Nonthreatening

I was reminded today of a conversation my father recounted, as we were walking home late at night. He mentioned to me that a friend of his, a very tall black man, was fond of late-night walks but found himself frequently scaring people he happened across. The man's solution? If he whistled while he walked, people who were otherwise terrified of blacks found him less threatening.

Though I hate to compare the oppressors with the oppressed, it reminded me of another bit of advice for late-night walks. Several times I have seen feminists advise men to cross the street in order to avoid appearing to follow a lone woman at night.

Though I understand that women are well within their rights to be wary, it got me wondering: what else can a man do, either with strangers or friends, in order to be as nonthreatening as possible?

Violence Against Women and the Spread of AIDS

Men's Resources International (a quite informative pro-feminist website) has a link to a report showing a direct link between violence against women (and children) and the spread of AIDS and HIV. From the report:

If societies do not prevent violence, the rates of infection will not decrease and many millions more will suffer. More than twenty million women and children worldwide have the HIV virus. Women who experience violence may be nearly three times more likely to acquire it.

Download the entire report in pdf here.

Infiltrating Patriarchy: How and When to sell our souls

Surprisingly enough, abandoning traditional values is harder than it looks. The problem, in short, is that in a partiarchal society, conformance provides tangible benefits--and those benfits can be used ot advance whatever one's goals are--even counterculturalism.

There are two ways, I think that limited conformance can advance the cause of nonconformance. For one thing, those who conform to societal expectations oftne ge tmor erespect, which makes it easier for them to make people listen. For another, it's easier to break down one prejudice at a time. However, I do worry about the downsides of the strategy.

A salient example from my life: Because many of my interests are not terribly "masculine" I often find myself suspected of being gay. Often, I vigorously deny this. I always feel vaguely bad aftwerwards--I shouldn't emphasis my straightness as a virtue--but I feel it's important for people to undertsnad that male dancers are in fact sometimes straight.

The Problme here is that I'm faced with two stereotypes at once: once, that people who do "X" are gay, and second, that being gay is bad. Sadly, I haven't yet found an efficient way to combat both.

Similarly, as I've written about before, there are circumstances in which I am considered unusually masculine. Some subcultures--gamers, for instance, have definitons of masculinity that do NOT require that one be brawny or sports-oriented. Unfortunately, some gamer communities, while they protest against traditionoal masculinity, seem to desire little more than a shift in emphasis from muscles to IQ scores. The misogyny, trash-talking, and bullying are still there.

Among gamers, I blend in. And among them, I am often considered "manly." The problem here is that fighting the dominant mode of the culture can interfere with the message one is trying to communicate, leaving one again in a double-bind. I'm willing to endure some opprobrium for fighting the dominant culture--but if I join the trash-talking and sling a few insults, I can that much mroe influence, perhaps to speka out against bigotry. It's a pernicious double bind.

The root of the problem, I think, is that mainstream culture bombards out groups with a diverse array of negative messages. Out-groups often are subjected to two simultaneous delusions:

Group A cannot do X
X is good.

The problme here is that fighting one stereotype reinforces the other. Suppose the prejudice in question is that "gays are effeminate." If one argues that gays CAN be traditionally masculine, say by writing a tory about a kick-butt dirty cop action hero who happens to be gay, one dispells prejudices against gays at the cost of reaffirming the belief that impulsive bloodthirstyness is a virtue.

On the other hand, if one responds to the "gays are effeminate" with "what's so bad about being effeminate," one tacitly concedes that gays are effeminate.

I guess the question here is this: When a minority is criticized for failing to live up to a straight white male gender role, what is the correct response? To live up to it, to criticize, or some mixture? How does one tell, case-by-case, how to respond?

Back of the God Bus, Please

Has anybody else run into the amazingly ignorant rationalizations around the proposal to possibly ban women from Mecca?

Among the rationalizations, each of which is supposed to be a claim that this isn't about gender or sexism:

The chief of the King Fahd Institute for Hajj Research, which came up with the plan, told The Associated Press on Thursday that the new restrictions are already in place. There have been word-of-mouth reports of women being asked to pray at new locations away from the white-marbled area surrounding the Kaaba in recent weeks.

So, it's ok to do it, because we've already been doing it.

But the religious authorities behind the proposal insist its real purpose is to lessen the chronic problem of overcrowding, which has led to deadly riots during pilgrimages at Mecca in the past.

Yes. It's all about the overcrowding, with no mind toward gender at all. That's why it hasn't been considered that perhaps men ought to be banned from Mecca. Sheesh.

I just love it when men make a decision that's 'not sexist' even when they don't include women in the decision-making process and the practical effects of such a decision mean women are at a disadvantage.

Luckily, Muslim women (and some Muslim men) are standing up and saying "No.":

Aisha Schwartz, founder and director of the Muslimah Writers Alliance, started a petition in protest of the proposals, which has already gathered over 1,000 signatures. The petition begins, “The religion of Islam was revealed for both men and women. Both sexes are equal when it comes to the performance of religious duties and in terms of rewards and punishments.” According to Arab News, Muslims in 38 countries have joined together to ensure that women cannot be denied access to mosques.

The Gender Essentialism of 'Wanting a Boy'

If you haven't read Kameron Hurley's blog--which recently moved--you should. She's got what I would call a very practical feminism going on in her life which I think is fascinating; I'm not sure if she would call it that, but that's how it strikes me. In one of her recent posts, she describes a situation where she takes some coworkers to task for making disparaging remarks centered around another coworker's attempts to have a boy baby after having two girl babies:

They have two daughters, and this would be their third child. They didn't want to know the sex of the child, mainly because it seems they've been really hoping for a boy, and didn't want to be "disappointed." And there's been some murmuring around the office.

"Poor guy's been shooting blanks," Mr. T said this morning at the roundtable office meeting.

I rankled.

"Wow, Mr. T.," I said, "that was only marginally demeaning to every woman in this room."

First of all, I love that Kameron said something, 'even' in a workplace situation. This is exactly the sort of day-to-day fight that it is sometimes hard to fight as a feminist. But I think it cuts to the heart of the disingenuousness of people who say that they're not being sexist, exactly, but that they'd be disappointed if they had a girl. And I think a lot can be understood as you start to figure out why you want a child of a particular sex, whether you desire a boy or you desire a girl.

So, when one of the commentors says:

That said, if Karin and I have another kid, I'd like it to be a girl. I won't be disappointed if it's a boy -- as you said, I won't love them any less -- but it would be nice to, you know, get to see what it's like to raise a girl, too...

I immediately begin to wonder--why is it that it's different 'raising a girl'? Certainly doesn't seem like it should be different because of the sex of the baby--but it's different because of the gender that will get created around that sex. And I think it's interesting that there's a deeply-seeded idea (no pun intended) that raising a girl ought to be different--not just is different--than raising a boy. Seems to me that the similarities between the two ought to fundamentally outweigh the differences, though I know in practice it doesn't work out that way, partially because of the self-fulfilling prophecy nature of 'wanting a girl'.

The very act of wanting a boy or wanting a girl smacks of a kind of gender essentialism that bugs me. It would be like wanting an engineer or wanting a basketball player--certainly it would be a different experience raising one or the other, but why ought one have a higher value at the outset? Wouldn't it just be great to have a kid, have the kid be happy?

And what's with the idea that one can want to have a girl, but not be disappointed at having a boy (or vice versa)? Do people have a different sense of wanting than I do? When I want something, and I don't get it, there simply is dissapointment, isn't there? Sure, it may be offset in the case of children by the joy of having a kid, but that doesn't mean there isn't disappointment--and I think ignoring that fact, or trying to weasel out of it by saying "I want 'x' but I won't be disappointed if I don't get it," really points to the fact that people do see different genders as having more or less worth than other genders, which, y'know, just doesn't wash with me--it smacks of a gender essentialism that flies in the face of the various kinds of feminism I embarace.

80%

There's a great segment on Foreign Exchange about gender inequality in Africa (the segment in question is in the final third of the show). Maria Metembe, who is the Minister for Ethics in Uganda, and has been involved in Ugandan politics for many years, lets us know that 80% of the food produced in Africa is produced by women, while almost none of the land is owned by women. Watch the rest of the interview--it's full of compelling facts, and she is quite a persuasive speaker.

Being "Fully Male"

As many others no doubt feel similarly, I'm sad at hearing of the death of the Crocodile Man - a favorite of my younger step-son.

At the same time, for me the part of "Maledom" that strives for being the "manliest" and hypes dangers and trivializes much of reality to get there is not something I hope we as men will strive for.

It may be fun and silly to do lots of things! Beyong the areas of education and learning there are plenty of horrific examples I can give. Eating 50 hot dogs in 15 minutes or similar doesn't promote values I believe in. It is tragic when young men lose their lives after guzzling beer for hours on end. Driving our cars at high speeds endangers others as well as ourselves.

Values such as being a good father (or son) and listening and being present as a friend faces death don't make us as men heroes, but are really very important to me.

Striving to do better in our lives is an important value! Trying against the odds to succeed in school or on a work project or even on training for a difficult race all may be worthwhile, life affirming goals for us and those we care about.

Let's learn about animals and realistically about their charms and dangers. Let's celebrate the lives of those around us and those we may lose. Let's affirm positive life affirming values!

Thanks!

Equality, Misandry and Oppression: Part One:

Where We Agree, Where We Disagree and What We Might Want to Talk About

The comments on the list of ways that men might better participate in discussion in feminist spaces continue unabated; first we had lots of input from nobadges, and now PaleCast and others are giving us all a lot to chew on. Then Geo put some ideas out there about 'misandry' that seem to have interested some commentors as well. We've all been given a lot of food for thought, and some of my ideas around those thoughts are finally gelling into something that might be ok to post. I'm still thinking of a lot of these ideas as beginnings of conversations, not endings.

We've Got Some Good Commentors, Don't We?
I'd like to first thank both nobadges and PaleCast for their input here. I think both of these people have done more than their fair share of keeping a conversation going, keeping it interesting, yet keeping things quite civil. In a space where not too many of us agree on everything, having some solidarity in (at least) the idea that we all ought to be talking and thinking about all of this stuff is refreshing. I think this is a rare thing out here in the ol' bloggy world to have people intelligently disagree with such passion but without (much?) anger and bitterness, and it should be recognized as such. So, thanks to you both. I also encourage you both to get your own blogs--not because I want y'all to stop commenting here at all, but because I think there is plenty of room for all of our various opinions, and having many forums, however slightly or very different from each other, is almost certainly a good thing.

Where We Agree, Where We Might Disagree
Reading PaleCast's various comments, I am tempted to simply begin at the beginning, start quoting, and offer up a point-by-point list of disagreements. But I'm not sure that's the best way for the discussion to continue. Perhaps a better way (for me!) is to begin from a place of agreement, because it seems like there are a lot of things PaleCast (and others like him--hope I'm getting your gender right there, PaleCast, as I don't think you've explicitly given it) and I probably agree on.

Seems to me that we both would agree that both men and women are harmed by current structures of socioeconomic power, and of constructions of gender power, for instance. Can we agree at least on that? I think it's been clear from the start that I think that men are harmed by current power structures, and I've pointed out on various occasions how that happens, at least in 'small' ways, though my short little analyses on comic strips and advertisements. I think more in-depth discussions of that sort would be a benefit to everybody. For instance, an analysis of how men and women are treated differently in 'wartime'--whatever that word means in the present political climate!--from who-gets-drafted to who is 'in combat'--is something well worth doing. Not only would it highlight the harm that is done toward men by picking a fight, but it would be easy to show how 'the system' negatively affects everybody of every gender, and how 'the system' does that in different ways for different genders.

It's my intuition that, given possible agreement on the above problem, that one 'meta-conversation' that we might want to have surrounds not conceptions about whether or not current power systems harm men, but rather conceptions about:
1) Where discussion about how these power systems harm men ought to take place.
2) To what degree harm to men ought to take up time and energy in the larger discussion of power and harm, as well as in the 'smaller' particular discussions of power affecting women and power affecting men.
3) What are the various relationships between the harm done to women and the harm done to men (and those of other genders, too, actually) by current systems of power?

There are more possibilities of course, but it seems to me that we might agree that these are some of the questions we would like answers to, or that we have opinions on. Does that work so far?

For the next post: Where ought we be putting forth concerns about the ways that men can suffer from the current power structures around gender?

Misandry

mi·san·dry (mĭ-săn'drē)
n.

Hatred of men.

*******

I'm obviously missing a lot here!

1. I'm walking down the street regularly and Women:

a. Whistle at me and tell me what a cute butt I have
b. Stare at my breasts and can't seem to see that I have eyes
c. (Seemingly) follow me down dark streets - so I look back to see if I'm in danger of being attacked.

2. All kinds of Women's Institutions Won't Let Me In because I'm a man such as:

a. Women's Colleges
b. Many Self-Defense classes
c. Womyn's Music Festivals

Certainly women often want: "women's space" and exclude men such as me from being a part of them. I won't ever be privy to much socially in my Jewish Peace Group's young Lesbian core of leadership. Individual women may pre-judge me as a Man and may "discriminate" against me in various ways.

As men we ought to push more to be teachers in our elementary schools so that it is not "female dominated". Misandry isn't what keeps things bad for little boys (when it is bad) not having male teachers. Low salaries and difficult working conditions make the job unappealing to most men (and many women).

When Lesbians "separate" from men they rarely take "female privilige" with them. Often, though not always, men take male privilige in their hunting outings and similar.

1. As men we ought to be struggling more building support with other men.
2. As men we ought to be confronting male violence towards men and boys (as well as women and girls) and see how we are socialized to injure and kill each other.
3. As men we ought to be confronting how we are the fodder for Wars - how Older Men send Younger Men to be killed usually for no good purpose
4. As men we ought to be confronting the fact that we die at higher rates from birth on and that the rates get worse as we get older (generally) and in that sense we clearly are the "weaker gender",
5. As men we ought to confront the types of pressures that other men put on us to conform - to be "real men" in so many ways. Women may make fun of us, but Men threaten us in far more dangerous ways.

Being Male often is hazardous to our Health! While individual Women do hurt us, I don't see in general how Misandry is a major force in most of our lives most of the time. I do see many ways in which we have difficult and important work to do in bettering ourselves and in making our own lives happier and safer.

Blaming Women to me is generally a copout! Blaming Men isn't helpful either. Listening, learning and growing as Men, building "men's space" that isn't oppressive is helpful in many different areas. Being the allies of both women and men is necessary.

Expecting individual women to see us as allies is not useful. It isn't helpful to talk as White People about "Black Racism" (while it may be necessary and important to confront individual unfair situations one may encounter). It isn't helpful to talk as Upper-Middle Class People of the "oppression of having money".

We should do our best for ourselves, our children, our partners and our world!

Thanks!

More Fun with Marketing and Gender

Marketers are more and more recognizing that they need to create and play on the fears of men about aging like the create and play on fears for women around aging:

Men: You've Come a Long Way, Baby

Defend a Woman in Iraq, Get Murdered

From the Feminist Majority Foundation. Apparently, lawyers who defend women in court in cases where they have been accused of violating Islamic law, are being murdered (but, y'know, in the name of god) for it:

Since October 2005, some 38 lawyers in Iraq have been killed, many of whom were defending women's rights. IRIN News, a United Nations humanitarian news and information service, reports that at least 120 lawyers have fled to surrounding countries since January because of the threats to their safety.

Lawyers at special risk for death threats and murder are those who take cases involving violations of Islamic law, such as adultery, so-called honor killings, and cases of women asking for custody of their children. In July, Iraqi lawyer Salah Abdel-Kader was found murdered in his office with a note that read, “This is the price to pay for those who do not follow Islamic laws and defend what is dreadful and dirty,” according to IRIN. He frequently took on cases involving custody disputes and honor killings.

This isn't to take away from the negative consequences that the women these lawyers are defending will suffer--as well as those women who will now not get defended, or get a worse defense, legally, because of the exodus of lawyers from Iraq--but it does speak to the consequences of standing up for the rights of women.

More Feminism 101

Just to continue what we started, y'all might check out Martha Nussbaum's excoriation of Mansfield's recent book, "Manliness". She gives a pretty good account of a lot of basic feminism (and a pretty good account of Socratic method, while she's at it).

Among the things Nussbaum (who is something of a controversial figure as a feminist, at times, is this:

Where to begin? Since in Mansfield all roads lead back to the bogey of feminism, let us begin there. Modern feminism is a hugely diverse set of positions and arguments, but almost nobody has seriously suggested that gender distinctions ought to be completely eradicated. Indeed, much of the effort of legal feminism has been to get the law to take them seriously enough. Thus feminists have urged that rape law take cognizance of women's unequal and asymmetrical physical vulnerability. Some courts had refused to convict men of rape if the woman did not fight her attacker. In one recent Illinois case, the conviction was tossed out because the woman, about five feet tall and less than one hundred pounds, did not resist a two-hundred-pound attacker in a solitary forest preserve. But in a situation of great physical asymmetry, feminists have urged, fighting is actually a stupid thing to do, and in the Illinois case even crying out "No!" would have been stupid, given the extreme solitude of the place and the likelihood that shouting would provoke the attacker to violence. (I take this example from the feminist legal scholar Stephen Schulhofer. Mansfield utterly ignores the existence of male feminists, though they are many. Feminism is a concern with justice, not an exercise in identity politics.)

Some Answers

Not too long ago, Malachi posted about how he was troubled a bit by a friend of his plans to diet, and wondered what various ways he might act and react to it.

Today at Feministe piny (sorry, I originally credited zuzu; thanks Sara for setting me straight) has some interesting answers to similar questions. Among the answers was something I certainly hadn't thought of in this context:

Model comfortable eating. Cook for them. Invite them over for dinner. Take them out to dinner. Make them pancakes or waffles for breakfast. Stop for snacks. Carry snacks. Go to farmer’s markets and festivals. Start potlucks or movie marathons or bakeoffs. Engage in activities which build appetite, like hiking or long walks on the beach. Make eating routine. Make cooking artful. Connect it to good company and conversation. Create safe space for food.

Men and Housework

According to a story from the feminist daily news wire, women do about 16 hours of housework (things like cleaning and meal preparation) a week, while men do about 10 hours of it. And apparently this is the way things have been for about 20 years now:

Since 1985, however, progress toward gender equality in domestic work has stalled, according to the time use studies, which show a 20-year plateau that continues with the recent ATUS findings.

Any ideas on how it might change?

I live alone, now, and have had women as roommates, but haven't been living with a significant other in a long while. For the times that I did, I'm quite sure I would have reflected this statistic very well, which I'm not proud of. Recognizing this is, of course, half of the problem--but even recognizing it is complex. For instance, in the cases where a man 'just is' not as concerned about cleanliness, does this simply reflect a preference, or is it part of his socialization (i.e. mom cleaned up after him to whatever degree) that he ought to unlearn because of the sexism involved in it?

No blanket answers here, of course, and there will always be men and women who are exceptions that prove the rule--but given the 16hr/10hr statistic, what can men to encourage themselves to change around this issue?

Also, I'd be interested to hear from people who live somehow outside the glaringly heterosexist nature of these comparisons--people who are part of variously gendered couples/triples/etc. and how they do or don't see these statistics reflected in their relationships...

Feminism 101

Jeff recently posted a link to a list of suggestions for male (pro-)feminists in standard feminist communities.

They echoed sentiments I've seen in many feminist communities--first, that there is a need for spaces devoted mainly to women, and second, that it is not a feminist blogger's responsibility to teach Feminism 101. Several times, I've seen male readers advised ot employ google to get a handle on basic feminist concepts.

This is, of course, perfectly true: we *do* need spaces for women, and it *isn't* every individual woman's responsibility to explain feminism. But it occurred to me that, although we have Feminist Allies as a space for feminist men, what I haven't seen yet is that online course in feminism 101.

Google exists, of course, but I get the feeling that finding reliable information on feminist theory online might not be the easiest thing in the world. I certainly wouldn't trust wikipedia, for example.

So I'm wondering: does anyone know of a good online introduction to academic feminism? If not, would it be possible to assemble one?

More List Food for Thought

Nobadges was kind enough to give us some ideas to bounce around, with his list of things that "fem-bloggers" could do to please him.

nobadges--
I hope you don't mind if I take your list seriously, even though it has a bit of a snarky tone itself...I'm hoping that all of us better understanding what we might want over here at FA, at least, might be a good exercise. Since you and I have butted heads before, I want to make it clear that I really do think we might all be able to learn something from further examination of your list, as well--and that is something that explicitly probably ought not be done on various feminist blogs (i.e. you're definitely turning the discussion back to what bothers you....)

nobadges list points are quoted:

1. If you don't like what someone is saying, but they are being polite and reasonable, don't assume they are uneducated.

On the face of it, sounds great. Two problems, one minor, one not-so-minor. Problem one: Seems pretty 'strawfeminist' to me. Can you cite an example where this happened? I haven't seen it much, but this could just be the particular feminist blogs I read. Problem two: Polite and reasonable are, of course, subjective terms, and their definitions are often what is at issue regarding disagreements about who's 'trolling' and such. For some, being reasonable means not even marching out the tired old platitutes about 'reverse sexism', just as a for-instance. So, as a rule, without exposition on what it means to be polite and reasonable on one's blog, it doesn't get you very far. Sure, common-sense can take you pretty far, but not all the way. And presumably people are using common-sense without the explicit rules anyway.

2. If you don't like what someone is saying, but they are being polite and reasonable, don't assume they are conservative or of some other particular political affiliation.

Depends on what they're saying, doesn't it? As an extreme example, if they are saying "I am a conservative and a Republican," then you can easily take what they say and assume they are conservative and a Republican. But this is, of course, a limiting case. Still, if somebody comes along and starts spouting 'that's sexist tripe', it's pretty clear from they get-go that he or she doesn't like the same flavors of feminism I do, and probably votes more 'conservatively' when it comes to women's issues than I do. So, the context is all important, which sorta makes the rule again, common-sense, which will only take us so far.

3. Be aware that there is an entire branch of the social sciences that does not consider "patriarchy" to mean "the big boogey man that oppresses all women", that is, anthropology.

You've brought this up before, and it still puzzles me as to why you think its relevant. Every discipline (including feminist theory) has technical terms, and may use those technical terms even if some other discipline uses those terms for different ends and in different ways--even if that discipline started using it that way 'first'. In philosophy, for instance, "Idealism" has a couple of very definite technical meanings that have nothing to do with, say the Idealism talked about in Political Science. But we don't have a bunch of Poly Sci people complaining about it.

In addition, I'd hazard a guess (just a guess!) that there has been more written in feminist theory on patriarchy than there has been in anthropology. What do you think? Should antropologists stop using the term? ;)

4. Be aware that the way fem-bloggers talk about "the patriarchy" is not really even consistent with academic feminist literature.

This is overgeneralized (and not backed up by you, here at least) to such a degree to be pretty not useful. Who do you include in academic feminist liturature? What flavors of patriarchy that feminist bloggers are using are you talking about. There are differences across the board, at every intersection. Which isn't suprising. Patriarchy can be a very complex concept. The academic feminist literature I like and agree with the most (i.e. bell hooks, for example) gels very well with, say Jill at Feministe, but not so well with Lesbian Separatist bloggers.

5. If you have a moderation policy, apply it evenly to people who both support your views and who argue against your views. Hugo (more) and Ampersand (less) are both guilty of looking the other way when the fem-bloggers get snarky in the comments. Standyourground.com, an MRA site, is absolutely awful in this respect.

Great rule, though again, the devil is in the details. "Evenly" is the problem word. Is it 'even' if you let 10 men come into a discussion on rape and say 'she asked for it' if 10 men and women say 'no, she didn't'? I don't think so. Sometimes 'even' means 'a safe place for women because there aren't enough of them on the interwebby'. I think your examples of Hugo and Ampersand are interesting, because they've both been accused of looking the other way when anti-feminist commentors get snarky, too.

6. Read something, anything, besides pop feminist books and the feminist blogosphere.

Condescending much? ;) You seem to be sort of violating your own rule #1 here, aintcha? I've found the bloggers I read to be pretty well-rounded, though you probably woulnd't consider me well-rounded enough to make the judgment.

7. Don't label men who don't toe the fem-blogger groupthink line as MRAs reflexively.

This is the best rule you came up with, I think, and one of the things that Feminist Allies has taught me. There are lots of positions that a feminist man can take, and not all of them are as pro-feminist as I consider my own to be (and Dave is proably 'more' pro-feminist than I am, so it works both ways). Of course, it depends on which part of that line you aren't toe-ing, nobadges. When people come in and say things like 'that's sexist tripe!', it's easier to place them within the MRA box. Maybe not the main, MRA box, but one of 'em. Still, I think this advice is great.

8. Don't tell second wave feminists that they aren't feminists.

Well, this one is either problematic or not too useful, actually. I don't think discussions about who gets to be 'a feminist' and who doesn't only get us so far, so saying 'you aren't a feminist' isn't usually the tach I like to take. However, if you're a feminist who doesn't think that, say, people of color have some legitimate axes to grind with second wave feminism, than it's likely we're going to disagree on lots and lots of things, and doesn't seem too far out to say that we're in 'different waves'. And that third wave is better than second wave, in that it incorporates lots that second wave left out that ought to be included.

9. If you are a lawyer/doctor/expert and you participate in an open discussion that is not specifically meant only for experts of your type, do not expect everyone to be a lawyer/doctor/expert. Also, do not expect anyone to care, or take your word for whatever you are proclaiming to be the truth.

This is a complaint against feminist bloggers? Seems to me that if it's a legitimate complaint at all, it ought to be against a large cross-section of bloggers. Who did you have in mind, though? I've actually had run-ins with piny regarding workplace issues of sexism, and been told that I don't undestand law offices, so to some degree I sympathize. Still you've got some work to do to convince me that feminist bloggers are more guilty of this than others.

10. If you think that every change to culture that blurs any distinction between women and men is a good thing, that's great. Be aware that many feminists do not share this view. Refer to #1, #2, and #7 above when you encounter this line of thought.

Feminism can be quite full of complexity, a tapestry of various views, that's for sure. But again, I call 'strawfeminist'--there aren't many who profess--at least explicitly--that every change to culture that blurs any distinction between men and women is a good thing. You have somebody in mind?

Some Suggestions

This set of suggestions for men in feminist spaces that has cropped up in a couple of places again recently. I'm curious what y'all think about it.

In particular, Rule One seems apropos for discussion on this blog:

1. Realize it's not all about you. No, really! Shocked? This is because:

Corollary to Rule 1: Feminism is about women. Girls, ladies, females, grrrrlz, womyn, wimmin, whatever you call them, it's about us. It's for us, by us. Not how you feel harmed or threatened by feminism or women, or about how you are oppressed as a man. We know that patriarchy affects all people negatively - but this isn't the space to draw attention to how men suffer. I strongly encourage you to form your own men's group to discuss those issues.

Thoughts?

Feminist vs. Pro-Feminist - Missing the Main Point?

(I tried to post this elsewhere in response to another posting referenced two postings before mine and am trying to add a little to it.)

I think that whether a man can be a "feminist" or "pro-feminist" is really missing the most basic issue. Women face issues of sexism regularly in their lives (as People of Color face racism).

As men we can be "nice guys" while not substantively confronting and helping end sexism. Women have regular reminders that they are "only a woman".

For men to really be supportive of feminism we need to both support women and to affirmatively work with men to help end misogyny.

Such work can clearly be at many levels from confronting sexist jokes and statements to working with batterers and "normal men" (who aren't visibly misogynst)to help change our whole culture.

When we as men do even 25% of the work that women do, I'll start being concerned about what title we have.

In the 1960's when I was a teenager Black folks said to White folks that it was time that we should start leaving the leadership of the Black focussed groups to Black people. What nearly all of us White People missed then was the addendum that we needed to work among White people to end racism in our communities.

Similarly, it's way past the time for us Men to start doing the hard work with other men! It's much easier to cozy up to Women. It's much easier to talk with men about "safe topics". Similarly if we want to change the political status quo we need to work and organize and not to simply cozy up among our allies and bemoan our fates or celebrate the recent failures of many on the right.

In "my day" in the 1980's - men's violence issues were predominant. They're still important. No doubt today we can look at many many issues where we need to confront "maleness" and how it impacts both men's and women's lives. I would think that issues of video games, web exploitation and many other issues would become apparent to anyone who thinks much as well as militarism, homophobia, etc.

Thanks!

When "Masculine" Equals "Jerk"

100 Little Dolls has a post up about her experience as a gamer/comics fan and some of what she's had to put up with being a woman within those subgroups. She understands quite clearly that the men/boys who were spouting sexist crap were doing so in part because they wanted to bond 'as men', and that they have probably been left out of a lot of such bonding given their own geek status. She says:

I’ve been thinking and thinking about the whole situation and managed to come up with this: the guys I was around were taking part in a form of alternative masculinity. They’ve suffered the consequences of not being traditionally masculine: they’re not rich, they don’t have tight bodies or physical prowess. A way for them to prove their masculinity is through wins and game scores, and extensive comic book knowledge. Another way is verbal; by using sexist and homophobic slurs, masculinity can be proved by effeminizing their peers.

Unfortunately, I wonder what sort of 'alternative' masculinity this is. This seems to be something of the 'norm' of masculinity; the alternative involves not trying to bond with other men over misogyny....

There's a few interesting comments over there...check 'em out.

A (pro-)Feminist by Any Other Name...

Jessica over at Feministing takes a look at an article about men and feminism, and asks about men's place within feminist movement and what the heck they ought to be called, anyway...

Maybe y'all could go check it out and put your two cents in?

The original article (in The Guardian) Jessica is looking at is worth a read, as well.