What if I don't think that gender roles are altogether a bad thing? Some of them, sure, but not all of them. I kind of like being seen as a strong guy, to be totally honest.
cate
· 1 year ago
Dude-
Feminism isn't about force. Feminism is about choice. I am a feminist who lives in the dirty south, and guess what? I want my man to be a Southern gentleman. Granted, I want him to be able to talk about his feelings, and be a loving, caring partner, and generous, and interested in equality, and in general a feminist (besides, feminist men are better in bed). But I also want him to hold open doors for me, and take me out to dinner, and walk on the street side of the sidewalk, and all sorts of other things too. I want him to be strong, and I want him to open jars for me, and I want him to fix things around the house. But more than anything, I want him to be himself. I want him to do things like open doors for me because he WANTS to, because he cares about me, and because that's his way of expressing it. But again, it's a choice. Same as my wearing lipstick and dresses doesn't' negate my feminism. Feminism isn't about wanting to force anyone into any one box, any one choice. It's about making sure people know that they have a lot of choices.
Richard
· 1 year ago
While I agree with many of the things you say regarding equality among the sexes and genders, I disagree with how it is said. While most readers with opposing views voices may merely scoff anyway, a person who may have stopped to think is suddenly placed in an ‘us versus them’ dichotomy. I think this may polarize even an otherwise reasonable individual in such a way that may prevent them from thinking about your words because they perceive that you have told them to go and fluck themselves. That said people have a right to be angry, just as they have the right to feel any other feeling/reaction/emotion. I would like to think that the trick is to turn that anger into something constructive that others can learn from.
Karn
· 1 year ago
Can't we accomplish this same goal under a movement other than feminism? (you know, equalism, men's rights, etc.)
Feminism, even in the name, implies a bias toward women, not that there's anything wrong with that, but I don't think we should be attempting to solve men's issues- or even general human issues- in a woman's movement.
This is where MRAs come in. You obviously dislike the whole MRA movement, but I think you're looking at the fringe jackasses, which are plentiful around the internet. In this modern age, Western men are shortchanged more than you'd like to admit- not that women aren't as well- and there is a need for a movement that addresses these problems. Simply because woman's issues may be more numerous doesn't mean that it's okay to ignore those that affect men; we should be attempting to eliminate all gender issues. The MRA movement doesn't need to "overwrite" or discredit feminism. MRAs and feminists can exist side by side.
Derek
· 1 year ago
Thanks, Amber and feministgal!
Dude, Cate answered your question pretty much perfectly. It's about choice for men. If you want to be strong and like feeling strong, then by all means, that's what you should be! It's rather the idea that all men should be strong and those who aren't simply are not real men that's a problem.
Richard, As much as I would like to think the majority of the post was written in a lighthearted, fun kind of way, perhaps I came off a bit too harsh. For me, though, this certainly didn't even come close to anger. As for what you're saying about the dichotomy, I'm not sure I understand. If you mean that some men would feel othered by my demeanor, well, I'm not sure I feel too bad about it, to be frank. Those sentiments are worthy of a post in themselves, though.
Karn, You bring up some interesting points.
First, whether someone accomplishes these goals under feminism or not, I would argue that they are still, in fact, feminist goals, even if they are shared by another movement, however different.
As for feminism implying a "bias toward women," I strongly believe this is a common misunderstanding about feminism. It would be nice to get other feminists and pro-feminists to weigh in here, but to me, as I said above, feminism is a movement for equality and the freedom from oppression, and not solely for women. Even if it were, though, by default, when feminists bring down the structures that reinforce women's oppression, these will be the same structures that oppress other groups, including men.
Your point about the "fringe jackasses" is one I've considered before, and you may be right. From my experience, though, MRAs plainly need to get a clue. Also, you needn't lecture me on how shortchanged men are; after all, I am one, and even though we are oppressed in some ways, we've got it pretty damn good, especially if we're White or perceived to be (in my case). I don't disagree with your assertion that we need to eliminate all gender issues, hence my entire post above. As for MRAs and feminists working side by side, though, I wouldn't hold my breath, at least until I meet some MRAs that are in touch with reality and aren't blatant misogynists. If, however, I met decent MRAs, well, of course I wouldn't hesitate to get on their side and have them on ours.
cate
· 1 year ago
@ Karn & by proxy Derek:
Feminism is about deconstructing and destroying patriarchy -- a complex system of codified behaviors and gender roles that serves to divide and conquer humanity. It is not about women's rights over men's rights. It just so happens that women suffer more under patriarchy than men (because in addition to fitting strict gender roles, we also deal with an oppressive rape culture, we get paid less, and are more likely to live in poverty, just two name three concrete examples). But patriarchy is the same force that any non-fringe-MRAs would be fighting against. If an MRA, for example, is fighting for father's rights -- let's take him as a totally reasonable cat -- because his ex-wife has been awarded custody even though she is abusive. Well, again, that is because patriarchy assigns child-care as "women's work." We're both fighting toward the exact same goal -- destruction of patriarchy, not some takedown of men. However, this still very much falls under feminism, because like it or not, the vast majority of violence is committed by men (again, because of patriarchy), and in most cases, children are safer with their mother. Destruction of patriarchy would mean that we wouldn't live in an oppressive rape and intimate partner violence culture, that children would be equally cared for by women or men, and that essentially we're all equal -- bingo bango, everyone's happy! And that is a feminist movement.
Richard
· 1 year ago
Thanks for Clarifying Derek - and others there is some great conversation here!
Apologies for misinterpretations. I guess my point is more along the lines that I feel it is important to acknowledge that people have a right to their opinions. Those opinions come from life experience. Asking someone to change their opinion is asking them to take a critical look at those experiences, morals, and values that they have been taught throughout their lives that formed those opinions.
Should opinions, and behaviours those opinions create, that degrade, humiliate and oppress others be challenged? Absolutely. Without a doubt.
But this is a very difficult process for the individual with these opinions. If we want people to embrace equality for all, there needs to be a starting point. Everyone is struggleing to understand a very rapidly changing world. This includes people who hold patriarical values.
I do have sympathy for their struggle. Why would one advocate for equality and then not be concerned by a group being othered. How does this accomplish the goal of equality. How does it teach men who don't understand feminism to take ownership of their behaviour, opinions and feelings if we disregard them as quickly as they disregard those of others?
My know writing is not the greatest, please ask for clarification if needed.
Thanks!
Karn
· 1 year ago
Derek and cate,
Thanks for replying. I guess I'm just thinking that if feminist goals (as you've said, breaking down gender structures which harm women) happen to benefit men as well, obviously that's great. But I don't think that someone fighting for "father's rights" should be classified as a feminist or be seen as pursuing feminist goals. Because it's simply not a women's issue. Even if the man is, as you've said, ultimately fighting to bring down a part of the long-held gender structures, it's a completely different area of said structures. I guess I just feel as though feminism is so steeped in women's history and women's activism, that it should.. well, remain that way. As a woman's group. Plus, (talking directly to Derek here), as you've said, there is some controversy about whether men should be calling themselves "feminists". I completely understand women who hold this sentiment, but then, if women control the movement, should they really be actively pursing men's issues? As you've said before, it's a little arrogant for men to come in and tell women how to win their rights. On the same coin, then, would it not be a little arrogant for female feminist leaders, in a movement controlled by women, to attempt to dictate to men how they should handle issues like father's rights?
I may have spoken a little hastily in regards to MRAs before. As much as I hate to admit it, I think you're right in that it does have a very high proportion of idiots, especially around the blogosphere (although I'd argue the same is true of feminism, to a lesser degree). Not all MRAs are like this, though! And it's these people who embody how I personally would like to see men's rights, even if it's not quite there yet. I'd hesitate even to call it a "movement"- really, it's just a group of people combating certain individual injustices committed against Western men as a group.
I didn't mean to lecture you earlier about areas in which men are shortchanged. I think "oppression" is such a strong term- I'm really just saying there are numerous areas in which men are shortchanged based on their gender- father's rights, to give one indisputable example, but also in other, perhaps more subtle ways, such as the portrayal of men (mostly fathers) on television, and the clear slant towards young girls in most Western educational curriculums. This isn't to say men are disadvantaged overall- which is the reason feminism is still so much more prominent than the men's right groups. But as we in the Western world move further and further toward equality (and it is happening) "reverse sexism" becomes more common, and it needs to be addressed, just as women's issues need to be.
I'd also argue that anyone- male or female- that happens to be born in the Western world has it pretty damn good, and again, I see "oppression" as an almost obselete term in this culture- there are many areas in which women (and men) are discriminated against or treated unfairly, but I believe very few of us are "oppressed".
Derek
· 1 year ago
Richard, If people were actually struggling to grasp concepts regarding equality, I'd have sympathy, without a doubt. From my experience, though, most people don't give a damn about equality and are more than willing to participate in the forces that are keeping people down.
When I meet people who are genuinely interested in learning and changing their harmful behaviours, of course I'm going to sympathise and give them my utmost attention. Those people, though, again, from my experience, are few and far between.
Karn, Unfortunately I lack the time to address your concerns, but I strongly recommend checking out Finally, a Feminism 101 Blog. You're bound to come across some posts that are of interest to you there and will answer your questions.
I have to agree with you about MRAs. They did not lose any rights that they didn't sign away to begin with. MRAs are mostly men who got screwed over in the family/divorce court system. They are very angry and bitter over the experience. They have an ax to grind and if you don't grind with them they throw them at you.
Young men can still learn something from MRAs. Don't become like them. Don't sign a marriage contract in the US or any western country. That may be the farthest thing from your mind right now but it could be an issue for you someday. Don't do it. It is financial suicide for a man, any man, self proclaimed feminist or other wise to do so. Don't learn the hard way like the MRAs did.
Renee
· 1 year ago
If only this could sink into the heads of MRA's...Feminism is a benefit to both sexes..well written and nicely done.
Danny
· 1 year ago
What burns me most is that no matter how many people like to slice it, reasonable MRAs and reasonable feminists (and we all know there are unreasonable feminists and MRAs) are on the same page on a lot of things.
Feminists accuse MRAs of just being bitter men who didn't get there way and its somehow their fault. MRAs accuse feminists of trying constantly stack the deck in favor of women. Both of those statements are unfair generalizations I see all over the place.
There is stuff to be picked up and learned from both sides just as there is stuff to be avoided on both sides. And frankly I think we would all be better off if people on both sides would quit pointing to the extremists of the other side and try to paint them as the poster child of that side.
Hairstyle
· 1 year ago
Wonderful post and so well written. I really enjoyed your article A LOT.
Laura
· 1 year ago
Redefining gender roles so as not to require certain actions and traits doesn't mean we all have to stop having those traits. It's a matter of choice. I enjoy cooking, but not because I have to, and that's how it should be.
bunnygotblog
· 1 year ago
I like this article and agree it is about choice not duty.
monika
· 1 year ago
I suppose I find it difficult to think there are reasonable MRA's when one of the core premises of the MRA movement is that women and children lie about abuse.
I am not suggesting that there aren't men and children hurt in divorce and custody proceedings.
But I have seen men in these situations step up to the plate and be compassionate human beings who put their children (and not ego) first and don't buy into the MRA agenda.
A lot of people find it suspicious that allegations of sexual abuse come out after a divorce or seperation. But it makes total sense that when children feel safety from their abuser (because the abuser has left) that that is when they are more likely to disclose.
As for "unreasonable" feminists, would those be the feminists who want to smash the patriarchy? Because if so, count me as unreasonable!
SAT
· 1 year ago
True, the MRA movement is pretty misguided as a whole (IMO), and that's why you don't see it much in mainstream society, outside the Internet and a few very specific gatherings. That doesn't mean there aren't *individual* men (who may identify as MRA) whose ideas aren't reasonable. I guess the idea here is that while there are many extremists on both sides, the MRA banner/core doctrine itself is pretty unreasonable; not so for the feminist doctrine.
Also, there are swarms and swarms of unreasonable feminists, and not just your stereotypical "arrrrrgh down with MEN hahahaha" type. Those who seek to turn every issue into gender politics. Those who actively search for sexism and misogyny and twist everything into its worst possible connotation. Those who refuse to believe that women are anything but disadvantaged and men can never be anything but blind oppressors. Etc.
monika
· 1 year ago
I personally can't think of any human issue devoid of gender politics. When we live in a patriarchy, the patriarchy infects everything - law, education, government, art, relationships, etc.
All Comments
Feminism isn't about force. Feminism is about choice. I am a feminist who lives in the dirty south, and guess what? I want my man to be a Southern gentleman. Granted, I want him to be able to talk about his feelings, and be a loving, caring partner, and generous, and interested in equality, and in general a feminist (besides, feminist men are better in bed). But I also want him to hold open doors for me, and take me out to dinner, and walk on the street side of the sidewalk, and all sorts of other things too. I want him to be strong, and I want him to open jars for me, and I want him to fix things around the house. But more than anything, I want him to be himself. I want him to do things like open doors for me because he WANTS to, because he cares about me, and because that's his way of expressing it. But again, it's a choice. Same as my wearing lipstick and dresses doesn't' negate my feminism. Feminism isn't about wanting to force anyone into any one box, any one choice. It's about making sure people know that they have a lot of choices.
Feminism, even in the name, implies a bias toward women, not that there's anything wrong with that, but I don't think we should be attempting to solve men's issues- or even general human issues- in a woman's movement.
This is where MRAs come in. You obviously dislike the whole MRA movement, but I think you're looking at the fringe jackasses, which are plentiful around the internet. In this modern age, Western men are shortchanged more than you'd like to admit- not that women aren't as well- and there is a need for a movement that addresses these problems. Simply because woman's issues may be more numerous doesn't mean that it's okay to ignore those that affect men; we should be attempting to eliminate all gender issues. The MRA movement doesn't need to "overwrite" or discredit feminism. MRAs and feminists can exist side by side.
Dude,
Cate answered your question pretty much perfectly. It's about choice for men. If you want to be strong and like feeling strong, then by all means, that's what you should be! It's rather the idea that all men should be strong and those who aren't simply are not real men that's a problem.
Richard,
As much as I would like to think the majority of the post was written in a lighthearted, fun kind of way, perhaps I came off a bit too harsh. For me, though, this certainly didn't even come close to anger. As for what you're saying about the dichotomy, I'm not sure I understand. If you mean that some men would feel othered by my demeanor, well, I'm not sure I feel too bad about it, to be frank. Those sentiments are worthy of a post in themselves, though.
Karn,
You bring up some interesting points.
First, whether someone accomplishes these goals under feminism or not, I would argue that they are still, in fact, feminist goals, even if they are shared by another movement, however different.
As for feminism implying a "bias toward women," I strongly believe this is a common misunderstanding about feminism. It would be nice to get other feminists and pro-feminists to weigh in here, but to me, as I said above, feminism is a movement for equality and the freedom from oppression, and not solely for women. Even if it were, though, by default, when feminists bring down the structures that reinforce women's oppression, these will be the same structures that oppress other groups, including men.
Your point about the "fringe jackasses" is one I've considered before, and you may be right. From my experience, though, MRAs plainly need to get a clue. Also, you needn't lecture me on how shortchanged men are; after all, I am one, and even though we are oppressed in some ways, we've got it pretty damn good, especially if we're White or perceived to be (in my case). I don't disagree with your assertion that we need to eliminate all gender issues, hence my entire post above. As for MRAs and feminists working side by side, though, I wouldn't hold my breath, at least until I meet some MRAs that are in touch with reality and aren't blatant misogynists. If, however, I met decent MRAs, well, of course I wouldn't hesitate to get on their side and have them on ours.
Feminism is about deconstructing and destroying patriarchy -- a complex system of codified behaviors and gender roles that serves to divide and conquer humanity. It is not about women's rights over men's rights. It just so happens that women suffer more under patriarchy than men (because in addition to fitting strict gender roles, we also deal with an oppressive rape culture, we get paid less, and are more likely to live in poverty, just two name three concrete examples). But patriarchy is the same force that any non-fringe-MRAs would be fighting against. If an MRA, for example, is fighting for father's rights -- let's take him as a totally reasonable cat -- because his ex-wife has been awarded custody even though she is abusive. Well, again, that is because patriarchy assigns child-care as "women's work." We're both fighting toward the exact same goal -- destruction of patriarchy, not some takedown of men. However, this still very much falls under feminism, because like it or not, the vast majority of violence is committed by men (again, because of patriarchy), and in most cases, children are safer with their mother. Destruction of patriarchy would mean that we wouldn't live in an oppressive rape and intimate partner violence culture, that children would be equally cared for by women or men, and that essentially we're all equal -- bingo bango, everyone's happy! And that is a feminist movement.
Apologies for misinterpretations. I guess my point is more along the lines that I feel it is important to acknowledge that people have a right to their opinions. Those opinions come from life experience. Asking someone to change their opinion is asking them to take a critical look at those experiences, morals, and values that they have been taught throughout their lives that formed those opinions.
Should opinions, and behaviours those opinions create, that degrade, humiliate and oppress others be challenged? Absolutely. Without a doubt.
But this is a very difficult process for the individual with these opinions. If we want people to embrace equality for all, there needs to be a starting point. Everyone is struggleing to understand a very rapidly changing world. This includes people who hold patriarical values.
I do have sympathy for their struggle. Why would one advocate for equality and then not be concerned by a group being othered. How does this accomplish the goal of equality. How does it teach men who don't understand feminism to take ownership of their behaviour, opinions and feelings if we disregard them as quickly as they disregard those of others?
My know writing is not the greatest, please ask for clarification if needed.
Thanks!
Thanks for replying. I guess I'm just thinking that if feminist goals (as you've said, breaking down gender structures which harm women) happen to benefit men as well, obviously that's great. But I don't think that someone fighting for "father's rights" should be classified as a feminist or be seen as pursuing feminist goals. Because it's simply not a women's issue. Even if the man is, as you've said, ultimately fighting to bring down a part of the long-held gender structures, it's a completely different area of said structures. I guess I just feel as though feminism is so steeped in women's history and women's activism, that it should.. well, remain that way. As a woman's group. Plus, (talking directly to Derek here), as you've said, there is some controversy about whether men should be calling themselves "feminists". I completely understand women who hold this sentiment, but then, if women control the movement, should they really be actively pursing men's issues? As you've said before, it's a little arrogant for men to come in and tell women how to win their rights. On the same coin, then, would it not be a little arrogant for female feminist leaders, in a movement controlled by women, to attempt to dictate to men how they should handle issues like father's rights?
I may have spoken a little hastily in regards to MRAs before. As much as I hate to admit it, I think you're right in that it does have a very high proportion of idiots, especially around the blogosphere (although I'd argue the same is true of feminism, to a lesser degree). Not all MRAs are like this, though! And it's these people who embody how I personally would like to see men's rights, even if it's not quite there yet. I'd hesitate even to call it a "movement"- really, it's just a group of people combating certain individual injustices committed against Western men as a group.
I didn't mean to lecture you earlier about areas in which men are shortchanged. I think "oppression" is such a strong term- I'm really just saying there are numerous areas in which men are shortchanged based on their gender- father's rights, to give one indisputable example, but also in other, perhaps more subtle ways, such as the portrayal of men (mostly fathers) on television, and the clear slant towards young girls in most Western educational curriculums. This isn't to say men are disadvantaged overall- which is the reason feminism is still so much more prominent than the men's right groups. But as we in the Western world move further and further toward equality (and it is happening) "reverse sexism" becomes more common, and it needs to be addressed, just as women's issues need to be.
I'd also argue that anyone- male or female- that happens to be born in the Western world has it pretty damn good, and again, I see "oppression" as an almost obselete term in this culture- there are many areas in which women (and men) are discriminated against or treated unfairly, but I believe very few of us are "oppressed".
If people were actually struggling to grasp concepts regarding equality, I'd have sympathy, without a doubt. From my experience, though, most people don't give a damn about equality and are more than willing to participate in the forces that are keeping people down.
When I meet people who are genuinely interested in learning and changing their harmful behaviours, of course I'm going to sympathise and give them my utmost attention. Those people, though, again, from my experience, are few and far between.
Karn,
Unfortunately I lack the time to address your concerns, but I strongly recommend checking out Finally, a Feminism 101 Blog. You're bound to come across some posts that are of interest to you there and will answer your questions.
Here's a good resource for you, actually:
FAQ: What roles should men play in feminism?
Young men can still learn something from MRAs. Don't become like them. Don't sign a marriage contract in the US or any western country. That may be the farthest thing from your mind right now but it could be an issue for you someday. Don't do it. It is financial suicide for a man, any man, self proclaimed feminist or other wise to do so. Don't learn the hard way like the MRAs did.
Feminists accuse MRAs of just being bitter men who didn't get there way and its somehow their fault. MRAs accuse feminists of trying constantly stack the deck in favor of women. Both of those statements are unfair generalizations I see all over the place.
There is stuff to be picked up and learned from both sides just as there is stuff to be avoided on both sides. And frankly I think we would all be better off if people on both sides would quit pointing to the extremists of the other side and try to paint them as the poster child of that side.
I am not suggesting that there aren't men and children hurt in divorce and custody proceedings.
But I have seen men in these situations step up to the plate and be compassionate human beings who put their children (and not ego) first and don't buy into the MRA agenda.
A lot of people find it suspicious that allegations of sexual abuse come out after a divorce or seperation. But it makes total sense that when children feel safety from their abuser (because the abuser has left) that that is when they are more likely to disclose.
As for "unreasonable" feminists, would those be the feminists who want to smash the patriarchy? Because if so, count me as unreasonable!
Also, there are swarms and swarms of unreasonable feminists, and not just your stereotypical "arrrrrgh down with MEN hahahaha" type. Those who seek to turn every issue into gender politics. Those who actively search for sexism and misogyny and twist everything into its worst possible connotation. Those who refuse to believe that women are anything but disadvantaged and men can never be anything but blind oppressors. Etc.
And the same is true of other oppressions, IMHO.