I’ve usually felt a little uncomfortable about playing what’s usually called the “what about the menz” card while talking about men, feminism, and sexism. It’s a problem, in part, because… well, first of all it’s a perfectly naive but also perfectly natural reaction. (10,000 times more people are sexist than want to be sexist.) But, more problematically, it’s also the refrain that Men’s Rights Activists air-horn into virtually any forum they stumble into. With the result that I wind up feeling apologetic when I try to say that sexism really does hurt men too! So what to do?
Enter Hugo Schwyzer with a critical point about the line drawn most often by MRAs:
“men are victims too, and it’s mostly feminism’s fault”
That’s it! Men are victims too but it’s mostly not feminism’s fault, it’s anti-feminism’s fault!
It’s not that “men get raped too,” it’s that anti-feminism creates a context for intimidating or humiliating people by violently sticking penises in them, and, once you’ve established the principle it turns out you can violently stick penises into just about anybody.
But the thing is that sexism really does hurt men. Sure, sexism pretty incontestably hurts women more (for instance when was the last time a family set a man on fire because his wife died of natural causes?) But the net benefit to men really is still negative — which makes it an even bigger tragedy. I mean… someone could conceivably make a case for it if men really were better off than they would be otherwise. But it’s not.
Consider a bunch of people stuck in a stuffy, nearly airless room. People leaning up against door, where a little air slips in around the edges, can be said to be privileged relative to everyone else in the room. But only compared to others in the room!
The problem is that if you were just looking for equality, a perfectly good solution would be to let everybody have a turn sucking slightly fresher air from around the cracks of the door. And you could even see the door people feeling their privilege was threatened, or even just selfishly wondering why they should have to suffer just so everyone else could have a little more comfort. But that’s not what feminism is about — certainly not the much-maligned radical feminism! Feminism is about opening the flipping door. And not opening the door so everybody gets more fresh air. It’s about opening the door so everybody can leave!
The point being that yeah, maybe the immediate concerns seem like shuffling around so everybody can get a far shot of air. But once out the door that would seem like the least of the benefits.
Anyway, in the little analogy of the stuffy room, as with the status quo in the world in general, there’s no doubt that men are suffering — even if they’re not consistently suffering as much as women are. But it’s not feminism that’s keeping them from opening the door and letting everybody out. It’s the anti-feminist urge to maintain the status quo.
I’m not sure why that message across is harder than it ought to be. Because, especially once you start thinking about what’s outside the stuffiness, even here in the “privileged” spot by the exit, is pretty unbearable. And it’s mostly anti-feminist’s fault.
Submitted by 2403 (not verified) on Tue, 2008-10-07 20:43.
> anti-feminism creates a context for intimidating or humiliating people by violently sticking penises in them
Huh? Where did you get this idea?
I oppose feminism because it's chauvinist, it poisons the well, and it panders to sexists. I am an anti-feminist because I believe that everybody should be afforded equal opportunities without unfair discrimination, and rallying under the banner of "feminism" might be useful for empowering *women*, but it also empowers man-haters too. Feminists generally seem to use terms like "patriarchy", and when challenged, claim that they aren't blaming men, but with a wink and a nod to the man-haters that obviously *do* use the term in that way.
Anti-feminism is merely the opposition to feminism. Whatever you think is "creating a context for [rape]", it is something other than anti-feminism. The people who are doing such things may *also* be anti-feminists, but that's incidental.
> Sure, sexism pretty incontestably hurts women *more*
Are you sure about that? Just about the most basic rights are the right to life and the right to freedom, and men are subjected to violence far more than women, fight in wars far more often, get imprisoned far more often, and die on average a lot younger. Until that's even *vaguely* levelled out, I wouldn't say that sexism hurts women more, *certainly* not "incontestably".
> It's the *anti-feminist* urge to maintain the status quo.
That's no anti-feminist urge. All anti-feminism is is the opposition to feminism.
It seems you are using the term "anti-feminist" as a synonym for "people against sexual equality". While I'm sure some people oppose feminism for that reason, it's not something intrinsic to anti-feminism.
[Hi Jim, sorry to have taken so long to reply to comments on this thread. First of all I'm really psyched that you recognize just how much the current system screws men. In the early days of feminism that wasn't always so obvious -- in large part because the imbalances between men and women were a) really, really glaring but also b) it was still assumed that men (white, property-owning, affluent middle and upper-class men) were just the standard, normal, reference against which women (and anyone else who wasn't white, property-owning, etc.) were inferior variations. That, as they say, was then. To put things in perspective there's more time elapsed between now the early days of feminism than had elapsed between the Wright brother's first flight and the advent of modern feminism! And, especially since the 1980s and 1990s, feminism has evolved. Substantially. Nowadays mainstream feminism has evolved to the point that bell hooks, an ardent feminism, can define it as "feminism is a movement to end sexism, sexist exploitation, and oppression." In other words, whatever the *name,* modern feminism now includes examinations not only of the consequences of the old, heavily gendered system once thought to be neutral to men and very detrimental to women but also examinations of how that system affects men. Until I got that I used to say I was *sympathetic* to feminism (because, I thought in my Tennessee accent, them ladies could use a little equality.) Now that I've gotten it I'm *into* feminism because it points out, as you say, just how much the old system jerks men around, uses us, tries to dominate and control us, treats us like dogs or children, pressures us into *intense* insecurity, leads us to believe that sex is scarce, that women hate and fear us if we don't fit certain advantageous-to-authority criteria, let's us die early and often, and that we have to "deserve" it, and just generally makes us believe it's *normal.* And so while I know what you're saying, having said much the same thing myself in the past, it's just *not true* that anti-feminism is nothing but not feminism. And it's fine if we quibble over the terms -- my women's studies professor last year said she tended to prefer the more correct term "gender studies," for instance -- but please keep in mind that what *I* have in mind when I say "anti-feminism" I'm talking about the same system that fucks up *both* women *and* men. You know, the system that says "women have to withhold sex, and just generally be kept helpless and pretend to be subordinate in order to 'tame' men?" Feminists *hate* that shit, I hate that shit, and most *men* hate that shit. Final point: sure, I've got some gripes with certain feminists... even certain whole *schools* of feminism. But by and large even the ones I disagree with aren't the problem, or really aren't a significant one compared to what I, and a lot of other people, call *anti-feminism." I mean... it's like who's the real threat to the bull, the red cape or the matador? Every time one of us charges at feminism the *real* enemy shouts "Olé!" Me? Once I started looking around I started looking for ways to get the matador. There's just nothing in the old system (a.k.a. "patriarchy") that really benefits me. Or you. Going for the cape just enrages us, and we can just trample the crap out of it if we get our horns in it, but it doesn't do us any good at all. Once that makes sense, believe it or not but trust me, you'll want to start calling yourself a feminist too. Seriously. Thanks. --fl]
Submitted by 2403 (not verified) on Wed, 2008-10-08 21:08.
FL,
I made the above comment twice - once with several supporting links, and the other, which you posted, with only the one link.
this will take you to the discussion of the statutory rape victims.
You chose to defend radical feminism. I chose to point to it. If you don't think that Val Solanis is recent or feminist enough, how about the Jezabel womyn?
[Hi CW, sorry about the missing links in the second post. My blog gets several thousand robo-spams a day and so my spam filter's really, really aggressive and kicks out anything with more than one link in it. Anyway, I'm not saying Solanis wasn't a feminist, I'm saying she was a feminist for 1968 -- a point in history where *everybody else* was also pretty out of control. I'm just saying that there's miles of difference between then and now. And incidentally I'm not saying there aren't people today who feel the way Solanis did then -- I'm just saying, strongly, that they're no more in the feminist mainstream than, say, the Arian Nations are relevant to modern conservatism. Oh, and by the way, I followed the links and while it *does* it look like 13-year-olds can be held liable that's the law *in Oklahoma!* Which, last I heard, was not exactly a hotbed of feminism, or even a lukewarm one. More like a dead cold, 99% anti-feminist and pro-patriarchy tradition one instead. In which case which do you think is the bigger, more man-hating problem, feminism or anti-feminism? Meanwhile, here in far more feminist-friendly Washington State Mary Kay Letourneau was held 100% responsible (and, appropriately) went to jail for statutory rape *and,* if I'm not mistaken, child support. See what I'm getting at? I mean, yeah, no doubt men are being hurt left and right, but the *real* threat to boys in Oklahoma isn't *feminist* judges. Thanks! --fl]
Submitted by 2403 (not verified) on Wed, 2008-10-08 21:16.
FL,
I made the above comment twice - once with several supporting links, and the other, which you posted, with only the one link.
this will take you to the discussion of the statutory rape victims.
You chose to defend radical feminism. I chose to point to it. If you don't think that Val Solanis is recent or feminist enough, how about the Jezabel womyn?
How about Catharine Comins, who said that men can benefit from being falsely accused of rape?
[Again, you're going to have to watch it with those multiple links, CW. It automatically kicks posts right into moderation and, if I don't get it in time, into the spam sinkhold. Thanks. --fl]
Submitted by 2403 (not verified) on Wed, 2008-10-08 06:03.
It's not that "men get raped too," it's that anti-feminism creates a context for intimidating or humiliating people by violently sticking penises in them, and, once you've established the principle it turns out you can violently stick penises into just about anybody.
anti-feminists != rapists. In fact, it is feminists who embrace rape as a means of acquiring both a child and child support.
Feminism created the current child support system, which dictates that men who are raped also have to pay child support for any child born as a result of that rape.
Google "It's ten O'clock. Do you know where your sperm are" for an illustration.
A boy raped at 15, 16, and ***13*** can be held liable for child support.
But that's not what feminism is about -- certainly not the much-maligned radical feminism! Feminism is about opening the flipping door. And not opening the door so everybody gets more fresh air. It's about opening the door so everybody can leave!
and cutting up men, as the SCUM manifesto shows. And don't you call that a low blow either. You're the one defending radical feminism.
But it's not feminism that's keeping them from opening the door and letting everybody out. It's the anti-feminist urge to maintain the status quo.
No, it's the realization that sexism isn't the only problem that humanity faces. It's the economy, stupid.
In fact, selfishness, rage, sloth, and other human flaws exist within or without the elevator.
Links in the op, which can be found here
[Hi CW. Wow, the SCUM Manefesto? Really? 1968 was a *very* long time ago... it's like basing your opinion of Southerners on something Lester Maddox said, or your opinion of the National Guard based on Kent State. Or the computer industry based on desktop-sized four-function "electronic" calculators. Also, not sure about that bit about extreme minor rape victims having to pay child support to their attackers. And as for child support in the real world I guess if you'd rather we all went back to the pre-feminist *alimony* system, which as I recall was almost always substantially more expensive and considerably more arbitrary I... no, no way you or I would want to go back to that. And not to put too fine a point on it but thanks to feminism women's earnings, not to mention their contemporary non-chattel status, make the idea of supporting an ex-wife because she'd have no other means of support obsolete. So, hey, here's a quick question that helps to clarify this business: was Lorena Bobbit being a feminist when she cut her husband's dick off? Answer, according to all the feminists I know including my ardent, radical-leaning women's studies professor last year, is no. She did what she did because she had no fucking clue about the resources available to her to handle her abusive, philandering husband without resorting to violence. And *none* of this addresses the question of my *real* objection to anti-feminism which is that women have to be property objects because (as clearly stated by serious, highly-placed anti-feminists in, say, the Bush administration and various state-houses around the country) can and *should* be led around by their dicks because we just can't control ourselves. If 13-year-old rape victims can really be held responsible for the pregnancies of their attackers (and I'm pretty sure I'd have heard about it... from horrified feminist bloggers if no one else) then that's not just wrong it's a *feminist issue.* Because it's mired in the astonishingly patriarchal ideology that women are incapable of decision-making, incapable of agency (sexual or otherwise), and always and exclusively victims. Also that having Teh Sex ruins them and leaves them (as the ideology insists) economically dependent on men. Screw that. Anyway, if you can cite particulars on the case of underage victims of perpetrators being held financially responsible I'll get to work on publicizing it and trying to change the law. (Or are you talking about the Mary Letourneau case I'm not interested -- that's a case from my own back yard and I know the minor wasn't legally obliged to pay child support.) Thanks. --fl]
Submitted by 2403 (not verified) on Thu, 2008-10-09 10:39.
> And incidentally I'm not saying there aren't people today who feel the way Solanis did then -- I'm just saying, strongly, that they're no more in the feminist mainstream than
I think the point CW is making is that you weren't just defending mainstream feminism, you were defending *radical* feminism.
Nobody is saying that Solanis is a mainstream feminist. But she *is* a *radical* feminist, and when you defend radical feminism, you defend her. Pointing out that she isn't mainstream is irrelevant.
[Ok, I think I see where we're tangling up, Jim. When I defend "radical feminism" I'm not defending Solanis-style "radfems." Instead I'm defending an only slightly overlapping branch of feminism that articulates three primary positions, a) not equality of *opportunity,* a la "classical liberal feminism," but equality of social, economic, and political *power,* b) that domestic exploitation of women by their male relatives and partners is the original template for all other forms of exploitation such as racism, and that most of what we think of as "gender" (i.e. blue is for boys, pink is for girls, men should be doctors, women should be nurses) are created by social consensus rather than determined by biology. *That's* the technical definition of "radical feminism." I don't pretend to be an expert on all this stuff but whereas Solanis may have considered herself a 60's style "radical" I think she fits a lot more closely to what my professor called "social feminism." Anyway, that kind of social feminism (which often argues that women are different from and/or better than men) doesn't carry much weight in contemporary, mainstream feminism. So anyway, yeah, if mainstream feminism cited Solanis's proposed *solutions,* (castrate all men wasn't it?) instead of just agreeing with the problems she was reacting to (too many women are sexually assaulted, and not by hoods in the woods but by acquaintances and people who have power over them) I'd agree there was a problem. But mainstream, non-"radfem" feminism *isn't* agitating for those solutions and so I think it's great. Thanks! --fl]