Coming home from Wiscon
Jun. 4th, 2006 03:54 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sev(this has also been cross-posted to my political blog, because I keep saying I want to blog there more often.)
Coming home from Wiscon gets harder every year. For one long weekend, I can forget that the rest of the world Just Doesn't Get It, because I'm hanging around hundreds of people who, for the most part, are feminists and feminist allies who actually Get It.
This is not a con report. A con report would list all the nice LJers I spent time with -- and there were a lot of them -- and talk about more than one of the panels I went to, and such. This is a "what's on my mind now" post, which happens to reference a Wiscon panel.
At the "Feminism Fundamentals" panel, Chip Delaney said, during his introduction, that men can't be feminists. This statement went by without comment, which surprised me -- that's a controversial statement, one which usually derails the hell out of the discussion. But it did mean that for once, the comment got to ferment in my subconscious for awhile, and I got to have interesting thoughts of my own about it.
One of the other things said on that panel -- regarding something else under discussion, but good advice in general -- was that you have to pick your battles. I don't have the energy or the passion, really, to fight this battle. People who want to argue about whether or not men can be feminists will have to do it without me. However, I do want to explore, a little, why feel a lot of sympathy for this viewpoint.
Naming is a powerful thing. On the one hand, the inclusive choice uses that power to welcome allies, and that can be a good thing. I do think, however, that it's useful to examine the other choice. If we use the power of naming in a more exclusive manner -- one that excludes men, relegating them to "feminist allies" or "pro-feminists" -- what does that say?
It says a powerful thing, I think. It explicitly, linguistically underlines the problem: That it is difficult to impossible for someone raised with privilege to see through that privilege.
This is a vastly important concept, I think. I spend way too much time soothing the ruffled feathers of feminist allies, who want desperately to believe that they're not one of the bad guys. The truth is: we're all part of the problem. Every single one of us. And as long as you want to believe you're not one of the bad guys, well, you're only going to be looking for sexism outside yourself. We're all the bad guys. We've all been raised in a sexist culture and we've been treated differently according to our gender from the time we were a day old. "Feminist" is not the opposite of "sexist."
Recognizing our ingrained sexism requires quite a bit of self-examination, patience, and humility. And telling men that they can't be feminists shines a bright light on the fact that doing that self-examination through the miasma of gender privilege is a whole different ballgame than doing it from the oppressed side. Gloria Steinem has recognized that first moment of a woman's feminist consciousness awakening as a "click" -- when the pieces click into place and she realizes that this feminism stuff applies to her. The personal *is* the political. "[H]er private anxieties, anger, and despair are not personal failings but are understandable responses to the off-the-wall expectations of patriarchy." (The Mommy Myth, by Susan J. Douglas and Meredith Michaels.)
That moment is different -- and much harder to come by -- on the more empowered end of the disparity. We've all got an intellectual immune response that fires off quickly and powerfully when we're presented with ideas that contradict the stuff we've been immersed in all our lives. It says, Balderdash! I know this to be not-true. All my life, I've been told How Things Are, not in words but in actions and deeds, every day of my whole life. Any concept that flies against this conditioning has to break through that immune response. For women, that click moment is when the weight of experiencing daily oppression breaks through the conditioned response. For men, that click is harder to come by. Some men have reported that it happens when something horrible occurs to a woman they're fond of. Some men have been on the receiving end of racism, classism, ableism, ageism, or somesuch, and manage to generalize to the -isms they're not on the receiving end of. Whatever it is, something, sometimes, will break through that automatic response, and start somebody thinking about their privilege. That is, however, not the same thing as the eye-opening click of "Oh. Yes. This is about what I experience *all the time*."
I know this, viscerally. I know this, because I have experienced it in my examination of my own class and race privilege. I will never, ever be able to look at race the way I look at gender. No matter how much I think and analyze before I open my mouth, my class and race privilege comes out often, and the best I can do is to try to be aware of it, and be not just gracious but humble when I'm called on it.
This is not because I'm especially stupid. In this, I am fairly ordinary. And if you think you're especially gifted and should be an exception, I say: you're part of the problem. I know only five men who are especially gifted in that way -- and believe me, I've hunted! At least two of them don't call themselves feminists for, as far as I can tell, pretty much this reason. And all of them are candid about the ways in which they are part of them problem.
Like I said, I'm not willing to fight this battle. On the one hand, telling pro-feminist men that they can't be feminists would leave us with a much smaller, more thoughtful and dedicated cadre of pro-feminist men, and that sounds kinda refreshing. And it would be really nice to be able to stop wasting my time trying to educate people who won't or can't see through their own gender privilege. On the other hand, though, alienating pro-feminist men by denying them the power of the label seems like it's just inviting more of those same exhausting circular arguments with liberal men that already frustrate me. Call yourselves whatever you want, boys, because I'm not prepared to have another argument that's About You.
But I wish, wish, wish, that more men could do what those five Guys who Get It have done: I wish more pro-feminist men could say, "gosh, women that I profess to respect and support -- and oftentimes love -- believe that inequality exists, not just out there, but in here inside of me. And they believe that, so maybe I should try believing that, because I believe in them. Let's try, for a month, to assume that it's true: I am part of the problem, and my privilege gets in the way of me discussing it and understanding it, much less fixing it." And honestly spend that month struggling for the humility required to put one's ego aside and pay attention.
Because I know men who've done things like that, and they're better for it. And the feminist movement is better for it.
Coming home from Wiscon gets harder every year. For one long weekend, I can forget that the rest of the world Just Doesn't Get It, because I'm hanging around hundreds of people who, for the most part, are feminists and feminist allies who actually Get It.
This is not a con report. A con report would list all the nice LJers I spent time with -- and there were a lot of them -- and talk about more than one of the panels I went to, and such. This is a "what's on my mind now" post, which happens to reference a Wiscon panel.
At the "Feminism Fundamentals" panel, Chip Delaney said, during his introduction, that men can't be feminists. This statement went by without comment, which surprised me -- that's a controversial statement, one which usually derails the hell out of the discussion. But it did mean that for once, the comment got to ferment in my subconscious for awhile, and I got to have interesting thoughts of my own about it.
One of the other things said on that panel -- regarding something else under discussion, but good advice in general -- was that you have to pick your battles. I don't have the energy or the passion, really, to fight this battle. People who want to argue about whether or not men can be feminists will have to do it without me. However, I do want to explore, a little, why feel a lot of sympathy for this viewpoint.
Naming is a powerful thing. On the one hand, the inclusive choice uses that power to welcome allies, and that can be a good thing. I do think, however, that it's useful to examine the other choice. If we use the power of naming in a more exclusive manner -- one that excludes men, relegating them to "feminist allies" or "pro-feminists" -- what does that say?
It says a powerful thing, I think. It explicitly, linguistically underlines the problem: That it is difficult to impossible for someone raised with privilege to see through that privilege.
This is a vastly important concept, I think. I spend way too much time soothing the ruffled feathers of feminist allies, who want desperately to believe that they're not one of the bad guys. The truth is: we're all part of the problem. Every single one of us. And as long as you want to believe you're not one of the bad guys, well, you're only going to be looking for sexism outside yourself. We're all the bad guys. We've all been raised in a sexist culture and we've been treated differently according to our gender from the time we were a day old. "Feminist" is not the opposite of "sexist."
Recognizing our ingrained sexism requires quite a bit of self-examination, patience, and humility. And telling men that they can't be feminists shines a bright light on the fact that doing that self-examination through the miasma of gender privilege is a whole different ballgame than doing it from the oppressed side. Gloria Steinem has recognized that first moment of a woman's feminist consciousness awakening as a "click" -- when the pieces click into place and she realizes that this feminism stuff applies to her. The personal *is* the political. "[H]er private anxieties, anger, and despair are not personal failings but are understandable responses to the off-the-wall expectations of patriarchy." (The Mommy Myth, by Susan J. Douglas and Meredith Michaels.)
That moment is different -- and much harder to come by -- on the more empowered end of the disparity. We've all got an intellectual immune response that fires off quickly and powerfully when we're presented with ideas that contradict the stuff we've been immersed in all our lives. It says, Balderdash! I know this to be not-true. All my life, I've been told How Things Are, not in words but in actions and deeds, every day of my whole life. Any concept that flies against this conditioning has to break through that immune response. For women, that click moment is when the weight of experiencing daily oppression breaks through the conditioned response. For men, that click is harder to come by. Some men have reported that it happens when something horrible occurs to a woman they're fond of. Some men have been on the receiving end of racism, classism, ableism, ageism, or somesuch, and manage to generalize to the -isms they're not on the receiving end of. Whatever it is, something, sometimes, will break through that automatic response, and start somebody thinking about their privilege. That is, however, not the same thing as the eye-opening click of "Oh. Yes. This is about what I experience *all the time*."
I know this, viscerally. I know this, because I have experienced it in my examination of my own class and race privilege. I will never, ever be able to look at race the way I look at gender. No matter how much I think and analyze before I open my mouth, my class and race privilege comes out often, and the best I can do is to try to be aware of it, and be not just gracious but humble when I'm called on it.
This is not because I'm especially stupid. In this, I am fairly ordinary. And if you think you're especially gifted and should be an exception, I say: you're part of the problem. I know only five men who are especially gifted in that way -- and believe me, I've hunted! At least two of them don't call themselves feminists for, as far as I can tell, pretty much this reason. And all of them are candid about the ways in which they are part of them problem.
Like I said, I'm not willing to fight this battle. On the one hand, telling pro-feminist men that they can't be feminists would leave us with a much smaller, more thoughtful and dedicated cadre of pro-feminist men, and that sounds kinda refreshing. And it would be really nice to be able to stop wasting my time trying to educate people who won't or can't see through their own gender privilege. On the other hand, though, alienating pro-feminist men by denying them the power of the label seems like it's just inviting more of those same exhausting circular arguments with liberal men that already frustrate me. Call yourselves whatever you want, boys, because I'm not prepared to have another argument that's About You.
But I wish, wish, wish, that more men could do what those five Guys who Get It have done: I wish more pro-feminist men could say, "gosh, women that I profess to respect and support -- and oftentimes love -- believe that inequality exists, not just out there, but in here inside of me. And they believe that, so maybe I should try believing that, because I believe in them. Let's try, for a month, to assume that it's true: I am part of the problem, and my privilege gets in the way of me discussing it and understanding it, much less fixing it." And honestly spend that month struggling for the humility required to put one's ego aside and pay attention.
Because I know men who've done things like that, and they're better for it. And the feminist movement is better for it.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
on 2006-06-05 08:52 am (UTC)So, that said, the bit I'd like to talk about is the moment of male realization. I do not think it is, perhaps, as rare or difficult as you believe it to be. Certainly I think society prejudices men against accepting these moments, but I think society at large is still very, very gendered, and that privledge (and sexism) is increasingly being hidden in the guise of gender ("men are more math-oriented, women are more language-oriented.") But I think that, if men are open to the IDEA that they might have internalized sexism, have been introduced to the concept that, maybe, gender roles are more limiting than in any way beneficial, that these moments are easy to come by.
For myself, one of the most significant was when I realized that I was really much more comfortable with a female therapist than a male theraphist. And that this realization came as an /abstract/, and not in the context of a specific set of therapists. To me, this was a huge, forced, acknowledgement that I had internalised gender roles, of female as caregiver or listener, of female communication being more 'valuable', 'honest', 'insightful', or 'emotionally aware.' I know that I got a lot of this from my mother, I know that this is a GENDER role that I propogate, and that it is something I should work against. But... I have to be comfortable with my therapist, and so I have to look at this and say 'yes, it is there,' and I can't push it back down and say 'no, no, I don't REALLY believe that.' I'm confronted with it.
Now, there were many other moments, but it did depend on me getting away from home. At home, my mother (who does have some very 60's sexist views on men and woman and gender) was the 'external' sexism, and so I had no reason to confront my internal sexism. I could fight it by talking with her. It was part of who I was, hwo I grew up. Once I got out, and I was interacting heavily with people who did NOT have this viewpoint that I grew up with, THEN I could see just how much I had internalized it even AS I tried to argue against it. And how many other little things that just... are obvious to me once I stop and go 'wait, why am I nervous to talk with him about this?' or 'why do I assume that /he/ will lead the project?'. So I do not think that these moments are rare, I just think that we are condiitoned to accept them as valid gender roles.
(Brief reason why I believe men should adopt the label feminist: I think that feminism has a very strong image, in men and woman, as a radical, extremist label. SCUM and women going to France to avoid patriachial language and such. It's become it's own little gender role, and people an ignore it beacuse of that. I think that this is one of the main CHALLENGES of feminism, that women say 'I am not a feminist' because they think of it as so extreme, and that men reject feminism as stupid sixties stuff. And I think the principle way to normalize feminism is for people to know feminists, and for people to know feminists who do not FIT their model. And that men are a powerful vehicle for this, because it trangresses the gender role of feminist, and forces people to think about what is actually there.)
no subject
on 2006-06-05 09:55 am (UTC)Perhaps it is the depth of realisation at issue here? I agree that it's not that rare, a lot of men run into it when they have daughters. There has been an interesting study on how having female children affects congress members voting patterns for example, and on how female children affect the political preferences of their parents.
Deep change tho', deep realisation and working out what to do about it - that's rarer. It's relatively easy to hold an equal opportunity position without getting deep into the roots of sexism.
no subject
on 2006-06-06 08:08 am (UTC)Hmn. I feel this post needs more revision, but I have to leave, so I'll let it stand.
no subject
on 2006-06-06 07:24 pm (UTC)That is exactly the difference. Slumming does not teach one what homelessness is really like. As long as you have your credit card or a checking account available at the nearest ATM, you are not only not experiencing homelessness, you are giving yourself a false impression of the experience. No matter how long you spend on the street or what limitations you decide to put on what you can and can't do.
As long as you can choose to escape X, you are not experiencing what it's like to be X. A male cannot experience what it's like to be a woman until that point when she has a major, irreversible operation.
That men are limited or injured by sexism is a separate, minor, not-particularly-helpful issue. It's the weak, filler argument one uses when one wishes to make five points instead of four. And one that I, personally, as a man, am very reluctant to bring up when talking about feminism, because my talking about sexism's effects on men is like my talking about how someone should put out a fire while absently adding wood to it.
no subject
on 2006-06-06 08:36 pm (UTC)...
A male cannot experience what it's like to be a woman until that point when she has a major, irreversible operation.
Now I'm sure you didn't intend it that way, but that came across as actually kinda offensive. Now, I am very much a third-wave feminism kind of person, so I expect we have to take the discussion up a level, but first:
I am certainly not slumming, I am not trying to experience what it is like to be a woman. When I transgress my expected gender, I do so because I am expressing my identity. Which is closer to male than female if you have to choose one. (genderqueer or agendered if you don't, but still want a label.) Even if I were to wear a skirt to work, I would not experience what it is like to be a woman.
There are two experiences that I think I've been talking about.
The first is that sexism exists in other people, that is negatively affects me, my loved one, and society as a whole, and that it does not have to be intentional to be destructive.
The second, and the one that I think is most significant, is that sexism exists /in me/. That I have internalized gender roles, that these gender roles are not FAIR to the people around me, that I do act from them.
That men are limited or injured by sexism is a separate, minor, not-particularly-helpful issue. ...
I disagree. Really quite strongly, but I suspect because we are talking about different issues. I am not intending to talk about prejudice against masculine social traits, as I do not question the overall privilege of masculine roles. I am talking about the fact that I am ascribed these masculine traits whether or not I possess them.
I think the notion that (societal) gender is a limiting, damaging construct is important. Yes, it is very important to say 'It is wrong that feminine gender roles are viewed as weak, aberrant, and not worthy of prestige, respect, or power. We as a society devalue not only the people in the role, but the accomplishments of the role.' I think it is also important to say 'People should be able to choose/express their roles, their identities, and their behaviors. That a behavior or identity is privileged or undervalued does not change the fact that someone should be able to adopt it. Regardless of sex.'
It still a restriction of my identity that I am expected to be emotionally simple, to be rational, to be self-sufficient, etc. That these traits are idealized removes the additional prejudice against traits that are ascribed to me.
And I think that acceptance of the second statement is an important step in resolving the very real problems of the first. By removing the false link between sex and gender, we force into question the validity of prejudice against gendered traits. Now this is not to imply order, that we first must 'fix' gender and then 'fix' sexism, as the converse is true as well. By remove prejudice against gender roles, we allow people freedom to adopt or reject them as choices.
So perhaps what I mean to say is that, by escaping into normal gender I avoid confrontation about how my gender conflicts with the expectations others place on me. This propagates normal gender roles, both by not challenging them in other people, but also by not challenging them in me. Without that conflict, I have one less chance to realize how I've internalized sexism.
And, finally, I believe that talking about sexism's effect on men has an important role in placing sexism in context. Without it, I think we risk falling into an 'us vs. them' mentality. WOMEN are hurt by sexism, so MEN are at fault. THEY are hurt by sexism, so why should I care. But I can certainly see the argument that by saying 'sexism is damaging to men' I am implying 'so why are women bitching? Hurts us too!' if there is no explicit acknowledgement that prejudice against feminine gender. The comment about the discussion taking up too much space is entirely valid.