"Women's basic grievances are seen as essentially reasonable; even the most blustery antifeminist these days is quick to say that, of course, he favors equal pay and equal opportunity. What women are challenging is something that everyone can see. Men's grievances, by contrast, seem hyperbolic, almost hysterical; so many men seem to be doing battle with phantoms and witches that exists only in their own overheated imaginations. Women see men as guarding the fort, so they don't see how the culture of the fort shapes men. Men don't see how they are influenced by the culture either; in fact, they prefer not to. If they did, they would have to let go of the illusion of control.
Today it is men who cling more tightly to their illusions. They would rather see themselves as battered by feminism than shaped by the larger culture. Feminism can be demonized as just an "unnatural" force trying to wrest men's natural power and control from their grasp. Culture, by contrast, is the whole environment we live in; to acknowledge its sway is to admit that men never had the power they imagined. To say that men are embedded in the culture is to say, by the current standards of masculinity, that they are not men. By casting feminism as the villain that must be defeated to validate the central conceit of modern manhood, men avoid confronting powerful cultural and social expectations that have a lot more to do with their unhappiness than the latest sexual harassment ruling."(pp13-14)
Thursday, October 25, 2007
Why MRAs Want to Kill the Messenger
I've just started reading Susan Faludi's 1999 book, Stiffed: The Betrayal of the American Man, and so far I'm impressed with both the depth of her analysis and her writing style. Apparently she was lambasted from all sides when this book came out--some feminists thought she was being easy on men, and anti-feminists were pissed she was writing a book about men at all. But (so far, at least) she seems to simply be taking the concerns of how men get screwed by patriarchy seriously, not offering up excuses for men. And she's got the most succinct response to prototypical MRA concerns that I've run across, while at the same time offering up a sketch of an alternative way of understanding some men's reactions to feminism:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I am unable to connect with anything that Susan Faludi says in that passage. Not that I disagree with it, but simply that it doesn't register.It doesn't line up with anything. It sounds like a lantern-slide that she is projecting onto the real world.
What the hell is Susan Faludi even talking about..? Does SHE even know what she is talking about?
Thus, it appears to me that Susan Faludi is building houses of straw - straw as in "strawman fallacy", I mean.
Finally, to round off Faludi's catalogue of offenses, she is patronizing. Which is something that I, personally, don't take kindly.
Anyway, just for the the record: the Movement is growing and it will NOT disappear down any imaginary drain hole. Nor can it be "pooh-poohed" out of existence! Sooner or later you guys will need to negotiate with our side, at a level negotiating table.
Peace. ;)
Fidelbogen--
In the interest of actual discussion of this stuff, I have a question as regards your statement:
"I am unable to connect with anything that Susan Faludi says in that passage. Not that I disagree with it, but simply that it doesn't register.It doesn't line up with anything."
From a cursory look at your blogs, you seem to see yourself (and men in general) as "battered by feminism, rather than as being shaped by the larger culture."
My question is this: Is there any way for you to connect to what Faludi is saying by agreeing or disagreeing the above statment?
fideblogen,
I view what she describes in that passage as a very clear analysis of what for many men is the fundamental concern they have with feminist philosophy.
For men to admit they are shaped by the larger culture is a tacit indictment of not being shaped by their own destiny. To implicate feminism makes perfect sense for the man who doesn't, or can't, admit that he participates in a culture where he is given, and uses, unearned advantage. The "feminism is attacking men" argument misses that entire premise. Or perhaps simply ignores it, through a complete rejection of the current reality of female inequity.
I've looked at your site, and while I fundamentally reject your entire premise(that as a result of feminism men are an oppressed class), you are clearly not a stupid man. I'm guessing that the implication in the Fauludi passage is one you understood all to well, since nowhere do you disagree, you just "can't connect", or fail to understand her central premise. No offense, but I read that response as transparent.
Well put, alto. Thanks for commenting.
Post a Comment