In a comment on yesterday's post, Jeff JP (who remains convinced that I am sonehow filled with self-loathing) does manage to ask a good question that deserves a thoughtful response. I wrote:
It wasn't until I started to do men's work with other pro-feminist men that I began to feel sufficiently empowered to start calling guys on their (sometimes) unintentional miosgyny.
Jeff JP replied:
Thanks for proving that "misogyny" is one of those words--just like "patriarchy"--that feminists have abused and misused so extensively that it's nearly devoid of meaning. I just checked several current dictionaries of Standard English, and they define "misogyny" as "hatred of women." Please explain how "hatred" can be unintentional.
On reflection, I should have used the word "unthinking" instead of "unintentional"; a small distinction that seems to capture my point a bit better.
I'd suggest that the parallel to "misogyny" is "bigotry." When it comes to racial issues, are there not many different types of bigots? Not every bigot wanders around in a white sheet, aware of and proud of their race hatreds. Some bigots deny that they are bigots: "Oh, some of my best friends are black, but in general..." Hatred is a powerful word, and it would be too simplistic to believe that it always manifests itself in violent, obvious ways.
To hate someone, feminists suggest, is to see them as less than fully human. Hatred is far more than an emotion of intense, conscious dislike. Hatred is the absence of compassion, the absence of imagination, the absence of a recognition of a common humanity. Rape is a profound expression of hatred, because it is misogyny expressed in brutal physical terms. But just as misogyny has defining actions (rape and assault), it also has defining language. The language of misogyny can range from vicious verbal abuse that reduces a woman to an object (c*nt, the primary example in American English) to blanket statements about women's abilities (women can't drive as well as men.)
Much of the misogyny of the men's rights movement is directed towards feminists. Just as racists in the Old South divided blacks into "good negroes" and "uppity troublemakers", so misogynists create a dichotomy of "good women" (submissive, eager to please, able to "take a joke", uncritical of bad male behavior) and "feminazis" (women who demand accountability from men and who ask to be taken seriously as human beings.) To say one likes individual women, therefore, is no defense against the charge of misogyny. Plenty of racists like individual members of other ethnic groups. To be hostile to the movement that seeks to liberate women is enough, in my book, to merit the charge of misogyny.
Misogyny is also institutionalized in our society. Perhaps it is my Christian faith informing my feminism, but I am convinced that pornography is the representative art form of a woman-hating culture. In porn, women exist to fulfill men's desires -- they have no real agency of their own. To see anyone as existing only to serve you and to fulfill you is, feminists have argued, a practical form of hatred. Relatively few men who use porn are conscious of hating women. But regular use of porn inevitably desensitizes the viewer to the humanity and dignity of all of the women with whom he interacts. It defies all we know about human psychology to say that a fellow can go from masturbating to images on his TV or computer screen into interactions with real women without objectifiying them.
Let's be clear here. Most folks, if they are really honest about it, go through periods of their lives where they experience (with varying degrees of intensity) authentic dislike for the other sex. Many will go through periods where they also dislike their own. ( Self-loathing among young women is famous -- if I had a dollar for every young woman I've worked with who's said "All my good friends are guys" or "Girls are too competitive, I don't like them" I'd have enough money to pay for a sweet honeymoon!) Most of us take our own personal negative experiences and, at least for a while, allow them to make us fundamentally suspicious of (and perhaps openly hostile to) the other sex. This is one form of genuine misogyny -- or, yes, misandry.
We are eager to evade personal responsibility. An anti-Semite can comfort herself by saying, "Oh, I don't hate Jews -- Hitler hated Jews. I just think that they have too much influence in our culture." A racist can say: "Oh, I don't agree with the Klan. But if my daughter brought home a black man, well, I'd be pretty unhappy about that." Surely we'd all agree that these are examples of bigotry? Similarly, a man can say "I don't hate women. I love women. But I think that feminists are out to control and manipulate us."
That's misogyny too, Jeff.
Brilliant post, Hugo. I shall have to link to it for posterity.
Posted by: The Birdwoman | January 12, 2005 at 10:58 AM
This backpedaling from words like misogyny, racism, and homophobia strikes me as part and parcel of the "no responsibility" culture, like if we restrict the scope of words enough, we won't be responsible for the things we know in our heart we've done to others, because it won't fall under any of the big, bad words others use for that kind of behavior.
Posted by: Chris Tessone | January 12, 2005 at 10:59 AM
Wasn't it Amanda who commented here once about it being considered ruder to call someone out on their racism than to be a racist? Same applies with misogyny. If you point it out, it's you that has the problem, apparently.
Posted by: thisgirl | January 12, 2005 at 11:11 AM
On reflection, I should have used the word "unthinking" instead of "unintentional"; a small distinction that seems to capture my point a bit better.
Actually, you ought to have used a different word than "misogyny." I think you're trying to say that some men evince a general disregard or cluelessness about women and their concerns and sensibilities that I would call "ignorance."
I'd suggest that the parallel to "misogyny" is "bigotry."
I disagree because the underlying sense of "bigotry" focuses on the inner experiences of prejudices and narrowmindedness of a bigot. By contrast, "misogyny" is directed outward toward one identifiable group--toward women--and is a specific kind of attitude toward that group, i.e., hatred.
When it comes to racial issues, are there not many different types of bigots? Not every bigot wanders around in a white sheet, aware of and proud of their race hatreds. Some bigots deny that they are bigots: "Oh, some of my best friends are black, but in general..."
The comparison of "bigotry" to "misogyny" is neither accurate nor helpful because "bigotry" refers to an attitude toward a theoretically infinite number of persons and non-person objects. By contrast, the definition of "misogyny" is quite clear; it means "hatred of women."
Hatred is a powerful word, and it would be too simplistic to believe that it always manifests itself in violent, obvious ways.
"Hatred" is indeed a powerful word and, in my opinion, a loaded one. Accusing a person or a group of "hatred" will very often, if not always, trigger a powerful response from that person.
Of course, you can use a lot of weasel words, as you do below, to avoid the main issue here: the meaning of "misogyny."
To hate someone, feminists suggest, is to see them as less than fully human. Hatred is far more than an emotion of intense, conscious dislike. Hatred is the absence of compassion, the absence of imagination, the absence of a recognition of a common humanity. Rape is a profound expression of hatred, because it is misogyny expressed in brutal physical terms. But just as misogyny has defining actions (rape and assault), it also has defining language. The language of misogyny can range from vicious verbal abuse that reduces a woman to an object (c*nt, the primary example in American English) to blanket statements about women's abilities (women can't drive as well as men.)
You've done it again. Instead of responding directly to my criticism of the misuse and abuse of "misogyny," you've obfuscated the matter by expanding "hatred" to include a whole array of things that are not hatred.
I understand quite well that words often have nuances and subtleties that we must consider if we are to use them artfully. I respectfully suggest that what you really mean is a form of "ignorance" rather than "hatred of women."
That distinction is important for several reasons. First, it's a more clear expression of reality. One may be "ignorant" of the problems of women and women's concerns, and thus be insensitive to them and act accordingly. However, to equate that ignorance with "hatred" does not seem to do much beyond provoking angry responses from those of us who are falsely and recklessly accused of "misogyny." (Yes, Hugo, you accused me of "misogyny" in an earlier thread, an accusation I categorically reject as false as well as wholly unsubstantiated.)
Second, our responses to ignorance tend to differ markedly from our responses to hatred. When we encounter hatred, it's far too easy to respond with hatred of our own, with self-righteousness, and with ostracism. On the other hand, when we encounter ignorance, we are more likely--though certainly not sure--to respond with love and compassion. We are often inclined to educate, to increase awareness, and to help the ignorant than we are to do those things for people we deem "hateful."
Third, a practical reason to distinguish "ignorance" and "hatred" is that the former term will be more palatable, not to mention accurate, to the men you want to persuade to your pro-feminist viewpoint. By contrast, if you begin by accusing them of "hatred"--or even by looking down at them because of your perception of their supposed "hatred," then it's probably going to be much harder to have a meaningful and productive dialogue with them.
Much of the misogyny of the men's rights movement is directed towards feminists. Just as racists in the Old South divided blacks into "good negroes" and "uppity troublemakers", so misogynists create a dichotomy of "good women" (submissive, eager to please, able to "take a joke", uncritical of bad male behavior) and "feminazis" (women who demand accountability from men and who ask to be taken seriously as human beings.) To say one likes individual women, therefore, is no defense against the charge of misogyny.
Do you say this about feminists who hate men? If so, I've yet to see it posted here. When feminists are accused of hating men, they often say that they love their husbands, fathers, brothers, etc. To say one likes individual men, therefore, is no defense against the charge of misandry, right?
Plenty of racists like individual members of other ethnic groups. To be hostile to the movement that seeks to liberate women is enough, in my book, to merit the charge of misogyny.
By your own words and reasoning, then, women (and men, for that matter) who oppose the men's rights movement are misandrists. Thanks for proving one of my more general criticisms of feminism by your own admission.
Misogyny is also institutionalized in our society. Perhaps it is my Christian faith informing my feminism, but I am convinced that pornography is the representative art form of a woman-hating culture. In porn, women exist to fulfill men's desires -- they have no real agency of their own. To see anyone as existing only to serve you and to fulfill you is, feminists have argued, a practical form of hatred. Relatively few men who use porn are conscious of hating women.
Perhaps that's because they don't hate women. "Ignorance"? Maybe. "Hatred"? No way.
Expanding terms like "misogyny" and one of its roots, "hatred," so broadly effectively renders them meaningless. That's a common debate tactic of feminists, but I don't buy it.
But regular use of porn inevitably desensitizes the viewer to the humanity and dignity of all of the women with whom he interacts. It defies all we know about human psychology to say that a fellow can go from masturbating to images on his TV or computer screen into interactions with real women without objectifiying them.
This is taken from the Feminist Propaganda 101 course. I have yet to see any proof for these claims. Note, too, the inherent misandry in making such claims.
Let's be clear here. Most folks, if they are really honest about it, go through periods of their lives where they experience (with varying degrees of intensity) authentic dislike for the other sex. Many will go through periods where they also dislike their own. ( Self-loathing among young women is famous -- if I had a dollar for every young woman I've worked with who's said "All my good friends are guys" or "Girls are too competitive, I don't like them" I'd have enough money to pay for a sweet honeymoon!) Most of us take our own personal negative experiences and, at least for a while, allow them to make us fundamentally suspicious of (and perhaps openly hostile to) the other sex. This is one form of genuine misogyny -- or, yes, misandry.
Again, this is more evidence of expansive definitions. This time, you're including "dislike" and "suspicion" in terms that, at their very roots, mean "hatred." Your equivocations are demonstrating exactly what I've asserted: feminists abuse and misuse the term "misogyny." Thanks!
We are eager to evade personal responsibility. An anti-Semite can comfort herself by saying, "Oh, I don't hate Jews -- Hitler hated Jews. I just think that they have too much influence in our culture." A racist can say: "Oh, I don't agree with the Klan. But if my daughter brought home a black man, well, I'd be pretty unhappy about that." Surely we'd all agree that these are examples of bigotry?
You're lumping together many examples that relate, at the very most, only tangentially to the word "misogyny." You're also engaging in a very common, and intelluctually dishonest, tactic that ideologues use to try to silence debate. For example, when one cries, "anti-Semitism," "racism," or "misogyny," one uses such loaded words that we're all supposed to shut up and go home, right?
Citing more examples of recklessly misused terms does not prove that "misogyny" is not also recklessly misused.
Similarly, a man can say "I don't hate women. I love women. But I think that feminists are out to control and manipulate us."
That's misogyny too, Jeff.
Again, by your own choice of words and reasoning, feminists are necessarily misandrists.
Jeff JP
Posted by: Jeff JP | January 12, 2005 at 12:05 PM
Hugo: Plenty of racists like individual members of other ethnic groups. To be hostile to the movement that seeks to liberate women is enough, in my book, to merit the charge of misogyny.
Jeff JP: By your own words and reasoning, then, women (and men, for that matter) who oppose the men's rights movement are misandrists. Thanks for proving one of my more general criticisms of feminism by your own admission.
Women (feminists) who oppose the men's rights movement (as opposed to the men's movement) are hostile to the movement precisely because they (we) don't accept it as seeking to liberate men, but to resubjugate women. See the various threads here on it for evidence. Your criticism of Hugo therefore doesn't stand up.
Posted by: thisgirl | January 12, 2005 at 12:14 PM
Gosh, Jeff, where to start?
I would accept the charge that those who oppose the Men's Rights Movement are misandrists if I thought that the Men's Rights Movement actually was interested in genuine liberation and transformation. The MRM represents only one small strand of the men's movement. (A blessing indeed.)
The Men's Rights Movement is a backlash against specific gains achieved by the feminist movement, especially in the areas of divorce, child custody and sexual harassment. Its rhetoric (of the kind seen at the Manpower blog to which I linked last month) is hostile and rage-filled.
I have no trouble labelling these fellows misogynistic. As for you, Jeff, I am sure that there are individual women whom you love and respect very much. I'm sure you're a heckuva guy. But the positions you've taken place make you a defender of institutionalized misogyny.
"Ignorance" doesn't work for me. "Ignorance" has no emotion attached to it -- hatred does.
Posted by: Hugo Schwyzer | January 12, 2005 at 12:21 PM
One manifestation of "hatred" is loathing and/or utter revulsion. But there are less extreme manifestations of hatred...disrespect, for example.
I get so tired of anti-feminists who get hung up on the term "misogyny", and point to some dictionary definition that mentions "hatred." Those same anti-feminists would never assert the same misgivings about someone who said "oh, I hate mayonnaise!" if the subject was food.
I hate mayonnaise. The taste of it makes me puke. I don't, however, go through the grocery store with a ballbat, gleefully smashing mayonnaise jars as I cruise through the aisle. And so it is with misogynists, who (for the most part) abstain from rampages of killing and/or mutilating women, instead preferring to manifest their hate by thinking of us as lesser beings---less intelligent, less capable, less moral, less spiritual, less trustworthy, etc.
Hatred does not just refer to uncontrollable rage. It also refers to everyday, run-of-the-mill dislike. That's hate, too Jeff. And if you had ever been the target of it, you would know that.
Posted by: La Lubu | January 12, 2005 at 12:22 PM
It's not just ignorance - ignorance would imply that the men we call misogynists simply don't know much about women. In fact, what they display is a casual (or, in some cases, less than casual) belief that women are less worthy, less able, and generally inferior to men. That is a very important distinction. I perhaps wouldn't go so far as to call the entire spectrum "hatred". But it's certainly a better word than "ignorance". It's on the right track.
Posted by: The Birdwoman | January 12, 2005 at 01:02 PM
I would accept the charge that those who oppose the Men's Rights Movement are misandrists if I thought that the Men's Rights Movement actually was interested in genuine liberation and transformation.
Many men feel the same way about feminism. To many men, feminism is a movement that demands female supremacy, special protections, and special privileges. Of course, since you support feminism and basically loathe men and boys, I don't expect you to understand that.
The Men's Rights Movement is a backlash against specific gains achieved by the feminist movement, especially in the areas of divorce, child custody and sexual harassment.
Ah, unable to deal with my demand for a precise, useful definition of "misogyny," you trot out the old "backlash" nonsense.
Its rhetoric (of the kind seen at the Manpower blog to which I linked last month) is hostile and rage-filled.
Wow. Just a week ago, you lectured your readers thusly:
"But newsflash, people: Andrea Dworkin is not a mainstream feminist, and Warren Farrell does not speak for the entire men's movement! So please, spare us absurd quotations out of context from the likes of these." (emphasis in original)
However, today you cite the Manpower blog as the example of the rhetoric of the men's rights movement. What is one to make of these incongruous statements, made only a week apart?
Here's what I make of it. You hold men's activists to a much higher standard than you demand of women's activists. Based on the incredibly loose definitions you advocate for both "misogyny" and "hatred," one could well call you a misogynist. After all, if you're going to demand a higher standard of conduct from men, that demand must be rooted in some implicit--probably unconscious--sense of male superiority. Most likely, you despise women; you're just not aware of that.
I have no trouble labelling these fellows misogynistic. As for you, Jeff, I am sure that there are individual women whom you love and respect very much. I'm sure you're a heckuva guy. But the positions you've taken place make you a defender of institutionalized misogyny.
If that's so, then the positions you've taken make you a self-loathing misandrist.
"Ignorance" doesn't work for me. "Ignorance" has no emotion attached to it -- hatred does.
Of course "ignorance" doesn't work for you. You want to label men as "hateful" rather than "ignorant." Your appeals are indeed playing to emotion rather than reason. You use words recklessly imprecisely, and then you retreat into an attempt to defend that imprecision by an appeal to emotion. Since you chose to ignore my reasons for using "ignorance," there isn't really much point in my saying more about this.
Thanks for giving me yet another example of a feminist who cannot support his or her claims with evidence, the most elementary reasoned discourse, or anything but mindless ideology and dogma.
Jeff JP
Posted by: Jeff JP | January 12, 2005 at 02:08 PM
"Hatred" may not necessarily be at issue in misogyny. Same can be said about racism. The better term is "disrespect", and that applies to kinfolk as well as strangers. Equality is at issue. Many racists (white supremacists) and many misogynists (male supremacists) may truly "love" their nannies/maids and their mothers, wives, and daughters. However, their love is based on the services delivered to and deference shown to them. Cessation of services and deference turns these relationships sour, because "they have no right to do that!". Furthermore, women outside of the family deserve no respect if they presume to use resources "only men deserve" (jobs, school slots, etc). Ditto for those of other races, who are not seen as valid competitors.
Some feminists may be trapped in the late 1960s-early 1970s separatist time warp that anti-feminists love to portray as The Feminism - but if so, I haven't met any of these trapped-in-amber fossils. I suspect anti-feminists love these separatist tracts from 40 years ago, since they get to prove their points without actually having to talk with live feminists with the modicum of human decency and respect that it takes to qualify as an immediately discredited asshat. Not unlike David Horowitz bragging about his Black Panther days - he doesn't have to talk with real live blacks in 2005, he already knows how bad they are.
I would say that the negative emotion expressed by real live feminists towards "men in general" is distrust. Check the guy out - he may be a good guy, he may be a bully, he may be honest, he may be trying to scam you if a politician or a car mechanic. Funny, I get the impression that most blacks operate the same way towards whites - wary at first. In general, those who are not members of the societal category "in power" know more about the folks in power than the powerholders know about the "out" folks. It's called survival skills.
Posted by: NancyP | January 12, 2005 at 02:10 PM
oops, "to NOT qualify as an immediately discredited asshat"
Posted by: NancyP | January 12, 2005 at 02:11 PM
"Many men feel the same way about feminism. To many men, feminism is a movement that demands female supremacy, special protections, and special privileges."
Well, they're wrong. I feel the moon is made of green cheese, but I'm wrong. The very fact that you expect us to capitulate to these men because they are men is indicative of your thinking.
I don't think men are inferior to me. But I don't think they are superior. I know. It's hard to understand. I think we are EQUALS.
But talking to MRA dudes, you get the distinct impression they think equality is impossible and if women gain, men must by definition lose. So wanting equality is defined as "man-hating". But wishing doesn't make it so, Jeff.
I mean, men do stand to lose things under feminism--supremacy, ownership of female bodies, the right to watch TV while their wife cleans up around them, whatever. But these were not men's to begin with, but are in fact stolen goods.
Posted by: Amanda | January 12, 2005 at 02:22 PM
Hugo, I agree that most porn is anti-female, but I would say no more really than most entertainment products dehumanize and objectify women. I deliberately avoid criticizing porn on my blog because the stereotypes are obvious, and too quickly it becomes this debate about whether or not showing sex in and of itself is bad for women, which I admantly refuse to believe. Masturbation products aimed at men are offensive because entertainment products as a whole aimed at men define themselves through this homosocial anti-female theme you elaborate on below. Ever watch "The Man Show"? Much worse than any Jenna Jameson film I've seen.
Posted by: Amanda | January 12, 2005 at 02:27 PM
Hatred doesn't have to be white-hot or all-consuming to be damaging. Prejudice can be held out of ignorance, fear, rage, hatred or just never really thinking about received information, but when it turns into discrimination, that's a problem. And one way it turns into discrimination is when prejudice is shared and reinforced among the in-group, because it leads to exclusion of those in the out-group.
Men may perceive feminism as man-hating because in order for women to make gains against discrimination, men have had to let go of some of the privileges they've been granted by virtue of their sex. Now, certain things can be gained by women without affecting men, such as the right to enter into contracts and own their own property. The gaining of other rights, such as the right to enter into certain jobs previously reserved for men, necessarily entails the letting go of the privilege of men to hold those jobs exclusively.
Some men see that as a welcome change, the free market at work and all that, but others see that as a threat. The MRA's seem to see changes in the family court system giving greater rights to women in divorce and child custody (as opposed to the prior system, where men were automatically granted custody) as a threat, instead of a more equitable distribution. So they look to set back the gains women have made to level the playing field.
I hate mayonnaise. The taste of it makes me puke. I don't, however, go through the grocery store with a ballbat, gleefully smashing mayonnaise jars as I cruise through the aisle.
Oh, please don't -- I'd fly into shrieking fits. That stuff is the snot of the Devil.
Posted by: zuzu | January 12, 2005 at 02:35 PM
I'd call the most common form of negative attitudes about women contempt rather than outright hatred, though haters exist, too.
It is this contempt which causes anger when women are seen as somehow overstepping the boundaries that the contempt defines them by. That's why a woman behaving submissively and quietly tends not to elicit negative reactions, and that's why women like Hilary Clinton cause a lot of people dyspepsia.
Posted by: Echidne of the snakes | January 12, 2005 at 02:59 PM
Much to which to respond.
Jeff:
I said Warren Farrell wasn't representative of the men's movement. But Manpower, as best as I can tell, is fairly representative of the men's RIGHTS movement (MRM). There's a world of difference there -- the MRM (the anti-feminists) are one small constituency in a much larger men's movement, which includes pro-feminists, the mytho-poetic men's movement, groups like Promise Keepers, and gay men's groups. You deliberately ignore a huge distinction.
Amanda, you're right. But my oppposition to porn is rooted (as I've written before) both in its impact on its consumers and its impact on its producers, particularly its young female workers.
I like the phrase "masturbation products." I'm not anti-masturbation. But folks shouldn't need a "product" to be aroused. The problem with pornography is that it associates a perrectly healthy thing (sexual desire and masturbation) with specific images which have no emotional or relational context. Porn shapes and informs male sexual desire -- and I would argue, distorts it along anti-female lines.
I'd agree that "disrespect" and "contempt" are better words to describe the attitudes of many men than "hate". But I'm not so concerned with the private attitudes of individual men as I am with the general positions of the movement to which they adhere and the wider culture in which they operate. And given the level of emotional, physical, and verbal violence against women in this culture, I don't think it's rhetorical overkill to say that we live in a profoundly misogynistic society.
Posted by: Hugo Schwyzer | January 12, 2005 at 03:36 PM
Of course, since you ... basically loathe men and boys ...
Speaking of people who don't support their claims with evidence ...
Posted by: Stentor | January 12, 2005 at 09:44 PM
I guess I like the term "masturbation products" because I put porn into a larger category of things like sex toys, romance novels, and erotica, some of which reinforces negative attitudes and some of which are pretty neutral products.
Posted by: Amanda | January 13, 2005 at 09:18 AM
It seems to me that protesting the term "misogyny" is a red herring. The point of the label, especially when it comes to unexamined misogynistic attitudes, is that many, if not most, men (and not a few women) hold biases reinforced by our culture that somehow women are not entitled to certain things and men are entitled to certain things -- based simply upon gender.
Case in point: When the man assumes the role of judge in any conversation. That some men would attempt to define what misogyny is or isn't is a reflection of that attitude of male privilege. If the woman disagrees, then she is "wrong." If she refuses to submit to his judgment, then she's a "man hater" (or worse names).
Yet I see it as a cultural thing, not necessarily out of malice. That's why these are considered unexamined attitudes. They are so unexamined that it does not seem to be affected at all by political persuasion. Conservatives and liberals both can be very much alike in so many ways. I feel the main difference there is that the conservative men are much more brazen about how they express it.
Personally I don't feel threatened by the so-called men's movement. I read Iron John and thought it made a lot of sense -- especially when he described how men don't know how to be strong without being stupid, childish, malicious. (I'm paraphrasing.) But there are factions of this movement who use it to tap into institutionalized patriarchal attitudes, and that is sooooo distasteful.
Then there are people like Jeff here, who seem to be so insecure that when a woman declares the radical notion that she's a human being entitled to equal rights, she's a "man hater" and wanting "special rights." Losing that male privilege can be so scary to some. Ironically, I would suggest Jeff and like-minded feminist-phobes read Iron John. The whole notion that men are oppressed by feminists is so ludicrous it's laughable.
Posted by: media girl | January 13, 2005 at 12:19 PM
Media Girl, I agree that for all its faults, Iron John is more profound and useful than its critics acknowledge. But Robert Bly writes from the mytho-poetic wing of the men's movement, which has little truck with the men's rights activists of whom Jeff JP is an example.
Posted by: Hugo Schwyzer | January 13, 2005 at 12:39 PM
The thing about the MRA guys who automatically assume that feminism means women out to crush and rule over men is that they are absolutely incapable of conceiving of gender relations that aren't based on dominance. One side MUST rule over the other. So, if a woman says she doesn't want to be dominated by men, the only possible alternative is that she wants to dominate men herself.
Posted by: Crys T | January 13, 2005 at 03:58 PM
In porn, women exist to fulfill men's desires -- they have no real agency of their own.
Even in lesbian pornography? (And I mean intended for a lesbian audience, not girl-girl pictorals in Penthouse.)
Posted by: mythago | January 13, 2005 at 10:41 PM
Mythago, point taken. But the lesbian community has long been divided over porn, with some seeing it sa replciating het norms and others seeing it as subverting and revisioning those norms along more egalitarian, loving lines.
Posted by: Hugo Schwyzer | January 14, 2005 at 08:46 AM
I, too, am a men's-rights activist. I am also a women's-rights activist. The two are not antonymous; in fact, they practically need each other.
I respectfully submit that you have misdiagnosed men's-rights activists as a band of woman-hating ogres. Are there those who post on such blogs who can fairly be described as misogynistic? You bet. But it's grossly unfair to take that small sampling as an example, just as it would for me to visit All Men Must Die and dismiss feminists based on that alone.
I don't dislike women or women achieving equality. I don't dislike feminism, either, in its purest practice. If anything, I dislike its name, because it suggests that equality is somehow a feminine want and inequality a masculine one. For this reason I prefer the word "egalitarian."
Men (and the women who support them) have a lot to be upset about. For just a few examples:
--Men are approximately half of all victims of domestic abuse, but receive almost none of the positive attention. Instead, the image of a woman slapping/punching/sexually assaulting a man is a staple of comedy in our entertainment media.
--Only men are required to sign of for so-called "selective service."
--Countless fathers have had their children taken away from them by a court system that sees them as secondary parents, at best.
--Countless males have also been wrongly accused -- and then arrested -- for domestic abuse, sexual harassment and rape -- and will have their names splashed throughout the news, while the women who accused them enjoy complete anonymity.
--The friendliest, most innocuous joke made toward women will bring hellfire upon the speaker, while there is no limit to the hateful messages that can be delivered about men -- on greeting cards, in television commercials, on bumper stickers and even children's t-shirts. The largest example involves the recent controversy about shirts that read, "Boys are stupid; throw rocks at them." Men (and women) who complained about the message were told to "lighten up." It's unlikely, though, that a similar shirt about girls would ever be marketed to boys.
It isn't feminism or women in general to blame for this; rather, it's the social ill known as misandry (just as misogyny is equally a social ill). Men and women alike are banding together because they cannot bear to see this systematic hatred of boys and men go unchecked any longer.
Posted by: bmmg39 | January 20, 2005 at 06:33 AM
Amanda wrote: "Well, they're wrong. I feel the moon is made of green cheese, but I'm wrong. The very fact that you expect us to capitulate to these men because they are men is indicative of your thinking."
I'll admit that I haven't read every post in the history of this site, but from what I have seen Jeff doesn't want women to "capitulate to" men.
"I don't think men are inferior to me. But I don't think they are superior. I know. It's hard to understand. I think we are EQUALS."
Great! That's my position, too! It's not hard to understand at all...
"But talking to MRA dudes, you get the distinct impression they think equality is impossible and if women gain, men must by definition lose. So wanting equality is defined as 'man-hating'. But wishing doesn't make it so, Jeff."
In actuality, it's the belief of SOME (not all) feminists who believe that women can't gain without men losing. SOME believe, for example, that we can't raise the self-esteem of girls without lowering that of boys. This is why a (female) teacher who made "BOYS ARE GOOD" t-shirts for her male students was castigated by all ten female student teachers in her school, even though one of those student teachers wore a button that read, "So many men, so little intelligence." *I*, on the other hand, believe that men's rights and women's rights don't add up to a zero-sum game.
"I mean, men do stand to lose things under feminism--supremacy, ownership of female bodies, the right to watch TV while their wife cleans up around them, whatever. But these were not men's to begin with, but are in fact stolen goods."
I don't want any of those things. It seems you're relying on a stereotype. I, too, despise THE MAN SHOW because of its portrayal of women AND for its indirect portrayal of men, as belching neanderthals who only care about sex. Stereotypes hurt EVERYBODY.
Posted by: bmmg39 | January 20, 2005 at 07:15 AM