuys™. Again, very often, end of story.

But the other possibility (again possibly just a long way 'round back to NiceGuy™ or, worse, MRA status) is we start to recognize we're still not getting it and it's not *just* because we're unworthy (there's that word again) but that *there's more to it than meets the eye!* We don't just have to *say* something we need to start *doing things too.* And if we do, we think, *then* we'll be worthy.

And here's how we screw ourselves: since our underlying decision regarding feminism was that we weren't worthy, it's impossible for us to make our own determination and so we've got to encounter (and, very often, collide) with actual feminists and find out whether we've learned enough to be...

...see here's that problem again, we're trying to learn if we're *worthy* again. And generally speaking when it comes to feminism "worthy" isn't really a word. Women in general and feminists in particular don't decide they like you because you're *worthy!* The like you, or don't, for the same reason you might or might not like Stan and George, those two guys a few doors down from each other: they either are or aren't likable. You never say things like "Hmm, do Stan and George *deserve* my liking them? Have they learned enough about... whatever... to be likable? Hmm, and I haven't tested them on those books they asked me to recommend so I'm not sure I can like them or not at all." Know what I mean?

So here's where you reach this critical point for an awful lot of men in their integration into feminism: they think the way to get there is to keep testing and refining, testing and refining, analyzing errors, rehashing arguments, expanding their understanding and doing it all (since who's going to deem them "worthy?") up against feminists. Who, since this worthiness business isn't really even in their vocabulary, aren't exactly happy to see either the same guy again or all the new guys with the same approximate set of questions who are looking for... *something* else and acting a little weird about it.

And that's where the worthy-guys-who-sincerely-want-to-get-it infrastructure breaks down.

Roy of No Cookies For Me echos an ongoing conclusion in feminist circles about...

...whether feminists have an obligation to hand-hold people new to the movement or interested in the movement. I stated that, no, I don't think that women have an obligation to teach men what is or is not acceptable behavior, just as I don't think that people of color have an obligation to teach whites what is and is not acceptable behavior. I stand behind that: it's not the responsibility of the oppressed to point out opression to the oppressors.

This was a brief aside in a post on a different important topic.

And this is where it all falls apart in my opinion -- the metaphorical too-short acceleration lane where people who are trying to get up to speed and merge into traffic going *in the right direction.* Everyone *on* the highway would like you to be on it with them, but every time someone who's still moving slow tries to merge in it slows down everyone else with the undesired results of horns, elevated middle fingers, harsh words, and letters, respectively to feminist and MRA forums. (And can I mention here that that's about the worst possible outcome?)

Anyway, the point is that feminists *aren't* obliged to hand-hold people new to the movement.

Now the obvious issue for the injured and wishes-to-become-worthy young man is that while still under no obligation feminists seem to be waaaaayyyy more, well, obliging to other women who are trying to get up to speed. ("Dear Warren Farrell, just the other day I saw a feminist explaining something to a woman after she'd waived me off...")

But here's the difference: dollars to donuts other women aren't trying to prove to feminists that they're worthy. And, as I've said already, male "worthiness" just *isn't* in feminism. To switch metaphors "worthiness" in feminism is a divide-by-zero math error: just as you can't divide something into zero pieces in arithmetic, neither is there an accumulatable worth beyond which you've earned your way into women's good graces. Because in feminism, for instance, women in part or in whole aren't, um, *bought!*

Well then, we men might ask ourselves, then why bother? ("Dear Warren Farrell, why bother when...?") If we're going to put ourselves out and we can't even earn acceptance by trying then what's in it for us?

Well... funny you should ask because a lot of times you'll hear men say things like "well, it's not all about us" or "sometimes you just have to accept that there's nothing in it for you" or other, um, macho or, um, noble-sacrificial sorts of statements. To which I tend to look askance since, in one of my extremely rare nods towards libertarianism, I'm rarely confident about the sustainability of altruism. And *especially* in a context where words like "worthiness" might be hanging on the tips of anybody's tongue.

So here's what I'm thinking, although it's taken me long enough to say it: What's in it for men... even though it's called "feminism"... what has absolutely nothing to do with proving our worthiness to feminists, or anybody else for that matter, is...

Undermining the system that indoctrinated us into believing we had to be worthy, to *earn,* to *deserve* women's acknowledgment, or love, or sex. Nor, lest you prematurely breath a sigh of relief, is it the case that they aren't worth your endeavors (since that too would be valid only inside the noticeably bogus "worthiness" head space that smart, healthy people want to get far, far away from.)

Feet-on-the-ground note: This "worthiness" business is not like the sound of one hand clapping. And you don't need to suck up to any men or women who call you Grasshopper to get it either. You just have to remember that if someone wants to go out with you it's probably because you're interesting and not because they judge you worthy. If the want to go to bed with you it's probably because they're horny and you're sexy and not because they've judged you worthy. (Clue: most women, let alone feminists, don't think of their body parts as "booty" to be doled out on merit.) And if someone *declines* to have sex, or make a date, or discuss the merits of Amy Allen's analysis of Foucault's theory of power it *might* be because she's busy or not available or not interested but it's almost certainly *not* because she's judged you unworthy.

I happen to think there are other highly affirmative things for men in feminism (even though it's called feminism) but for most of my life a false pursuit of worthiness really, really kept me from seeing any of them. And having seen them *outside* the harness of worthiness it sure seems like a lot of other people, men *and* women, would benefit from more of us getting past that.