The Feminist Current is a great site for understanding and staying up to date with feminism in Canada. This quote is from the conclusion of an article about the Vancouver Slutwalk, but addresses what many feminists find problematic about what Slutwalks are about. The italics are mine.
“Despite numerous criticisms, it appears as thought nothing changed for Slutwalk in Vancouver. Except for, according to Charlie Smith, the author of the Georgia Straight article, a more overt message advocating for the legalization of prostitution.
The fact that an event that could have addressed male violence against women is instead being co-opted in favour of promoting prostitution as a potentially empowering choice for women and working to normalize male power and privilege by decriminalizing pimps and johns is, well… it’s fucked. I simply fail to see how decriminalizing violent and abusive men will prevent sexual assault and promote equality. I fail to see how advocating to further entrench a deeply misogynist and sexist industry works towards equality or addresses sexual assault. Yes, we want to stop blaming victims for their own abuse, but do we want to do that while simultaneously normalizing an industry that hates women? It is even possible to stop victim blaming and sexual assault while simultaneously working to reinforce male power and privilege? Somehow I doubt it.”
bleatmop
Mystro
Dead Wild Roses 
10 comments
April 15, 2013 at 9:56 am
VR Kaine
Ridiculous. I’d like to think that this sort of thinking is loud, but becoming more and more scarce, but then I see a couple weeks ago that we had two young girls hang themselves after being not only raped, but then bullied and humiliated by a bunch of high school boys – not just “boys”, but future “men” in business, politics, industry.
What do you think these guys are going to do later in life when they see something like a s-walk? Probably what these male bureaucrats are trying to do now.
While I disagree with the methods of the s-walk crew, having their cause/premise be hijacked like that is b.s. and to me, just more evidence of what’s wrong with the system.
LikeLike
April 15, 2013 at 12:09 pm
The Arbourist
@Vern
The blame can be attributed to the system that supports this attitude: Patriarchy. Patriarchy is toxic for both women and men. Yet discussions of said system, that creates such perversity are few and far between, and more often that not dismissed as “bitter feminist rants”.
Our culture is a rape culture and until we mobilize and organize to change the system of oppression (and yes it is a fracking system of oppression) we will have live with the results as you have mentioned.
LikeLike
April 16, 2013 at 9:04 am
VR Kaine
Patiarchy = toxic – I agree. At first glance I’d say we could simply choose to have that word mean only the good and not the bad, but I believe there’s too much toxicity inherent in it to be worth trying to salvage. For me, words like “fatherly”, “gentlemanly”, “chivalry” are enough on their own (as far as “gender” is concerned) to guide proper behavior out from under the Patriarch umbrella.
Beyond that, of course, are words like “kindness”, “leadership”, and “respect” are great on their own as well.
Re: discussions, I found this definition over at “Feministcritic.org” (courtesy Ballgame) that I think is a useful one for “discussion of said system”:
“Patriarchy is a system of rigid rules and expectations around gender that unjustly overvalues certain qualities and undervalues others. Typically, dominant males are overvalued, and the average woman’s macropolitical agency is significantly constrained.”
Personally, I find it more useful than the basic Wikipedia definiton, that says basically that ‘guys hold all the cards, make all the rules, and screw everyone else’.
Here’s why – it prevents giving men two easy paths to totally wrong and insecurity-based identities to cling to, which is either that they get their backs up all defensive and try to juxtapose as the villain (“I have the power? Look at all the ways *I* get screwed!!!”), or perhaps worse they get this false sense of power, all Alpha (so to speak), and try to “fix” things that they have no real clue of or power over to begin with (“Well since I have the power then this is what *we’re* going to do!”). This isn’t limited to women’s issues – take the economy for example as well. Anecdotally, I think this applies to millions of men.
To me, the power is and/or the freedom isn’t the problem, it’s the restraint, respect, and wisdom that’s supposed to go with it that clearly isn’t. If one agrees with that (?) next comes the million dollar question: is it more effective to promote traits that I’ve listed like “chivalry” into the Patriarchy, or is it more effective to try and neuter it or eliminate it altogether? Curious to your thoughts (anyone’s) as I ponder the next couple posts in the blog.
LikeLike
April 16, 2013 at 9:08 am
VR Kaine
(Oops – Two add-ins to above: “behavior out of men” in 1st paragraph, and “isn’t necessarily the problem” in the last paragraph.). Sorry! :)
LikeLike
April 16, 2013 at 10:49 am
The Intransigent One
First of all, I really like the definition of patriarchy that you found.
And then I would argue chivalry is bullshite. Never mind the fact that it was only ever afforded to women of the classes who “matter” (read “Ain’t I a Woman” for more about this), it’s based on the premise of, I’ve got all the power so I can afford to be nice.
Overall, I would argue that promoting the so-called good traits of patriarchal masculinity, within the framework of patriarchy, really does very little to advance the cause of the greater flourishing of humanity. Yes, it would mean that men would be expectfred to be benevolent despots, which I suppose is better than malevolent despots, but the underlying problem would still be there: the division of traits and activities into classes of masculine and feminine, the artificial boxing-up of people into masculine and feminine roles, and the overvaluing of masculinity at the expense of femininity. Rather, I would argue for scrapping the gendered value system, dissociating character traits and activities from gender entirely, so that everybody could truly freely choose from the full buffet of who to be and what to do, without social or economic coersion – there wouldn’t be an economic hit to take for choosing to work in a feminine-identified job like social work, or a social hit for being a man who cries easily. Conversely, women in leadership positions wouldn’t have to worry about whether they’re being bitches, because it would be comfortable and OK for a woman to be in a position of authority and sometimes get justifiably angry. People could just be who they are, and do what they’re good at, without all the artifical constraints of gender imposed on them.
I know this is all really optimistic, pie in the sky fantasy today, but I really do believe that it’s the future state we should be striving for, and that dismantling traditional notions of gender is a major part of how we get there.
LikeLike
April 16, 2013 at 3:24 pm
VR Kaine
“First of all, I really like the definition of patriarchy that you found.”
Thank you :) Been reading some of the discussions over there (feministcritic.org) and finding them interesting.
“And then I would argue chivalry is bullshite. Never mind the fact that it was only ever afforded to women of the classes who “matter” (read “Ain’t I a Woman” for more about this), it’s based on the premise of, I’ve got all the power so I can afford to be nice.”
Interesting re: the history however I disagree on the premise if you’re saying that’s where all chivalry in men now days comes from.
I may be getting into the nuances here, but I don’t think “nice” is something that has to be “afforded” at all as any sort of give and take. All it takes is respect and goodwill, therefore intent comes into question here – is a guy being chivalrous just to manipulate women, or to appease his own self-image where he knows deep down he is an a-hole, or is he really just doing what he’s doing out of respect and good will?
Huge difference. Everyday situations are one thing, but what about life & death situations? I have a hard time believing any of the guys in Aurora, for instance, who covered their wives/kids/girlfriends the second bullets started flying were thinking at all what you’re suggesting. And even in day-to-day situations I think there can be night and day difference as to why a guy is being chivalrous, and that I think is what we as a society are not looking close enough at which is why many men feel alienated from this cause. But I digress…
One can argue whether the male privilege should even be there in the first place, but if it’s there, then I think we should at least try and act like we deserve it in the same way as self-made billionaire respects his privilege, or a black-belt holder respects theirs, or like anyone in life/death situations as a career respects theirs – with a worthy cause and respect and humility for that cause being behind who we are everything that we do. Are most men doing this, however? I don’t think so. If they were, we’d be hearing complaints about most men being over-protective but instead we hear just the opposite and I think that’s in part to words like even “chivalry” now being villified.
Anyways, in closing on the chivalry thing I get the idea of your premise but for me personally, it’s expanded a bit more to this: “(If) I’ve got the power here then I’d better act worthy of it – even when others aren’t being nice to me. If I don’t, then I’d better STILL act worthy of it – even when others aren’t being nice to me.” It’s not perfect and I’m not perfect, but it’s what I strive for rather than saying anything chivalrous is bad.
“I would argue for scrapping the gendered value system, dissociating character traits and activities from gender entirely, so that everybody could truly freely choose from the full buffet of who to be and what to do, without social or economic coersion – there wouldn’t be an economic hit to take for choosing to work in a feminine-identified job like social work, or a social hit for being a man who cries easily.”
With respect (because I know this is a touchy subject), I think the problems exist largely because we try and overgeneralize for the sake of feelings to start with, and then they get worse because when we do so we inherently tend to expect others to be more like “us” as one big group where everyone’s supposedly the same.
I don’t think we can generalize to the entire degree being suggested because I believe there are places where gender does actually make a legitimate difference. In business running a company in the same role doing the same things? There should be no difference economically whether male, female, white, black, short, tall – you pay for the effort towards an expected result and none of those factors matter.
Do I think men should have to work more hours for the same pay, though? Be the one to have to work late or take on that second income to make ends meet for the family? Yes I do. Do I think we should be last in the lifeboat or first to take a bullet? Yes I do. Do I think both parents are “equal” in a divorce court? No I don’t. Should we be the first to take a pay cut? Yes I do because in the end this is what we get for having all the other privileges we have, and in the end, to me a female life is worth more than a man’s.
That’s perhaps something everyone here disagrees with and albeit perhaps a weird double-standard, but I believe it all comes with whatever privileges we happen to be granted, be they from society or nature and if we get to enjoy the upside, then we should suck up the downside.
Also, your example of the social work job – I think that’s more to do with capitalism and perception of immediate value than gender dynamics. Social work is far more separated by its moetary or cathartic emotional value by a great distance of time and space than say, a sales job or an acting job. (This is similar with the teaching profession as well). We’ll pay a movie star more than we’ll pay a teacher I think for that reason but by the same token I believe men make more money as movie stars than women do? (Still the case? I know they used to…) Anyways, agreeing with you, just not particularly with the comparison.
“Conversely, women in leadership positions wouldn’t have to worry about whether they’re being bitches, because it would be comfortable and OK for a woman to be in a position of authority and sometimes get justifiably angry. People could just be who they are, and do what they’re good at, without all the artificial constraints of gender imposed on them.”
My initial thought is “they shouldn’t feel like bitches” – but I think it was you who gave me this advice before that a guy should never tell a woman what she should be feeling, or take away her right to feel whatever. Good advice and one which I took to heart (thank you!). In the context of the discussion it’s still valid to make the point, however, that a man can just as easily act like a jerk/a-hole/or even a “bitch” in that situation as a woman can, and yes, it is often perceived differently which is wrong, but I also notice a key difference – most men of those types in leadership positions don’t “worry” what others tend to think of them in those situations, and as for what they think of themselves after being a jerk/bitchy/an a-hole, I think most guys would just dismiss it after a quick beer with the fellas if it wasn’t really bothering them, or unwittingly do a bunch of b.s. “nice guy things” (b.s. chivalrous things?) to offset it if it was disingenuous? Kind of ties back to the first thing we were talking about.
Anyways, my experience in business has been that women choose/have to go to “bitchy” probably 5%-10% of the time. Men, I find, are usually bitchy 90%-95% of the time. Three comments on this in the context of what you’re saying:
1) If reversed, these stats end up being criticism for either gender. Women become “hags”, “battle axes”, and “too rigid” and men become “wussies”, “too soft”, or “too spineless”, and neither typically get promoted.
2) There’s all this discussion about how men have to be one way and women another when it comes to leadership, but in reality the best research and literature seems to show that both have to be both. You’re perhaps saying both shouldn’t have to be either, but I’m agreeing that it should be stripped of “gender”.
3) Like Canada and the U.S. over health care, I think both sides (male and female) are too “afraid” of coming across too much like the other side. Speaking in generalities, men need to learn from women how to be more empathetic as leaders and perhaps women need to learn from men how to be more apathetic.
4) Or, it could be that both men and women know very well how to do/be either and we’re just hung up on letting societal norms get in the way of who we truly are. ;) As the literature also shows, the leader should be adaptive to the style of the follower, not the other way around.
OK, as exhausted typing as anyone else probably is reading. Appreciating the discussion, though, so thanks. :)
LikeLike
April 16, 2013 at 3:29 pm
The Intransigent One
tl/dr for my wall of text: The problem isn’t that men are irresponsible with the power their social dominance gives them. The problem is the unequal distribution of social power, along gender as well as other lines. The solution isn’t to pretty please ask the powerful to play nice, it’s finding a way to empower the disempowered.
LikeLike
April 16, 2013 at 3:54 pm
The Intransigent One
Oops, cross-post. I find it very interesting that you say that a female life is worth more than a male one, and you’re right, I do disagree – on both the “is” and the “ought”. I don’t believe that the men in that movie theatre had any moral duty to sacrifice themselves to protect their female partners. They went above and beyond moral duty and into the realm of the supererogatory, and I’m glad they did. But there’s no reason I shouldn’t take a bullet for ARb, instead of the other way around. I would like to believe I would, though I fervently wish to never find out.
I do agree with you that market forces are involved in the devaluation of traditionally-feminine work; where we disagree is whether market forces are a sound justification for paying a kindergarten teacher less than a oil rig worker. I would argue that market forces act to support the status quo and the interests of those who have money. Maintenance of patriarchy is one aspect of the status quo.
Market forces are amoral, just like evolution. And just as we interfere with natural selection when its results are morally repugnant (for example, we care for children with disabilities; we don’t leave them to die), we have a moral duty to interfere with markets when they produce results that are unjust. I’m not an economist, I don’t know how to make it happen without also causing other forms of injustice. I’m being a wild-eyed idealist again.
And on the bitch thing – not so much that women authorities worry if they’re bitches; they have to worry about what other people think, and the range of acceptable behaviours for women can be incredibly narrow, nmeaning that women managers walk a delicate tightrope of being effective while not alienating their staff or their superiors, in a way that men don’t necessarily have to.
LikeLike
April 16, 2013 at 6:36 pm
VR Kaine
Thanks for the clarification and all good points. I’ll try and keep this short(er?). :)
“The problem isn’t that men are irresponsible with the power their social dominance gives them.”
I think the problem you define in the second part is the same as the first. Why the unequal distribution? Because when power isn’t properly earned through the proper cycle of challenge, growth/development, insight, and new challenge, you end up with a bunch of (very) insecure men who act very irresponsibly (or worse) when fear is the primary motivator.
Not only that, but when fear is the motivator, how easily do you think someone will concede any of that power?
“But there’s no reason I shouldn’t take a bullet for ARb, instead of the other way around.”
So you’d both flip a coin and argue in that movie theatre? Just kidding – I get what you’re saying and agree. My thing is that I think guys should be taught this to, anyways. Not as something to brag about or try to hold over anybody’s head – if that’s the result then the lesson wasn’t actually taught – but rather as a lesson in values and courage that seems for us men to make the rest of our makeup function properly.
“where we disagree is whether market forces are a sound justification for paying a kindergarten teacher less than a oil rig worker.”
That’s not a good comparison. The oil rig worker can see a clear pool of profit that the company receives off any individual rig. They can then negotiate the value of their work on the basis of it being a portion of that profit.
With the kindergarden teacher, that pool of profit doesn’t exist and there’s no direct line between effort and result in the traditional teaching role.
As for the interjection to add morality to the market, what individual authority gets to decide what the morality is? I think if you try and inject morality into the market it becomes even more of a mess than it is now. “Morality”, after all, would say that we all should own our own homes – even if we can’t afford them. :)
Personally, I think a more “pure” (not “free”) market offers the best morality because it fosters a free choice between buyer and seller, which government is supposed to protect. We don’t have that now, forever – Government isn’t keeping the market clean.
LikeLike
April 16, 2013 at 6:36 pm
VR Kaine
IO,
You say: “….I would argue that market forces act to support the status quo and the interests of those who have money.”
I would say “Only with government’s support can market forces be rigged to support the rich” I disagree with your original statement because this same market can upset “those with money” and give it to those more deserving, and when government plays its proper role we the people get to decide who’s deserving with the vote of our dollar. This same market made Apple’s turnaround and J.J. Rowling’s success, after all. :)
To be clear, though, I think the market we have is horribly rigged and that corporate interests have hijacked and perverted it, so in a lot of ways we agree. Plus, I think this is the economic impact of “The Patriarchy” – insecure men in business pairing up with insecure men in government to stack 66%-82% of the deck against us in order to protect their “turf”.
Case-in-point: restaurant workers and Herman Cain (former Republican candidate). He was the head of the National Restaurant Association and locked-in the industry’s $2.31 minimum wage he protected in a sweetheart deal with Congress.
Not sure how to embed this video, but it’s worth watching and in many ways makes both of our points, even if we disagree on the finer details of who should interfere.
http://vimeo.com/63992039
LikeLike