What the pro-male studiers who commented on my post demonstrated is a lack of knowledge of feminist theory and history. If you are going to call yourself an academic discipline (male studies), and define yourself in opposition to two existing academic disciplines (women’s studies and men’s studies), you should be knowledgeable of those disciplines. It is quite clear that the malestudiers are either ignorant of existing feminist theory, or purposefully misunderstanding or misrepresenting it. In addition, they are also refusing to understand the feminist movement in a historical context. Certainly, there are radical feminists with whom I disagree, but in their outrage they seem to be suggesting that women have never had unequal status, and that a feminist movement against patriarchal power is and always has been completely unjustified. This demonstrates a lack of historical knowledge, not to mention a lack of knowledge on the state of women’s rights around the world.
The malestudiers have also purposefully misconstrued the specific criticism in my argument. Here’s the thing: I agree that there are many social injustices that involve men. Here’s the other thing: I don’t understand the logic of saying feminism is to blame for those problems. Also, let me specify: when I say “feminism,” I am referring to third wave theory, which has specifically addressed some of the exclusivity issues of the feminisms that came before it. Third wave feminism strives to address issues of class, race, gender and sexuality, and it is not one massive all-encompassing idea, but rather a constantly changing and adapting school of thought. One great example of a third wave feminist is Rebecca Walker, whose anthology “What Makes a Man: 22 Writers Imagine the Future” addresses the ways in which males are socially oppressed. Walker explains:
The feminist movement came into being because women were fundamentally in pain and unable to develop to their full potential. And men are similarly hampered by this masculine ideal, in which they are expected to repress their emotions.
So, again, to clarify, this is the specific feminist theory to which I’m referring. And I also never said that feminist theory was above reproach– in fact, feminists critique feminist theory all the time. Dialogue and critique are part of academia. You’ll find that out by visiting any women’s studies department at any college in the country.
I do not criticize men in my article– I applaud the existence of men’s studies, and I simply ask the question why a new, separate discipline needed to be created specifically in opposition to women’s and men’s studies. Also, I wonder how male studies will take on sexuality and gender studies– since queer theory and gender theory is associated with women’s and men’s studies, will male studies be tolerant of homosexual men, who are just as affected by the social injustices, such as the suicide epidemic, that the malestudiers cite? The BBC article I just linked to explains that the socialization of boys, which often discourages healthy emotional expression and seeking help, may be to blame– this is something many feminists have discussed, including bell hooks in her book “Feminism is for Everybody”:
Boys need healthy self-esteem. They need love. And a wise and loving feminist politics can provide the only foundation to save the lives of male children. Patriarchy will not heal them. If that were so they would all be well.
And now, to continue to clarify some misunderstandings of feminist theory and history. hooks, in her same book, in a chapter titled “Feminist Masculinity,” explains that some earlier feminist thinkers were, in fact, anti-male. However:
As the movement progressed, as feminist thinking advanced, enlightened feminist activists saw that men were not the problem, that the problem was patriarchy, sexism, and male domination. It was difficult to face the reality that the problem did not just lie with men. Facing that reality required more complex theorizing; it required acknowledging the role women play in maintaining and perpetuating sexism.
hooks also talks about the misrepresentation of feminism:
Conservative mass media constantly represented feminist women as man-haters. And when there was an anti-male faction or sentiment in the movement, they highlighted it as a way of discrediting feminism. … Even though anti-male factions within feminist movement were small in number it has been difficult to change the image of feminist women as man-hating in the public imagination.
So, there’s that. One more hooks quote, then on to some other resources:
Lack of jobs, the unrewarding nature of paid labor, and the increased class power of women, has made it difficult for men who are not rich and powerful to know where they stand. … A feminist vision which embraces feminist masculinity, which loves boys and men and demands on their behalf every right that we desire for girls and women, can renew the American male. Feminist thinking teaches us all, especially, how to love justice and freedom in ways that foster and affirm life. Clearly we need new strategies, new theories, guides that will show us how to create a world where feminist masculinity thrives. [emphasis added]
This post is getting dangerously long, but I want to be thorough in taking on as much of the criticisms as I can from my first post, before I go watch some more Arrested Development. Here’s some more recommended reading about men, social justice, and feminism:
- A simple, straightforward definition of “feminism” and an explanation of its ideals. “If you believe in, support, look fondly on, hope for, and/or work towards equality of the sexes, you are a feminist.”
- The website for the National Organization for Men Against Sexism. A relevant quote from their history section: “While other kinds of men’s movements have appeared in the U.S. over recent years, the anti-feminist “men’s rights,” the mytho-poetic, and most recently, the conservative-Christian Promise Keepers, the anti-sexist men’s movement was the first” [emphasis added]. They’ve been around since the early 70s and are all about “supporting positive changes for men,” and they “strongly support the continual struggle of women for full equality.”
- Michael Kimmel, a male feminist whose books include Men Confront Pornography, The History of Men,The Gendered Society, Manhood in America, and Guyland. For Guyland, Kimmel interviewed hundreds of men between 15 and 25. See the website here and an interview with Kimmel here.
- Another book: Men Speak Out: Views on Gender, Sex, and Power. This is an anthology of pro-feminist male writers talking about the male experience.
To the commenters: many of you malestudiers brought up some important points in your comments, like education, job opportunities, and domestic violence. I absolutely agree that those are incredibly important issues involving men and social justice, but I do believe your anger is misguided. One commenter accuses “feminism” of not caring that “your son HAS to work in the mines instead of becoming a Doctor or something because MEN get paid more.” Third wave feminists discuss class and class oppression extensively– hooks’s “Feminism is for Everybody,” referenced above, is a great reader for this, and even the Feminism Wiki page has a nice general outline of some of the different schools of thought within feminism, several of which focus primarily on class issues. Basically, the idea of anyone, male or female, being forced to work in mines is a really shitty thing. It’s happened to women, too– immortalized by Vincent Van Gogh in his painting “Women Miners”:
"man, this sucks!"
Also, special thanks to my friend Anne, who responds thoroughly to some of the comments specifically in a blog we share here, and points out that commenter Paul Elam did not credit where he got his list of hateful feminist quotes. It can be found here, and as Anne points out, Elam must have either compiled the list himself for that website, or taken the list without crediting the website. Many of these quotes (besides being taken out of context) come from radical feminists, and while I value their contributions, they do not represent the entirety of feminism, and I disagree with a number of them. But again, feminism is an academic discipline, full of dialogue and critique.
Many people told me it would be useless to respond to the anti-feminist comments since I won’t change their mind. But as a writer, it was important for me to clarify my argument and support it with more specific evidence. I’m thankful for all the feedback I got, and in the end, my original question still stands: why do we need a No-Girls-Allowed club? Why must male studies refuse to be interdisciplinary? Feminism is a lot of things– academic, highly personal, constantly changing, and often subjective, but I hope I have demonstrated that it’s not a No-Boys-Allowed club. I turned to my friends in my quest for feedback and resources, and got a lot of great information from them. I’d like to close with a quote from my friend Daniel, who pointed out how common it is for progressive groups to get pigeonholed into representing hatred for one group (with little regard for reality). He told me:
You aren’t responsible for defending the very idea of equality just because somebody accused you of man-hating.
Thanks again to everyone for reading and responding. Click here to see Borat trying to wrap his mind around feminism.
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario