At some point in the near future I will write a real post. I'm still rather unwell though, so I'm just going to give you some links.
I once got into an argument in the comments on someone else's (Adi, was it yours?) blog about the role that women expect men to play in bringing about a more equal society. According to this guy, feminists believe* that men should do all the work required to bring about equality. In doing so, he claims, we defeat our own purpose...we want equal status, but aren't willing to put in an equal amount of work. Women and women alone must fight against sexism.
I assume most people who read this blog (the ones I know, at least) are not quite so delusional as to believe that all the progress women have made has been due to men. But anyway, here's a great post on what feminists do ask for from men - not salvation, but alliance. And (linked from that post) here is the text of a wonderful Dworkin speech.
More importantly, there's this. Nowadays I tend to see rape as a depressing fact...it happens so often I don't react very much anymore. This post made me angry, and that can only be a good thing.
*Over the last couple of years it seems people have been flocking to tell me what I, as a feminist, believe. This is terribly kind of them, and I am much obliged.
------------------------------------
This Blog
Currently Reading
- Peter Ackroyd - The Casebook of Victor Frankenstein
- Isabel Quigly - The Heirs of Tom Brown
- J.A Mangan - Athleticism in the Victorian and Edwardian Public School
Link Love
Other People's Blogs
- 123 OLeary
- 2x3x7
- A Chair, A Fireplace & A Tea Cozy
- Aaru Tuesday
- Acephalous
- Alas, a blog
- allVishal.com
- Amardeep Singh
- Asking the Wrong Questions
- Ballastexistenz
- Between Boundaries
- Bird of Paradox
- Bits of Fluff
- Blogical Conclusion
- BoingBoing
- Bookslut
- Bound, Not Gagged
- Catspaw
- Cheryl's Mewsings
- Chicken Spaghetti
- Chocolate & Zucchini
- Collecting Children's Books
- Cripchick's Weblog
- Crooked House
- Crooked Timber
- Cyberabad
- Daisy's Dead Air
- Days in a wannabe punk's life
- DeepGenre
- Doing Jalsa and Showing Jilpa
- Ecstatic Days
- Enter The Octopus
- Fantasy Book Critic
- Feministe
- Fetch Me My Axe
- Flip Flopping Joy
- Flogging Babel
- FSF
- Fuse #8
- Fustar
- Galleycat
- Girls Read Comics (and they're pissed)
- Givvup Only Are There
- Go Fug Yourself
- Green channel
- Having Read The Fine Print
- Here to Leave
- India Uncut
- Inking In
- Jabberwock
- Jeff Howe's Bibliomancy Blog
- John & Belle Have A Blog
- John Crowley Little and Big
- Jost A Mon
- Kafila
- Kickette
- Kristopher's Journal
- Letters from Gehenna
- Librarilly Blonde
- Live Like a Flame
- Look Left of the Pleiades
- Mark Charan Newton's blog
- Mera Terrha Pakistan
- My Private Casbah
- Mórrígan Reborn
- Natalia Antonova
- Neil Gaiman's Journal
- Nodelmania
- Nonsense On Stilellos
- Not a Blog
- Notes From The Geek Show
- OF Blog of the Fallen
- Off Our Pedestals
- Omnivoracious
- Otter Ponderings
- Pandey.ru
- Popagandhi
- Problem Chylde
- Punarjanman
- Pursued by a Bear
- Questioning Transphobia
- Racialicious
- Ragamalika
- Rebel Raising
- Renegade Evolution
- Resistance is Fertile
- Rock you like a 'Hari'cane
- Saffron Tree
- Sauce!
- Sepia Mutiny
- Sexual Ambiguities
- Shaken and Stirred
- Shapely Prose
- ShelfTalker
- Smart Bitches, Trashy Books
- Sottai
- Szerelem, Szerelem
- Taking Steps
- Tamora Pierce - Random Thoughts
- The Angry Black Woman
- The Anti-Room
- The Brown Bookshelf
- The Curvature
- The Dairi Burger
- The Dresden Dolls Diary
- The Elegant Variation
- The Forbidden Planet Blog
- The Hathor Legacy
- The Imagined Universe
- The Inferior 4+1
- The Middle Stage
- The Mountaintop
- The Mumpsimus
- The Spaniard In The Works
- The Unapologetic Mexican
- The Unpronounceable Grape
- The Valve
- They Must Need Bears
- This is a Title
- This is not a Blag
- This is Not My Country
- Thus Spake Zuska
- TransGriot
- Treasons, Stratagems & Spoils
- Try Not. Do or Do Not
- Twisted Shout
- Ultrabrown
- Underage Reading
- When Fangirls Attack
- Whileaway
- Within/Without
- Womanist Musings
- Written World
- Zuky
Elsewhere on the Internet
- A Softer World
- BabbChronicles
- Cat and Girl
- Dinosaur Comics
- I Can Has Cheezburger?
- Indexed
- L-Space
- Lush
- Mappalujo
- Married To The Sea
- McSweeney's
- Overheard in New York
- PCOSupport
- Questionable Content
- The Believer
- The Internet Speculative Fiction Database
- The Modern Word
- The New Adventures of Queen Victoria
- VaginaPagina
- xkcd
Blog Archive
Greetings from Humpert Humpert!
40 comments:
Yep, it was on my blog. It is somewhere in the middle of the comments on this post:
http://sillysod.blogspot.com/2005/06/when-my-sister-got-married-last-year-i.html
Heh! Shall read those comments on Bidi Uncle's blog. Especially since he isn't writing anything himself.
I don't know. I think the flaw in the argument is this: The idea that just the fact of being a man somehow makes you guilty of being discriminatory or sexist unless you stand up and prove different is an entirely presumptuous one. Silence is emphatically not consent (and it's ironic that someone who's so vehemently anti-rape should be using that argument). Not doing anything about a crime that doesn't directly effect you or that you don't directly participate in doesn't signal solidarity, only (at the most) indifference. I've never done a single thing to stop the killings in Darfur, for instance, does this mean that I implicitly support the killers? Of course not. It just means that no immediate opportunity to show my support has come up and I can't be bothered to make a special effort to do something about it.
You could argue that we 'should' be concerned about the issue. I agree. But the reality is that we live in a world where the number of burning issues far outstrips the amount of time and attention I care to spare for them, which means that the issues that end up getting my attention (education, environmental rights) are those that actively campaign for it. I get at least a couple of petitions every week asking me to support bans on Alaskan drilling, or measures for habitat conservation. I'm yet to see a single petition asking for tighter laws on rape.
The point is that it's simply unpragmatic to take a stand that says "anyone who doesn't actively support us on his own is against us". Feminist interests, it seems to me, would be much better served by actively canvassing for support (male or female) rather than setting that support as a sort of test of male intentions. If you want to build alliances (especially alliances where the benefits are heavily biased towards one side), you need to seek out potential alliance partners and come up with low-effort ways for them to offer their support. What you need to fight is inertia, and equating it with approval is unlikely to work.
The key, I think, is not to fall into the trap of assuming that 'being a man' means anything to men. I can only speak for myself in saying that I don't think that's true. I see no reason why anyone should make any assumptions about me based on my gender (I mean it's not like I had a choice) anymore than anyone should make assumptions about women based on theirs. Which is why I resent dialectic that sets this whole feminist thing up as men vs. women. I think the best thing the feminist movement could do for itself is to replace all references to men / male by the words patriarchs / patriarchal. That way you'd stop accusing people of things they haven't done. Otherwise you're just inviting a pygmalion effect.
(you could argue that all this is unfair to women. It is. But realistically, there's a choice between making the extra effort and getting people's support, or waiting around for the universe to render justice.)
Finally, I think the argument on the post you link to ignores selection effects. People who abuse women are not stupid, you know, they have, I suspect, a perfectly good sense of where and in what company they can get away with these crimes. You don't select a group of 'men' at random and go around harassing women, you don't make sexist jokes in just any male company, you carefully select the group you do these things in. I can't remember the last time someone made a sexist comment in my presence, and it goes without saying that I've never been involved in any kind of harassment or rape. So the 'all men need to do is not stand silently by' argument sounds very nice and reasonable, but may actually be fairly meaningless in practise, because anyone who would act on it (and would have acted on it even before the argument had been made) would pretty much not be involved in the first place
Adi - Thanks:)
Anirudh - It's worth a read. And I agree that Aditya doesn't write enough.
Falstaff - You're certainly under no obligation to prove that you're not sexist or to actively work for an end to sexism, no. It won't end until men contribute, but I can't force you to care about that.
Not doing anything about a crime doesn't make you guilty, no. It does make you useless though.
No one is trying to test male intentions. Read the Dworkin speech - we're ASKING for male support because we need as much as we can get. All we're saying is that staying silent does not constitute support.
(I've met a few people who honestly believe they're entitled to praise and trust because they don't harrass women on the streets. This I find bizarre)
Aishwarya: Fair enough. My point is that if you're really asking for support then text such as:
"If you don't like what culture is saying about men, if you don't like the fact that women are forced to take a stance of mistrust, then you must differentiate yourselves from the men who would speak for you, and make no mistake, they ARE speaking for you."
is ill-advised. Rapists do not speak for me - and to assume that they do is ridiculous. Polemic matters, and if what feminists are saying is that they recognise that there are a lot of non-sexist men out there and they want their active support, then they're saying it exceptionally badly.
More generally, the point is that if feminists are genuinely asking for support, they're doing, in my opinion, a really bad job of it. The key to getting support is to provide specific, useful opportunities for people to contribute. Obviously one is against rape. Obviously one is against sexual harassment. They're crimes, for God's sake. Punishable by law. I don't see how saying that one is against rape is going to help - any more than saying one is against murder will bring down the homicide rate. No one thinks we're for rape, least of all the rapists. You think Hugh Heffner doesn't know that there's a whole market of men out there that don't care for his magazine? Of course he does.
I'd be perfectly happy to do something about rape. I just don't see anything that I can do that will help. So I'm going to be useless either way. And specifying what that helpful action could be is what feminists should be doing, instead of wasting everyone's time by exhorting them to do "something". Your supposedly 'wonderful' Dworkin speech says absolutely nothing. There isn't one credible implementable suggestion in the whole thing from start to finish. Just a lot of misguided accusation. That's the way you lose support, not win it.
I'm not following the exact track of this discussion. To me, the feminist perspective that all men - and all women - are involved to varying degrees in patriarchal behaviour is quite valid. I get the feeling that there's a feminist somewhere reading this who is willing to come up and call Falstaff on misdirecting the discussion by making it seem that his fight, so to speak, is fought.
Aishwarya: My apologies for spamming your comments space, but...
Roswitha: Huh? You're right, you're not following this discussion very well. I'm not saying "my fight is fought", whatever that means. I'm perfectly happy to listen to and be involved in any feminist initiative that actually tries to solve the problem. I'd love to hear something that's specific and actionable. Instead all I'm getting from loudmouths like Dworkin are a lot of empty platitudes about how I'm somehow culpable and should be doing 'something' about it. That I don't need. What is Dworkin actually suggesting? That we spend our time marching on the streets saying rape is wrong? As if that wasn't clear to everyone anyway. As if that will stop the rapists.
And I'm sure there are feminists out there who have real, workable initiatives. My point is precisely that I'd like to hear more from them and less from people like Dworkin who just like to hear the sound of their own voice. Until that happens though, I'm going to continue to support causes which actually seem to have a real agenda and real plan to get there.
"The idea that just the fact of being a man somehow makes you guilty of being discriminatory or sexist unless you stand up and prove different is an entirely presumptuous one."
No, but if you really like the idea of gender equality, you won't just stand by and watch inequality happen.
At this point, women have no choice but to assume you're dangerous. When women are raped, who gets blamed for being too trusting or too naieve or too stupid? But when women treat all men as if they could be dangerous (because you tell them they must, and if they don't, rape is their own damn fault), you whine about how you can't be lumped into the same group.
It's much easier to whine about women who "hate men" than it is to actually go out and give women a reason not to hate you when you stand by and watch society promote their rapes.
"That we spend our time marching on the streets saying rape is wrong? As if that wasn't clear to everyone anyway."
It obviously isn't. If it was, women would have as much to worry about from rape as men do.
Do you expect it to just go away? Like the Jim Crow laws did? Oh, wait.
Men are raping. It's up to men to stop raping. More men being actively against rape (as opposed to alternating between "silent" and "defensive") will help wear down a culture of rape.
If men stopped minimizing, ignoring, and joking about rape, rape becomes less acceptable. Duh.
Falstaff - But there are men who claim to speak for you. When we are told how all men check out women in the streets, all men are left defenceless when confronted with a short skirt and a nice pair of legs, all men watch porn, these are statements which claim to include you. Don't you think culture makes certain assumptions about men? Don't you think a lot of those assumptions are untrue and unfair?
Remember the Marine Drive rape last year? The Shiv Sena allegedly wrote an article on how men are unable to control themselves and women should keep this in mind and dress modestly? Lots of men spoke up against that. That's the sort of thing I mean.
You're right that saying one is against rape might be rather pointless. One would like to assume most people are (though I think a debate on what constitutes rape is still necessary). It's other things, like speaking up when a friend makes a sexist statement (I find it hard to believe that none of the people you know ever do this. A lot of my friends do, and I thought I was picky. You must be very lucky.), helping someone confront the man who harasses her on public transport, etc. These are real, tangible things to do.
I don't see any misguided accusation in the Dworkin speech at all. She knows the men she's addressing are mostly pro feminism, so she knows that they are not the perpetrators of crime against women. I honestly don't see why being asked to DO something would be seen as an attack on men or a lumping together of them with rapists. Where do you see these accusations?
Anonymous - I assume both the anonymice are the same person? Would you mind leaving a name of ome sort, please? It makes it easier if there are more than one of you.:)
"When we are told how all men check out women in the streets, all men are left defenceless when confronted with a short skirt and a nice pair of legs, all men watch porn, these are statements which claim to include you."
It's ok when MEN say that. It's only when WOMEN say it that four million male trolls creep from the woodwork to lambast and berate and insult and try everything in their power to shut you up.
Aishwarya: Sigh. Let me put it another way. You have no reason to believe that I'm sexist. You can either believe I'm guilty or you can believe I'm innocent. If you believe I'm guilty then I don't see why you would change your mind just because I say I'm not. If you believe I'm innocent, then I don't need to say it to convince you do I?
Let's reverse the argument. The Shiv Sena claims (or implies) that women who dress provocatively are effectively loose women looking for sex. Have you ever marched in protest against this? No? Then can I assume that you agree with this and that the next time you wear a short skirt it's okay to hit on you? Of course not. Why in God's name would you then believe what the Shiv Sena claims to say about me? How wrong-headed and negative an attitude can you possibly have to believe them when they say that 'all' men think this way? How indoctrinated are you? And if you're willing to believe them that easily, why is anything i say going to change your mind?
Two, the point is that Dworkin is assuming that the men she's speaking too aren't already doing all these things. What reason does she have to believe that, except her own paranoia? Why assume that I don't snub people when they make sexist remarks? Why assume that I wouldn't help a woman who was being harassed? Because the Shiv Sena says so? Come on. I'm saying Dworkin's speech is misguided because she doesn't understand the reality of what's happening. Decent pro-feminist men already do the things she's asking for (well, not the march against rape, but we agree that that's silly) - and she's wrong if she thinks that's going to make the problem go away. By haranguing them to do things they already do she's a) lowering their support for her (why should they listen to her, since she's telling them stuff they already know and are already doing) b) coming across as less credible because she doesn't have a real solution to the problem.
You don't win social justice by assuming the worst about everyone else. Dworkin has no reason to assume that the pro-feminist men she's addressing don't already do the stuff she says. Her making the assumption that they don't stinks of prejudice.
Also, notice I'm not saying anywhere that anything she's saying isn't right in some abstract sense. I just don't see how the feminist cause is helped by loudmouthed speeches like this. As I said earlier, I'd like to see constructive debate on how rape can be solved. I see no reason to believe that a march by men saying they're against rape will achieve that. I don't know what will - but I think Dworkin's (and your) time would be better spent figuring that out.
Anonymous / mice: See my post on the topic. I can't and do not intend to take up arms for every cause I think matters. I pick my fights, and Dworkin is a poor advocate for why I would pick gender issues. And I've never said that women are naive if they trust men. I maintain that they should, and I will respect anyone who does.
"Men are raping. It's upto men to stop raping." Thank you. That's exactly the kind of incoherence I'm talking about. Lumping all men into one bracket is just silly. It's like saying Muslim terrorists attacked the WTC. Therefore all Muslims are responsible for terrorism. Therefore it's okay to invade Iraq.
And as for making rape less acceptable, picture this: Rapist X is watching television. Rapist X sees large procession of men marching around saying that rape is wrong. Rapist X had never considered that men could actually think so (the fact that it's illegal hadn't suggested this to him). Rapist X realises that not all men agree with him and therefore decides never to rape again. Ya right. Good luck with that approach.
Um. Your Shiv Sena analogy. When men make blanket statements about women I do protest. I don't take to the streets, but I make sure the people around me know. It DOES bother me when blanket statements about my gender are made because it has the potential to affect how I am treated.
When did I say I believed what groups like the shiv sena claim? I only referred to that incident because it was an example of men speaking out against an unfair stereotype. I'm not stupid. I do not believe all the stereotypes about men because I have known men who proved those stereotypes wrong. Perhaps men don't have to worry as much about stereotyping because they're less at its mercy.
No one expects you start a protest march for every cause you believe in. But the little things matter. Last night I spoke rather sharply to an uncle who was rather carried away by the anti-reservation fever, enough so to dismiss every person on TV with an OBC sounding surname as an incompetent who had benefitted from a quota. Little things matter. If you see an incident of sexism, racism, casteism, you stop it. That's all there is to it.
If you're already doing these things (and I'm reasonably sure you're a good guy, so I assume you are) then none of the links I put up are addressed to you anyway. I put those up because a HUGE majority of the men I know believe that their not harrassing women entitles them to some sort of gratefulness from women in general.
So it upset you that women assume the worst about men? It's hard not to sometimes. When rapes are committed women are blamed for not thinking the worst of men. We are taught to be suspicious of men for our own protection. You know this. Do you blame us?
To go off on a bit of a tangent, during the blank noise blogathon Vulturo had a post up complaining about a woman who seemed uncomfortable sitting next to him in a train (I think). He felt (understandably) hurt by her instant suspicion of him simply because he was a man, but for some reason he chose to blame women (and the BNP in particular) for making women paranoid by magnifying the issue of harrassment. That's really the kind of thinking that led to my putting up those links.
"Name of some sort" - I really wasn't expecting to be taken that literally.;)But I have seen men protest the blanket statements about their gender made by other men too. I just wish it happened more often.
"See my post on the topic. I can't and do not intend to take up arms for every cause I think matters. I pick my fights,"
And in so doing, show everyone just how much women's safety really matters to you.
But hey, you don't rape. To quote BB, here's your Dead Cat Trophy.
And I love the "I never said that, all those other men say that all men say that, but you can't believe THEM, just me, because you don't know me from Adam and more than you know them but I'm the trustworthy one even though I think it's silly to try to differentiate myself except when I get defensive and nasty."
"And in so doing, show everyone just how much women's safety really matters to you."
In by that, I mean we all know just what kind of priority you place on women's safety.
Name of some sort, I'm curious! Who are you? :)
Aishwarya: One last clarification (because I think we're almost on the same page now; I'm not going to bother with the no names)
The point I've been trying to make all along is that healthy collaboration can only be built on mutual respect. You can't get support by saying - we want you to support us and if you don't we're going to assume you're one of THEM. That's just the wrong approach to use. I recognise that it's hard to keep that perspective. I recognise that it's hard not to be deeply suspicious of all men because a handful of them are wrong-doers. But if the feminist movement genuinely wants widespread male support, that's precisely the assumption it's got to keep itself from making. And I dislike Dworkin's speech precisely because it gives into that paranoia, and is therefore counter-productive. It effectively says - 'I won't trust you unless you agree with me and do everything I say to support me'. That's not how you build alliances.
Let's be clear - this is not a debate about feminism, or about the fact that men need to play a role in ensuring gender equality. I have no argument with that point, or with any of the measures that you talk about (though notice that what you're saying is not the same thing as what Dworkin is saying). The point of your post, I thought, was to say - men don't understand what feminism wants from them. They think that feminists want them to do all the work. That's not true. What feminists really want is support.
I think that's true. But think for a minute what evidence your post offers of this. First we have a link to a speech, no, a rant, that goes on and on about how men need to do this and men need to do that, and if they don't they're effectively as bad as rapists, but doesn't talk about a single thing that women are doing or plan to do to tackle the problem (again - I know that women are doing plenty for gender equality - I don't for a minute believe that they're depending on men, but nothing Dworkin says suggests that). Dworkin says:
" What's involved in doing something about all of this? ....don't tell me. Tell the pornographers. Tell the pimps. Tell the warmakers. Tell the rape apologists and the rape celebrationists and the pro-rape ideologues. Tell the novelists who think that rape is wonderful. Tell Larry Flynt. Tell Hugh Hefner. There's no point in telling me. I'm only a woman. There's nothing I can do about it."
And you wonder where your friend gets the impression that feminists expect men to do all the work.
You claim that Dworkin's speech is addressed to pro-feminists, men who she would like to support her cause. Okay. So Dworkin is telling these men that they're a) homophobic b) quasi-rapists c) complacent wimps. And this is supposed to encourage them to a) organise protests b) participate in marches c) attack Hugh Hefner and novelists and everyone who's ever written anything derogatory to women (never mind freedom of speech, never mind demand and supply) and somehow magically, by processes she can't possibly imagine, to organise a one-day ban on rape by "stopping your side" (so clearly people who rape are on their side, are people they have complete control over) while she's going to wait there on her stage for them to come around and "offer" this to her (notice - it's all up to them, no 'come work side by side with us', no 'help us in our efforts'). Do you really think that's a persuasive argument? Is that really the polemic you want representing your movement?
Or look at the comments on your blog. I make the mistake of arguing that Dworkin's comments are misguided and that's not the best way for the feminist movement to attack gender equality. Suddenly I'm a male troll, one of the "men" who rape, someone whose personal viewpoint is assumed to be the same as the fucking Shiv Sena's, someone who just doesn't want to fight, someone who doesn't care about women's safety. All because I argued that a certain speech was the wrong way to go about it. And this is how the feminist movement wants to win my support? This is why I should forget about the environment, forget about education, and throw myself whole heartedly into protecting gender equality? If I don't agree with a specific initiative I'm instantly someone who doesn't care, and therefore no longer worth talking to? What about my right to state that Dworkin doesn't stand for the view of feminism I believe in? Or am I suddenly not allowed to have a point of view on what feminism should or should not be saying because I'm a man? I can't think of a better illustration of the argument I've made in my latest post than this comments section.
Finally, have you seen Chandni's post (linked from DP) about myths related to feminism? Her point is that lots of people, including a number of women, believe that feminists hate men (hey! the Shiv Sena says so). I'm not one of them, but I think it's true that that is a common belief. Why is that? You can assume that it's just because we're all male trolls and are threatened by the feminists and therefore have to bad mouth them. Or you can look carefully at Dworkin's speech, carefully at the comments to this post and ask yourself the question - is it possible, just possible, that we're doing something to create that impression? That if we communicated what we want a little better (which, as you say, is participatory support from decent men) we might actually get it? (again, I'm not applying this to what you're saying - your comments have been lucid and reasonable all along; I'm applying it to all the other comments)
Bottomline: Letting people like Dworkin hijack the feminist voice is only going to increase misunderstanding between feminists and pro-feminist men. If you want widespread male support, you're going to have to find a rhetoric that's less paranoid, less inflammatory; that's more trusting, more collaborative and more specific about real solutions. That could be the start of a beautiful friendship :-).
Interesting set of links...even more interesting are the comments and discussion..
will post my two bits soon...
My own two bits (I cannot resist chiming in when anything "feministy" is happening..eheheh) Anyway, I think Aishwarya has already said most of what I want to say. But a couple of points...
*Dworkin should not be the emblem for feminism. This makes me a little sad. Feminism is one of those things that has morphed and changed so much since Dworkin. She's old school. My big problems with her are that some of her writings are grossly ethnocentric, and most of what she says is anti-sex. And Falstaff makes good points in critiquing her; her rhetoric often leaves a bad taste in my mouth. There's tons more to say about her, but that's a long post for another day. She's interesting.
*Point 2: There's this famous quote by Langston Huges about the Harlem Renaissance that I love, "The younger Negro artists who create now intend to express our individual dark-skinned selves without fear or shame. If white people are pleased we are glad. If they are not, it doesn't matter. We know we are beautiful. And ugly, too."
I know Hughes said it in an entirely different context, but for me the quote always plays in my head when I think of men's role in feminist movements. If men support us, we're glad. But if they do not, it isn't all that important. I know that seems antithetical to Aishwarya's post. But it's actually not. I'm making a completely separate point.
Feminist movements are akin to the Harlem Renaisance when an entire oppressed group re-defined how they are perceived, and created an artform independent of their most, defining force--white culture, (men, for women's movements). Hughes isn't saying that white people shouldn't contribute or support the black art that flourished during that time. He is saying, that it's not about white people. This art is for us, it's about us. We matter, in ways, we rarely have anywhere else.
It's too bad I showed up late otherwise I wouldve weighed in on falstaff's behalf. He says the exact, identical same things I was thinking when I read the stuff you linked to (though I probably would have been too impatient to have worded it quite so effectively). The Dworkin speech and the post you linked to (whilst the rage is understandable) are representative of a POV that I say as quite counterproductive to the gender equality cause. And it's just sad that just for making his perfectly valid point, falstaff can be (and is) attacked for being some kind of patriarchal reactionary.
If you ask me, the comments between you, falstaff and no name makes for a good post (which you should send to the writer of the beaver blog).
aishwarya - this was an interesting post and im quite sad to jump into the fray so late =(
this specially as falstaff has articulated exceedingly well the problems i have with the Dworkin speech and her kind of feminism which is i feel paranoid and outmoded and in the end quite harmful....
i have many male friends who consider themselves feminist, who do not hesitate in supposrting feminist causes and who do not mince their workds when face to face with mcps....yet they too are wary of some exceedingly rhetorical feminist tirades that quite frankly do not offer any solutions....
id also like to point out that we shouldnt club all feminists in one boat, feminist theory has numerous ideologies and variations and a number of feminists and feminist groups do try to think of and provide workable,concrete steps to deal with problems women face -esp on the micro level which is i think more important- rather than dated your for us or against us tirades....
hmm i hope im not incoherent....just my 2 cents....
I don't like all this Dworkin-bashing. I know her rhetoric has outlived its usefulness, but I think she raised some important points about the complicity of all men - and all women - in patriarchal standards. To me, the 'either you're with us or against us' feel of her work is less about suspicion and more about asking men to deal with women on women's terms (as opposed to historical precedent). However, I'm willing to consider this a purely emotional reading.
And aware as I am that this discussion is to all purposes over: yes, Falstaff, I did mean to say that your logic escaped me. Rape and assault are crimes, like homicide. As larger feminist issues, however, they're also byproducts of discrimination. It happens to be a universally-held feminist belief that there is such a thing as privilege, and invoking a right to remain silent does amount to invoking it. If you question the idea that such a thing as male privilege exists, it makes for a whole other discussion.
I'd also like to pose that developing something specific and actionable in this context involves a dynamic, ongoing dialogue. Still, I'm sure someone's close to hitting on that definite solution that can be presented to those who want to pick their fights.
Falstaff I have to say your general attitude in these comments seems a little too patronising, a little too self-congratulatory. You do not get cookies or medals for never having raped a woman; you do not get to say, 'why you silly feminist you're doing it all wrong, here let me help you with those brain cells' line however subtly you try to. I'd rather Dworkin 'hijack' 'the feminist voice' (which one, I wonder) than someone try to 'win' your 'support'. Yes, it should be about alliance, and it's nice to talk about 'beautiful friendships', but they can't magically appear out of a system where extreme imbalance has prevailed for, well, ages. You can't shake hands and get rid of the stink with smileys. No one can.
You resent dialectic that... I suppose it eases up on the pressure, doesn't it, replacing 'men' with 'patriarchy', you get to feel clean and detached.
And the old 'why don't you do something about it' non-argument. What, do you really think we sit around blogging 24/7?
hamlet: so help me understand this. You supposedly want male support, but you don't want male advice? Just because I'm a man I don't get to have a say in how the feminist movement should be run, I'm just supposed to blindly support whatever ill-conceived plan any feminist comes up with? Oh, and I'm not allowed to smile either? Presumably I'm supposed to be all humble and apologetic all the time. Despite the fact that I haven't actually done anyone any harm. And that's your idea of an alliance?
I'm not asking for a medal. I'm asking for the simple recognition that just because I'm a man doesn't automatically make me a supporter of rape. If you think that's unreasonable, then you're really not in a position to complain when the Shiv Sena says that all feminists are man-haters, are you?
Fine. Don't take my advice, because you think it sounds patronising (what that has to do with the logic of the argument I don't know). Run the feminist movement the way Dworkin wants to. Keep ranting about men, demanding that they somehow magically put an end to rape because it's 'their problem'. Let's see how far that gets you. All I can say is that it's a good thing there are feminists who see that that position is untenable. They're the ones I'm happy to work with.
Oh, and I've never said "why don't you do something about it" (it's amazing what you can imagine if you really want to). Dworkin is the one who's saying "There's nothing I can do about it". I'm only saying that the feminist cause would be better served by talking about the things you're doing, rather than making speeches that don't mention a single actual initiative, but just go on and on about your side vs. our side.
Falstaff: Love how you decide that, as a male, even though you're involved in a movement run by women, even though you refuse to make a stand to show support for women, you still expect to be in charge and tell them how to do things and give advice.
And what's with all the Dworkin bashing? How many bashers ever actually READ Dworkin? I'd love to hear an ethno-centric, anti-sex line from her, I really would.
More precisely, she's just a boogeywoman that people seem to invoke to try and shut everyone up, rather than an actual person who wrote books with theories in them that were supposed to be read before being commented on.
"Outlived their usefulness", huh? So 1 in 3 women are no longer being raped (DOJ) and 55k women are not unwillingly trafficked into the USA for prostitution, stripping, and pornography annually (CIA)?
Men are demanding women's unconditional respect and trust in spite of the fact that rapists and predators are indistinguishable from the "safe" ones, apparently by design, since the "safe" ones get really pissy and defensive when they're asked to prove it with their actions, but Dworkin is the problem? Uh-huh.
Feminism would probably benefit from men, but not if they're going to insist on not having their fragile little egos bruised by (A) not being in charge, (B) doing more than a dead cat and (C) hearing things like "Men rape" while being completely unwilling to actually do anything about it, and in fact, support it through their use of pornography, prostitution, and strip clubs, as well as their constant minimization and dismissal of the whole crime.
Aishwarya: Me? I'm just a random male supporter of the feminist movement who actually believes men should DO something rather than sit around and proclaim that no only are they wonderful paragons of virtue for what they DON'T do, but that they're being alienated when women ask them TO do things.
And I'm a little peeved. Sorry. Didn't mean to rant on your blog.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/crime/article/0,,1650583,00.html
i am curious what you think of this (i am sorry about addin another link but its a short article)....i think it kind of supports what sony pony said about the harlem renaissance
Oh, one last thing for Falstaff:
"And you wonder where your friend gets the impression that feminists expect men to do all the work."
Well, we ARE doing almost all the raping and committing almost all the domestic violence. But that's ok, women will clean up your messes just like they always have, right? Don't worry your pretty little head about it. You're not needed. Just go watch the game, maybe have a feminist bring you a beer too. Feminists will get right on that "clean up after men's fuckery" thing as soon as they're sure you're comfy and cozy.
Then, I'm sure they'll be happy to wash the hash marks out of your undies and fix you a nice pot pie for dinner.
Dworkin and other "sex-negative" feminists have faced a lot of criticism from within the feminist community (not just "patronising" and "self-congratulatory" men) for their apparent anti-liberalism and disregard for individual rights and I think debating the right course of action is always healthy than a paranoid "with us or against us" stance.
This is nice review of McKinnon's book which I remember reading sometime back. Its a very level headed presentation and a critique of this brand of feminism. Doesn't seem to be harming the cause of women's rights at all to me...
http://tls.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,25351-1887054,00.html
Okay.
Falstaff, Abhimanyu, it makes sense strategically to involve as many men in the movement as possible. However, if that involves counching what we have to say in terms that won't upset the menfolk, well that's just..counterproductive. That said, I still fail to see what you found so offensive about the speech.
SonyPony, I think the Hughes quote is perfectly appropriate here! Thanks, I'd never read it before.
Chandni, do comment! I'd welcome your input.
Szerelem, while I agree that feminism has numerous ideologies (about as many as there are feminists!) it's hard to dismiss people who have been as pivotal to the philosophy as Dworkin. I don't agree with everything she says, and that's okay. But I think she's still very relevant.
Roswitha, I continue to adore you. And your reading of the speech is similar to mine.
Hamletpow - Yes, it should be about alliance, and it's nice to talk about 'beautiful friendships', but they can't magically appear out of a system where extreme imbalance has prevailed for, well, ages.
Thanks. I wanted to say that in an earlier comment but wasn't sure how to phrase it and left it out. :)
Name of some sort, rants are always welcome on my blog. But do you have one of your own?
Alok - There are feminists who criticise Dworkin, yes. But the kind of healthy debate (on equal terms, I presume) that you talk about is only possible if the situation allows men and women to interact on equal terms. I'm not saying we should all just hurl abuse at each other, but it's not as simple as you seem to think.
Aishwarya, I do not for a second disagree the Dworkin has been important to the feminist movement.....to say that she helped focus attention on how society views rape and pornography is an understatement. Yet, i feel that any political philosophy has to move with the times and her brand of radical feminism is counterproductive today.....i guess i am more partial to a more liberal feminist approach to the problems we face today......
P.S: was just clarifying my stand....you can ignore this post =P
Aishwarya: I do, but I'm against self-promotion when I only have 10 posts so far. Heh.
Szerelem - I think we disagree on how effective the more liberal approach is likely to be.:)
Name of some sort - Self promotion can be a wonderful thing! Perhaps you could email me and tell me where I might find this mysterious blog? (bluelullaby AT gmail DOT com)
Aishwarya: Do you really think that the 'you're all rapists/untrustworthy bastards until you prove otherwise' approach is very effective either?
Also (not directed at Aishwarya specifically, this), I dont see where all this snark about entitlement is coming from. Guys who don't rape and believe in gender equality arent asking for rewards or recognition. I dont know why you keep throwing out that whole Dead Cat trophy thing. We're not asking for some kind of recognition for doing what any sane and moral human being should do. It's just that on the flip side, we would rather not be lumped into this all encompassing bullshit 'all men are rapist wankers till they prove otherwise' category. That's not asking for recognition. That's asking to not be insulted baselessly. I think there's a rather palpable difference.
I think falstaff's Islam analogy is a good one. The whole paranoid "All men are shit unless they prove otherwise" is so totally evocative of the crap the rightwingers spout about Muslims.
Aishwarya: Two things:
One, to echo Abhimanyu, I'm not sure how admitting that some men are not rapists, especially when it happens to be true, is counter-productive, exactly. And if not upsetting men is always and unambiguously counter-productive, then it's not clear in what sense you want their support.
Second, the point is not just strategic (or tactical). It's conceptual. By refusing to recognise differences between men, by clubbing them all together as she does in her speech, Dworkin perpetuates the logic of gender as a basis of discrimination. You can't say all women need to be treated with dignity as individuals, but all men can be lumped together into one undifferentiated mass based on their sex. Dworkin's speech puts all men, irrespective of who they are, on the side of the rapists (in so many words). Which implies that the battle lines are not between feminists and patriarchs but between men and women.
To repeat - whether or not Dworkin's approach is the more productive one is open to debate (I personally don't believe so, but apparently I don't have the right to say anything). Your post claimed that Dworkin's speech was a "wonderful" example of how feminists are looking for meaningful alliances with men. My only contention is that it's nothing of the sort. That as attempts to build alliances go, it's about as ineffective a speech as could be made.
So tell us how women are supposed to know the difference between the rapist 'wankers' and the others?
Remember, their lives and sanity are on the line. Rape is not a trivial or uncommon occurance. Think carefully. How should women tell the difference? Why should trust be the default position when their lives are at stake? Because it doesn't hurt your ego as much?
Why are you throwing a hissy fit when a woman tells you that you have to EARN her trust? That you're not just going to be granted it because you have a penis?
Aishwarya: E-mail coming later today.
You know, name, you really do seem to think in some extremely black and white terms. And for someone who rails against others for being 'defensive and nasty' you're really the only one on this comments page who can be accused of this. But then, of course, I'm guessing that to accuse you of such a thing will throw me open to counter-accusations of everything from misogyny to arrogance, but oh well.
Firstly, no one is throwing a hissy fit. As far as I can see, everyone arguing against you is being quite civil and logical. Secondly, no one (by my interpretation anyhow) is saying that trust should be the default position. It never is, under ANY social context between ANY two people unless one of the persons involved is some kind of naive idiot. What we're saying is that MIStrust and some kind of automatic categorization as 'rapist' shouldnt be the default position EITHER. This is counterproductive, insulting and reductionist. Trust should be earned, certainly. That's how it is in any social interaction/relationship. But this is distinct from assuming the guy is an amoral rape machine by default unless he's working overtime to prove to you that he isnt. That is just a ludicrous position to take. So, if we DO work overtime to prove that we're working towards gender equality, we'd be accused by you of 'asking for rewards' and you'll bandy about your wonderfully snarky Dead Cat trophy line. If we DONT work overtime to prove it, you'll assume we're rapists and patriarchs. No winning with you, is there?
I am definitely not saying that trust should be the default position. And I am agreeing with your assertion that trust needs to be earned. It's just that your whole
guilty until proven innocent default position isnt exactly a healthy way of going about things either.
And really, its not a question of ego either. It's a question of civility. Us not taking your assumptions about us too well is no different from a Muslim not taking some law enforcement type's assumptions about him too well. I'm sure you dont rail at women who dont like it when men stereotype them. When they're upset with that, you dont call it an ego issue, do you? Like it or not, stereotyping people is not a good thing, PERIOD. It's not good when perpetuated on women and - unfortunately for you - equally unpleasant when perpetuated upon men.
This has got nothing to do with ego. Ultimately, I dont care what you think of me any more than you care what I think about you. I'm betting this is true for falstaff as well. You don't know me and I don't know you. It's just that polarized thinking of your sort is what keeps giving feminism a bad name. People (and not just men) end up thinking 'oh they just hate men and want to perpetuate another kind of gender inequality' and turn away from feminist idealogy without even realizing that the majority of feminist thought is nowhere near as paranoid or extremist.
name: just out of curiosity, how do you propose that this trust be earned? What empirical test would be proof against fraud and / or hypocrisy? if you want to be paranoid, then any and every action can be construed as deceitful. is there any reason why a potential rapist can't sign a petition? Or join a protest march? Or blither away on blogs about how 'WE' are doing all this raping and domestic violence (I don't know who this 'We' is, by the way. I'm certainly not)? Imagine a world where we say - women will mistrust all men except those who take part in protest marches against pornography. What do you want to bet that every rapist out there will join a protest march against pornography, just so he can be trusted and get better access to his victims?
My point is simply this - intent is unverifiable - therefore we either take people on good faith and hold that they are innocent until they prove themselves guilty, or we just assume they are guilty and withdraw into our paranoid shells. You could argue that because of the way the cost-benefit is set up, women should do the latter. Fine. I don't agree, but you're entitled to your view. But recognise that if we choose the path of paranoia, then no meaningful alliance is possible, because meaningful partnerships are based on dialogue and trust. As the comments on this post bear ample witness, the result of paranoia is that the first time a man suggests an alternate approach or expresses any dissent towards any feminist viewpoint whatsoever (never mind that feminist themselves don't necessarily agree with that viewpoint) he's automatically assumed to have mala fide intent, of being indifferent, prejudiced or patronising. That makes any meaningful contribution by men impossible.
So I can assume neither of you will ever say, about a rape victim, "What was she thinking?" Quite frequently, she was thinking exactly what you want women to think: "Men as a general group are usually trustworthy, therefore I should be safe in this situation."
That's good to hear.
I am a bit confused about Abhimanyu's position of "Don't trust me, but don't distrust me either". What's the third option? I thought trust/no-trust was binary? If I reserve trust or suspend judgement, isn't that "not trusting"?
As for falstaff's assurances that since even rapists could do those things, it wouldn't do any good anyway, well, that sounds more like a passive-agressive cop-out. Interesting how rapists are more willing to make an effort, in falstaff's mind, to further women's causes (for "access") than a non-rapist is (because, well, why bother?). And then he says FEMINISTS are cynical and bitter! Wow.
Well, pretty much Everything seems to be binary for you, isnt it? There is a difference between MIStrust and the ABSENCE of trust. I think the latter is where most of us start our relationships with other people. Then as time goes on, the other person earns our trust or doesnt. And during that process we alter our behaviour according to trust level. For example, if I meet a person at a party, I am neutral towards them. I don't actively MIStrust them unless they do something definite to warrant that mistrust. Then as we interact further, it either leads to trust or mistrust. I thought this was a pretty standard way of building relationships. Your way cant be very easy when it comes to the formation of functional relationships. I salute you. You must be fighting a tendency to outright misanthropy everyday.
So again, there is a distinction between the absence of trust and active distrust. Like most things on planet Earth, black and white are not the only two conditions.
men and women are like the 1 and 0 in binary. They are not equal but alone they arent much either. they both complement each other and make a beautiful world :-)
Post a Comment