Photo by Flickr user Uncle Shoe. Used under a Creative Commons license.

Kind of funny how many of the bitterly anti-male slanders, slurs, and stereotypes commonly attributed to "radical feminism" predate feminism. Sometimes by centuries. Occasionally by millennia!

They were already highly common in American and English male-only dance halls and similar entertainment venues back when "mainstream feminism" meant the possibility of women owning property and "radical feminism" was the crazy idea that women might someday be allowed to vote.

I bring this up in no small part due to allegations that these are feminist in nature. And I bring that up in no small part because those allegedly feminist characterizations of men are nettlesome to men in general and extremely nettlesome to men's rights activists and their allies.

M'kay, and now, confronted with that sort of incontrovertible proof that sexist and/or "reverse sexist" stereotypes about men predate feminism and, indeed, often originate with men themselves, a lot of guys who are still nettled will say things like "yeah, well, some feminists still propagate those stereotypes so feminism is still all about hating men.

Now it might surprise you to hear me say this but... that would actually be a pretty fair point! Some feminists really do perpetuate long, deep, ancient and... male-originated stereotypes about how awful men are.

And to the extent that subset of feminists allow themselves to be informed by patriarchal standards?  Eh, when folks like Twisty Faster talk about the inescapability of "the patriarchy" I'm not positive that's what they're thinking about... but the shoe does fit.  But why would anyone who was even remotely bothered by the dissimilarity between their own lived experience and the cultural stereotypes about how she was <em>supposed</em> to be feel any more confident that the messages cradle-sung, nursery-rhymed, and spoon fed to them about men were any more authentic?

There's certainly an idea in one of the older factions of essentialist feminist that we men are so incredibly ruled by our dicks that women can have a "sex strike," refusing to have sex with us until we accede to their demands. There's also, in a similar strand of feminism, the idea that most men are so horny that we'll willingly have sex with pumpkins, goats, and dead bodies. In terms of a coherent theory of gender these two ideas seem irreconcilable. (Which indeed they are.) But at the end of the day the genesis of the "sex strike" idea originated 2,400 years ago this year in the play Lysistrata, written by Aristophanes, a man, and performed by an all-male cast for an all-male audience in 411 B.C. And the idea that men will have sex with animals or dead bodies (but not, conspicuously absently, with themselves or each other) has been a common accusation in decidedly male military organizations from time out of mind.

And, of course, getting really down to brass tacks, if those feminists who believe it are suckers of the patriarchy what should we make of other men who blame those same feminists, who at least are trying to wrench themselves free, instead of the real fucking man-haters who cooked up nearly every so-called "feminist man-hater" tropes?

My vote would be we think of them the same way we think of the bull who sees the matador's cape as a bigger enemy than them matador himself.

You probably noticed that the other day I landed pretty hard on Men's Rights Activists for dropping the ball on the Prison Rape Elimination Act.

Now it's time to land a little hard on feminist activists for also dropping the ball.

In my previous post I snarked that since most prisoners are men, and since inmate-on-inmate sexual assault and rape is the most prevalent form of prison rape, that it should have been a slam dunk for MRAs who carp about feminist disinterest to actually get out there and do something.

Now it's time for me to do a little equally deserved snarking at feminists for...

...letting the egregiously conservative, anti-feminist organization "Concerned Women for America" carry their water on prison rape.  I'll get around to explaining how that could have come to pass in a moment but first a little extra prison-rape 101.

Because whereas in raw numbers there are far more male victims, women prisoners are twice as likely to be raped, sexually abused, and sexually harassed in prison.

With rates of rape and sexual assault plummeting over the last 30 years*, at least in the U.S., prison rape remains a proportionately larger and larger reservoir of unambiguous and unrepentant rapists.

Prison rape comes in three very broad categories:

• Same-sex inmate-on-inmate accounts for the largest portion among both male and female prisoners.
• Same-sex jailor-on-inmate accounts for the next largest portion among both male and female victims.
• Opposite-sex jailor-on-inmate assault accounts for the remainder, again among both male and female victims.

Bottom line then is that men aren't safe in all-male facilities, women aren't safe in all-female facilities.  It's not about sex or gender, in other words, it's about what human beings will do to each other given the means, motive, and opportunity.  And prison?  Prison creates a lot of opportunity.  And means.

Contemporary feminism, having been on the vanguard of gender studies for most of the last half century, knows this better than anyone.  Or should.  Contemporary gender studies also better prepares us to recognize the way our social scripts around gender can make it easier to be blindsided when something doesn't fit those scripts. It also makes us at least theoretically better prepared to catch when it.

Some scripts, incidentally, that complicate the issues.  They don't invalidate any of the other scripts.  But falling for them make dealing with an issue like prison rape more complicated.  With the result that on top of what we conventionally understand about prison rape

• Men are roughly half as likely to be either victims or perpetrators of prison sexual abuse.
• Women are roughly twice as likely to be both victims and perpetrators of prison sexual abuse.

The upshot is that in addition to the various unhealthy narratives of humor (by outsiders) and denial (by victims and perpetrators) regarding stereotypical male prison rape there are also an unhealthy number of women prisoners who've been sexually abused by other women, as well as women who've sexually abused other women.  Their experiences aren't being acknowledged or dealt with, often by themselves, almost universally by others.  There are also male prisoners who've been sexually abused by women jailers as well as women jailers who've abused male prisoners.  They too are neither acknowledged or dealt with.

In pretty much all such cases our scripts are even further complicated by the understanding that "oh, well, that's just the way it is in prisons."  No.  It's actually not.  That's pretty much the way we let it be in prisons.

And sweet mother of pearl!  When those men and women, prisoners and jailers alike, leave prison boy do they generally really not want to talk about it!  That being a trick that never really works either.

Whiiiich brings me to the absolutely peculiar circumstance that

• Even though proportionately women are twice as likely as men to be raped, sexually assaulted, or sexually harassed in prison, prison rape is on very few feminist's radar the way, say, campus rape, date rape, or public or workplace sexual harassment is. And...
• Even though in raw numbers at least twice as many men as women are raped, sexually assaulted, or sexually harassed in prison, prison rape is in very few men's rights activists radar either.**  With the very peculiar result that...
• The decidedly anti-feminist, but also decidedly anti-men's-rights neoconservative religious organization Concerned Women for America has been more involved in the prison rape reform effort than all but a very tiny handful of feminist and MRA organizations.

I've already called out MRAs for dropping the ball. Now I'm calling out feminists for not stepping up. Are we really comfortable letting Concerned Women for America pull more weight on the very preventable issue of human beings raping human beings? No matter how we wish to construct it prison rape is a feminist issue, one that's hobbled and hamstrung by gender-bound constructions, and one that we're actually pretty well-equipped to deal with. And look who's out in front of both feminists and MRAs? Yeah, I think that's dumb.

Quick recap of the issue of prison rape from a gender-conscious perspective before I get into how, exactly, I think CWA ended up with more influence on the issue than feminists or MRAs.

• This isn't something men's groups should work on alone, or one for feminists alone either: once you pull the blinders off a lot of interests are *mutual* interests. In raw numbers twice as many women prisoners are raped and sexually assaulted as men... but in absolute numbers there are nine times as many men in prison as women so far, far more men than women are raped in prison.
• Humans are natural power abusers, and we insert a lot of power into sex.  Given the means, motive, and opportunity it's very easy for humans to use sex to dominate and humiliate those they have power over.  As both anti-rape activists and gender deconstructionists know sex of either the assailant or the victim is rarely as significant as the power gradient between them.  Whoever's on top of the power gradient is likely to use it against whoever's on the bottom.
• Inmate-against-inmate is still the primary source of sexual assault.  This isn't to diminish the use of, um, sexual "leverage" against prisoners by their jailors.  Even when it can't be categorized as rape it's still the case that the temptation of jailors to humiliate their prisoners, combined with the almost necessity of jailors to exert psychological and physical dominance over prisoners, it's almost inevitable for jailors to use the power of sex to humiliate and dominate prisoners.  In other words (as I posted here when the news came out) Lynndie England's abuse of prisoners in Iraq wasn't an abberation, she was doing what human beings do when our better natures lose their grip.

Now, about how CWA ended up having more input into the Prison Rape Elimination Act than either MRA or feminist organizations:

Actually I have a good idea about the politics that led to CWA (and, of all things, the even more conservative Southern Baptist Convention) getting involved.  Convicted Watergate felon, neoconservative stalwart, and prison-reform activist Charles Colson has diligently worked on prison reform efforts since his own release from prison.  Colson was essentially a business partner with neocon "all prostitution is sex trafficking and there is no trafficking but sex trafficking" Michael Horowitz, who in turn seems to have been a primary lobbyist for PREA.) Colson.  At the time PREA was in the works Colson and Horowitz worked cheek to cheek with a cabal of other religious neocon organizations including Gary Bauer's American Values, Pat Robertson's Christian Broadcasting Network, Bill Donohue of the Catholic League, and... Wendy Wright of Concerned Women.  Colson and Horowitz were able to marshal support not only from their fellow neocon NGOs but cosponsorship for the bill from prominent conservatives in the House and Senate.

That's not to say that conservatives were behind the entire initiative.  That honor goes to Human Rights Watch, who in the late 1990s and early 2000s published at least two papers on the issue, "All too Familiar: Sexual Abuse of Women in U.S. State Prisons" in 1996 and "No Escape: Male Rape in U.S. Prisons" in 2001.  In 1998 senior Democratic congressional representative John Conyers tried to get prison rape legislation attached to the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act, with almost no support from either party.  In 2003, though, Alabama Republican Jeff Sessions introduced the PREA, Ted Kennedy co-signed, and the end result passed by wide margins in both houses.

So! For whatever reason Concerned Women really were involved in lobbying for PREA in a way that neither prominent feminist nor MRA organizations were.

And so I'll say to feminist groups what I said earlier to MRAs

If you're interested in commenting on the proposed rules here's the DOJ contact information (note, this is a draft release so there are only placeholders for the date that comments will be closed.  The draft was released Jan. 24, 2011, though, so if you get your comments in by March 24th you'll be fine.

The Department is now publishing this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to propose such national standards for comment and to respond to the public comments received on the ANPRM. DATES: Written comments must be postmarked on or before [INSERT DATE 60 DAYS FROM DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], and electronic comments must be sent on or before midnight Eastern time [INSERT DATE 60 DAYS FROM DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].

ADDRESSES: To ensure proper handling of comments, please reference “Docket No. OAG- 131” on all written and electronic correspondence. Written comments being sent via regular or express mail should be sent to Robert Hinchman, Senior Counsel, Office of Legal Policy, Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Room 4252, Washington, DC 20530. Comments may also be sent electronically through http://www.regulations.gov using the electronic comment form provided on that site. An electronic copy of this document is also available at the http://www.regulations.gov website. The Department will accept attachments to electronic comments in Microsoft Word, WordPerfect, Adobe PDF, or Excel file formats only. The Department will not accept any file formats other than those specifically listed here.

Please note that the Department is requesting that electronic comments be submitted before midnight Eastern Time on the day the comment period closes because http://www.regulations.gov terminates the public’s ability to submit comments at midnight Eastern Time on the day the comment period closes. Commenters in time zones other than Eastern Time may want to consider this so that their electronic comments are received. All comments sent via regular or express mail will be considered timely if postmarked on the day the comment period closes.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Hinchman, Senior Counsel, Office of Legal Policy, Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Room 4252, Washington, DC 20530; telephone: (202) 514-8059. This is not a toll-free number.

If you really care about enforcement of the Prison Rape Elimination Act here's your chance to have your say in the matter.

Or are you really going to leave it up to CWA to carry the ball for us?

* Belying man-hating anti-feminist assertions that men are incapable of controlling themselves and thus should never be asked to.

** The men's rights activist Toysoldier being an all too rare exception.

In comments to my post tackling myths about men, feminism, and heterosexuality, Thaddeus Blanchette, an anthropologist who among other things studies sex-tourism in Brazil, raised a very good "live by the sword, die by the sword" point about the anti-feminist conviction that men need to be "high status" because, at least to men, heterosexual sex is necessarily transactional sex.

The only women who are only worried about the "status" of their men are those who plan live off of them. Given that my informants think that this is normal and to be expected, is it any wonder at all that they are constantly rediscovering that "all women are whores"? Well no shit: if you only date women who are impressed by the size of your wallet and you think that those are the only "real" women, then what the hell kind of woman are you dating?

Source: He said it here.

Are there really men like that? And women too?  Yeah, I'm afraid so.  But while they might each occupy the other with their own manner of predatory gender. And if you believe in gender construction you could say they were almost literally made for each other. But the thing is, after adulthood anyway, and as long as you're of sound mind and body, nobody deserves that -- to either "keep" or be "kept" by another person.

Not when you could be partners, together.

The old status quo might have made sense when there really was no hope of women legally or economically living in anything but extreme poverty without beholdening herself to a man. And consequently there was no real expectation from men that women could or would do more than "hold down the fort."

Echidne of the Snakes says all men's rights activists may not be anti-feminist patriarchal fanatics, which is perfectly true.  The ones who are those things, though, are kind of... well... self-defeating.  She goes into more detail but I'd like to focus mainly on her first example (emphasis mine.)

Feminism, in my working definition, is the goal of offering all people equal economic and social opportunities irrespective of their gender and of equal valuation of the traditionally female and male fields of activity.activity*.

Thus, one might expect an anti-feminist to work on that definition, especially the equal opportunities part, and some anti-feminists do (as seen later in this post). But the most important MRA principles really DON'T discuss equal opportunities for both genders and how traditional patriarchy might short-change not just women but also men. Instead, the main argument is that even in the traditional patriarchy men are worse off than women, and that this is the reason WHY traditional patriarchy should be brought back.

Source: Echidne of the Snakes

That really is self defeating!  Men are perfectly right that patriarchy sucks for men.  My favorite analogy is to say that the "privilege" of patriarchy is getting to sit closest to the only air vent in a stiflingly hot, dark cellar.  Yes, it's nice to get the extra bit of fresh air.  And yes, if you've been traditionally privileged to sit near the vent you're naturally going to resent anyone who expects you to share.  And as long as you overlook the inherent selfishness it's even reasonable that you'd put considerable effort in keeping everyone else in their place.

But that's the zero sum approach to patriarchy.  The other approach would be to team up with everyone else and find a way out of the fucking cellar! There's so much more room, air, light, and especially opportunity in the whole rest of the house, the yard, the street, the neighborhood, the town, the country, and world!  For everybody!  Why stay in the basement at all?  That's the positive-sum approach.

Unless you're short on imagination, stuck in your ways, or just generally really afraid of change there's no reason to stay in the cellar at all, let alone to keep anyone else in it.

Yes, very early on some feminists really did think the answer was zero sum, where success just meant letting women sit near the metaphorical patriarchal vents, or maybe just giving everyone an equal turn.  But that was also back when the idea of shared bathrooms and uniform "unisex" clothes was really hip and groovy (but in practice you'd be you'd be instantly locked out if you were actually trans, or intersex, or genderqueer, or otherwise non-binary underneath.)  And maybe some of them still do think that way but the more operative word for them isn't so much "feminist" these days as it is "fossilized."  Most feminists who've come of age since maybe 1985 have been far more exasperated than angry, far less zero sum than zero interested in staying in the fucking cellar.

Anyway, whether one agrees with Echidne on the rest of her particulars (I mostly do) in almost any system of logic the answer to "patriarchy hurts men" is less patriarchy! More of what makes you miserable, of what keeps you starved for sex, of what controls your behavior by methodically impounding and restricting "access" to women who might otherwise be willing partners, of the stress of sole financial responsibility, of the alienation of working away while your partner and children remain in the home, of the intense dread of homophobia-phobia, of higher workplace and homicide rates of death, of poorer health, of patriarchal "women are natural child-nurturer" custody biases, to being branded "creepy" for normal interest in unconventional sex, to being "seen as a wallet with legs," to just being generally regarded as "expendible?"  All that stuff?  The answer to all that sure as heck isn't more patriarchy.  In fact, where's the mileage in any of that crap?

Meanwhile, often as not just across the table from you, there's a woman who's not only similarly discontent with the way patriarchy's shaking out for her either.  She's probably pretty darn sure the answer isn't more patriarchy either.

The answer, of course, is post-1980s feminism, which, again, is no more interested in feminism as a zero-sum game as you are.  Or would be.  If you weren't still freaking out about Valarie flipping Solanas, published her stupid S.C.U.M Manifesto 43 years ago now and who died in obscurity in 1988!

Kasheesh, dudes!  It's 2011 A.D., not 1120!  You want to spend the next millennium in a dark, hot cellar?