Femini-Series Part 3: Man, Hating Feminists

I don’t hate men.

In the sense that ‘men’ just means the 50.2% of humans who have been identified as male*, I can’t claim to hate them all. I like a lot of them. They’re some of my favourite people. And I certainly don’t hate men for being misguided, poorly informed, or for being constrained by the same cultural constructions of gender as I am. However, I have a big problem with maleness—the cultural construction of it, the representations of it, and the way that ‘men’ and ‘women’ internalise particular ideas of gender behaviour based on inequitable cultural models.

This means that, in response to Clem Ford’s article ‘Why Women Still Can’t Enjoy Sex‘, one of my favourite men, a close friend on FaceBook, suggested that the problem with feminists is their tendency towards zealotry. Zealous feminists ‘take that fight to arenas where things generally do just fine without them’. In my opinion, it is not overzealous for a feminist to ‘take the fight’ to areas that aren’t the proper battleground. The patriarchal bias against women spreads to a wide variety of arenas (including popular culture, as my friend suggested) and there’s no reason that feminism shouldn’t do the same. You’re uncomfortable with feminist readings of Game of Thrones? Fair enough, if you think that energy would be better directed elsewhere. But if it’s because you think Game of Thrones isn’t feminist—if you think that film, literature, music, politics, sport, philosophy, education, your local pub or your next dinner party or your weekly Dungeons and Dragons game aren’t feminist battlegrounds—then it’s doubly important for feminists to show you that the ‘fight’ has already been taken to these places.

Feminists fight battles anywhere and everywhere that maleness and femaleness assume naturalised, ideal forms, everywhere that masculinity and femininity are treated as transcendental models for all human behaviour rather than reflections of one particularly narrow categorisation of a multiplicity of lived human experience. Feminism needs to be everywhere, because so much of human interaction in the Western world is viewed through the lens of gender. It colours our cultural output as much as, if not more than, our day-to-day interactions. I see it more clearly in Olympics telecasts and pop music–where female athletes are questioned about their domestic lives and where ‘bitches’ and ‘hos’ are treated as commodities–than when I walk down the street. And, as I pointed out to my FaceBook friend, publicly and unapologetically, denying the significance of this kind of representational misogyny is dangerously naïve.

I am not discounting the very real gender-based oppressions enacted all over the world. Feminism always needs more people to stand up and fight for political changes. But, as I told my class last semester, if you’ve read your Kristeva you know that symbolic feminism is a necessary part of dismantling patriarchal discourse. Pragmatic feminism fights for practical changes that ensure gender equality–suffrage, equal pay for equal work, access to resources (ranging from physical resources such as food, water and shelter, to basic human rights and freedom of speech, and education, and the means to control one’s reproductive capabilities). Symbolic feminism fights to change the language that we use to think about and to communicate about gender, and particularly the ways that the oppression of women works within our symbolic cultural framework.

Feminism, in order to be a cohesive project, needs to consider representations of femininity beyond the material conditions of women’s oppression. You can’t hope to change people’s behaviour without changing how they think. The idea that feminism can be ‘overzealous’ is one particularly insidious form of symbolic misogyny. Too often, it’s used as an excuse to dismiss women’s opinions simply because they are held by women. I’m certain that my FaceBook friend didn’t intend to be misogynist. But his suggestion essentially boiled down to the idea that women should keep their noses out of places they don’t belong.

This approach suggests that feminism is casting its man-hating net too widely, capturing supposedly harmless cultural productions and (forgive the mixed metaphor) sucking the fun out of them. Of course, it’s also possible for feminism to be too blinkered, to focus on the behaviour of individuals and unjustly treat them as representative of all men. This is a real problem. But it’s also a straw man that many men use as an excuse to further marginalise opinions expressed by women.

In the comments responding to Ford’s article, Jon from Sydney asserts:

The only objection I have to this article is that she uses Rush Limbaugh as her example. I mean seriously, Limbaugh? The guy is crazy as a coconut. Everyone knows that. He’s one of the crazy, right-wing shock-jocks they have in the US. These guys are fundamentalist ultra-right wing nutjobs. They appeal to the lowest common denominator and are intentionally outrageous and despicable.

Limbaugh does not reflect greater public opinion. You might as well get a quote from the Aryan League.

This is a classic example of discrediting feminist arguments for being ‘too narrow’. The patriarchy says that complaints against a minority of men lack legitimacy because they aren’t universal—that the men making these biased claims against women do not ‘reflect greater public opinion’.

Except that it does. This isn’t just about what Rush Limbaugh said; it’s about how that reflects the views, conscious or not, of many white Western men, and about how it is possible for Limbaugh, or anyone, to believe they have a right to such views. Government legislation is punishing women for their sexual choices. Popular culture is perpetuating the virgin/whore dichotomy that closes women into one of two equally uncomfortable and unrealistic subject positions. And white males (right-wing or otherwise) believe that they have the right to label a woman, any woman, as a slut—arguing, in effect, that any woman who chooses to have sex is forfeiting her social value and her right to control her own body. And more broadly this speaks towards the assumption that men are the ones who determine how a woman’s social value is judged. Patriarchy has dictated what is considered ‘slutty’ behaviour, and what has been deemed ‘ladylike’. Like it or not, this is ‘greater public opinion’.

And even if it were just a minority viewpoint expressed by a ‘crazy, right-wing shock-jock’, that doesn’t make Ford’s argument less valid or less valuable. If this was a niche issue, Ford would still be drawing attention to a form of injustice. Discrediting that based on one case study—which, in fact, isn’t even the whole focus of Ford’s article, merely a jumping-off point—is grossly unfair. Women’s rights are the issue here, regardless of whether the threat comes from one radical position or from the central patriarchal authority underpinning gendered existence in the Western world.

Jon from Sydney wants a particular kind of feminism, one that doesn’t generalise masculine behaviour from the actions of an outlier like Rush Limbaugh.  That’s a legitimate concern, since women should be just as careful about gender generalisation as we call upon men to be. However this should not invalidate the examples that an author like Ford has chosen, or the argument that she constructs from them. Ford did not invent her evidence, and she makes it clear that she is talking about ‘particular pockets of society’ that express their misogyny in such a blatant manner. But she is alluding to much larger problem, and one which, sadly, drops below the radar for many men.

*As it happens, the sex ratio worldwide is remarkably even, as Wiki, the CIA and the CSIRO will all attest. The male-to-female ratio is slightly higher in younger demographics and slightly lower in older ones (notably the 65+ age bracket). But, much as nature abhors a vacuum, it also seems pretty adamant that there should be an optimal number of potential reproductive pairings in any population, so here we stand at roughly 50/50, like a well-organised inter-schools dance.

Previously in the Femini-Series: why it’s important to (still) teach feminism, and why I’m an angry feminist.

Advertisements

3 thoughts on “Femini-Series Part 3: Man, Hating Feminists

  1. Pingback: Femini-Series Part 1: Teach The Children Well | tallandignorantservants

  2. Excellent post! I agree with everything that you’ve written. .

    “Feminism, in order to be a cohesive project, needs to consider representations of femininity beyond the material conditions of women’s oppression. You can’t hope to change people’s behaviour without changing how they think.”

    I love this idea, I really do. I see this as a major project that academic feminism is currently undertaking. There, the methodology is fairly well codified, read, discuss, write, etc. What methods do you propose feminist use outside of the walls of academia?

    • Off the top of my head?
      I think that, in the (for want of a better term) real world, it’s often more relevant to start with material changes. Academic feminism has a bad tendency to be all talk, and even within the bounds of academia this is a problem, so it’s doubly problematic in a context with fewer shared experiences and methodologies.
      And of course, the kind of cultural feminism I’m talking about can only really function within a certain shared cultural milieu. I mean, it’s fine for me to deconstruct Game of Thrones, for example, but that’s not going to help anyone who doesn’t have easy access to Game of Thrones. If I’m very lucky, it’ll change the minds of people in economically and politically powerful positions and then their actions will change. But that kind of change is rare, especially in a globalised world where there are so many voices to be considered.
      And misogyny is only one of many oppressive power structures. It’s easy for me to talk about it because I’ve been trained to do so. I’m not an economist. And I’m white and middle-class and cisgendered and it would be inauthentic in some ways for me to claim to speak authoritatively on issues around race or class. But that doesn’t mean that poverty isn’t a big issue, or race, or education, and these actually intersect with women’s rights on a whole bunch of levels. Which means that changes to gender-based discrimination are tied in to these other issues, and can only shift so far before they become more complex issues around, say, gender/economics or gender/race.

      Wait, what was the question?!
      Long story short, I’m really not sure what the best approach for feminism is, either within academia or in the wider world. I think what feminism needs to do is to emphasise human equality, beyond gender or any other arbitrary division. It’s unfortunate that getting beyond gender-motivated discrimination is so difficult, and also so necessary. It’s unfortunate that Australia’s female Prime Minister (who represents a very real, pragmatic shift in how women are viewed publicly and in the political sphere) is increasingly considered to be a bit of a sad joke. It’s unfortunate that there are people who will say that Julia Gillard was a lousy PM because she is a woman, who make that a causal relationship, instead of saying that Julia Gillard was a lousy PM and just happened to also be female.

      This is mostly just brain mush. I’m really not ‘proposing’ anything. I think feminism more or less knows what it’s doing, even if it does sometimes lose sight of it. I just want to keep a few things in clear view.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s