Popularity? Posting “too much” on the feminism tag? Do I give two shits? Things don’t change if people don’t know about it, so off we go – a few things that feminism is actually fighting for. Oh and go read the whole post on “If I Admit That “Hating Men” is a Thing, Will You Stop Turing It Into A Self-Fulfilling Prophecy?”.
(ed. Italics mine for highlighting the theme of what feminism is actually fighting.)
”Feminists do not want you to lose custody of your children. The assumption that women are naturally better caregivers is part of patriarchy.
Feminists do not like commercials in which bumbling dads mess up the laundry and competent wives have to bustle in and fix it. The assumption that women are naturally better housekeepers is part of patriarchy.
Feminists do not want you to have to make alimony payments. Alimony is set up to combat the fact that women have been historically expected to prioritize domestic duties over professional goals, thus minimizing their earning potential if their “traditional” marriages end. The assumption that wives should make babies instead of money is part of patriarchy.
Feminists do not want anyone to get raped in prison. Permissiveness and jokes about prison rape are part of rape culture, which is part of patriarchy.
Feminists do not want anyone to be falsely accused of rape. False rape accusations discredit rape victims, which reinforces rape culture, which is part of patriarchy.
Feminists do not want you to be lonely and we do not hate “nice guys.” The idea that certain people are inherently more valuable than other people because of superficial physical attributes is part of patriarchy.
Feminists do not want you to have to pay for dinner. We want the opportunity to achieve financial success on par with men in any field we choose (and are qualified for), and the fact that we currently don’t is part of patriarchy. The idea that men should coddle and provide for women, and/or purchase their affections in romantic contexts, is condescending and damaging and part of patriarchy.
Feminists do not want you to be maimed or killed in industrial accidents, or toil in coal mines while we do cushy secretarial work and various yarn-themed activities. The fact that women have long been shut out of dangerous industrial jobs (by men, by the way) is part of patriarchy.
Feminists do not want you to commit suicide. Any pressures and expectations that lower the quality of life of either gender are part of patriarchy. The fact that depression is characterized as an effeminate weakness, making men less likely to seek treatment, is part of patriarchy.
Feminists do not want you to be viewed with suspicion when you take your child to the park (men frequently insist that this is a serious issue, so I will take them at their word). The assumption that men are insatiable sexual animals, combined with the idea that it’s unnatural for men to care for children, is part of patriarchy.
Feminists do not want you to be drafted and then die in a war while we stay home and iron stuff. The idea that women are too weak to fight or too delicate to function in a military setting is part of patriarchy.
Feminists do not want women to escape prosecution on legitimate domestic violence charges, nor do we want men to be ridiculed for being raped or abused. The idea that women are naturally gentle and compliant and that victimhood is inherently feminine is part of patriarchy.”
bleatmop
Mystro
The Arbourist
Dead Wild Roses 
19 comments
April 24, 2013 at 9:11 am
syrbal
Since I am not naturally gentle and compliant, it may mess up some of those other things….there may, for instance, be a few men out there that I wouldn’t really give a rat’s ass if they DID get raped in prison….especially since THEIR patriarchy created that kind of a situation in the first place.
LikeLike
April 24, 2013 at 9:39 am
heinrich
Interesting.
Every instance of “feminists do not want you…” is clearly addressed to specifically to men.
It’s as though the understood assumption is: a man cannot be a feminist.
Or: a man cannot even understand what feminism is.
False dichotomy, no?
LikeLike
April 24, 2013 at 10:15 am
The Arbourist
@Heinrich
The notion that men cannot be feminists can be related to the idea that whilte people in western society cannot feel the full effects of racism and oppression because they are a part of the dominant class and thus, have the systemic properties of a racist society working for them whether they want it or not.
Similarly, men can espouse feminist doctrine and know what it is ‘like’ to be a woman in a patriarchal society, but it is not quite the same as being conditioned and groomed from birth to be part of the subordinate sex class.
What it takes to understand feminism is the rare and cherished ability to listen to what women are saying, stop the reflexive judgment (oh she’s just overreacting…etc) and understand how the points being brought up, might be the way things work, and how it is crappy for both women and men.
LikeLike
April 24, 2013 at 10:27 am
The Arbourist
@syrbal
There are horrible people out there and they deserve, in a civilized society, to be incarcerated and kept away from the rest of us.
We differ in opinion though as I believe that no one should be raped in any situation. No one deserves such a gross violation perpetrated on them, nor the psychic/social damage that comes with said violation.
LikeLike
April 24, 2013 at 10:58 am
heinrich
“What it takes to understand feminism is the rare and cherished ability to listen to what women are saying…”
Why just “women”? You assume privilege. Sexist.
Males face insurmountable epistemic barriers to cognition of what their friends, wives, daughters, mothers and grandmothers experience?
Men cannot possibly read Wollstonecraft or Fox-Keller or hooks or Haack, or this blog, for comprehension?
Are we all just dancing rhetorically around our personal gender-role-defined standpoints?
Or does the notion of equality factor in somewhere?
LikeLike
April 24, 2013 at 11:17 am
Mystro
@henrich “It’s as though the understood assumption is: a man cannot be a feminist.”
I have no idea where you got this assumption. These points deal with two main issues.
First many deal with a fairly prevalent demonization of feminism (eg the points on custody and jail rape). Those defending the status quo will often label any force towards equality as some form of man-hate.
The others deal with another common tactic, that of pointing out the “benefits” of being female in a patriarchy (eg the points on cushy vs dangerous jobs).
These are both huge distortions of reality and barriers to a just and equal society. Nothing in the article suggests men cannot be against such perfidious ideas.
LikeLike
April 24, 2013 at 1:17 pm
bleatmop
Oh the Irony. Someone who has not read the linked to article comes in making the exact straw-man arguments that the article debunks.
LikeLike
April 25, 2013 at 10:29 am
Mera
Great post arbourist!
I am sick of the MRA’s touting out the ‘facts’ that women just looooove to exploit men and send them off to war to die etc etc.
LikeLike
April 25, 2013 at 12:02 pm
heinrich
bleatmop:
”
Someone who has not read the linked to article comes in making the exact straw-man arguments that the article debunks.
”
Oh please.
First, I read the article.
Second, questions are not arguments, straw-man or otherwise.
I am genuinely curious about the feminism pieces that Arb has been posting lately, because they seek to frame the issue of patriarchy in the starkest possible terms. I think some of the pieces trade on simple male sexist stereotypes (e.g. 58-year old man who thinks that a 20-year old woman exists for solely for his viewing pleasure.*) – but I appreciate the intent of the articles to “rattle cages”. And I also freely concede that women tend to have to put up with ten stupid stereotypes for every one that a man does.
I consider myself a feminist – and I happen to be male. I am Arb’s “liberal white dude”. Is it possible for me to “get” patriarchy? I fully acknowledge that as a male, I am not the direct subject of the sexist tropes that women are forced to confront every day. But you know what? I talk with women, I hang out with them, I love them, I instruct them professionally, I read what they write, and I listen without cutting them off mid-sentence.
If all that is an ironic waste of time, please tell me now. I will STFU.
* This kind of men, no doubt, exists, but most men do not think that way – after all, many men have daughters who love them – and younger female friends whose trust they have earned.
LikeLike
April 25, 2013 at 12:46 pm
The Arbourist
@Heinrich
I have no doubt that you possess the capacity to understand the concept of patriarchy and how it effects women and men. What is problematic is some the statements you’ve made in previous comments. For instance:
Statements like this demonstrate a misunderstanding of how class and social gradients work. Heinrich, do you also believe that reverse-sexism and reverse-racism are legitimate concerns as well?
I’d like you to further explain your reasons behind making your first statement because at first blush it looks like the fairly typical defensive reaction that liberal white dudes often throw out there when attention is brought to the system that happens to favour and privilege their behaviors and points of view.
Does the notion that feminism is about putting men under the boot-heel of women pervade your idea of what feminism is? It is certainly not in my lexicon, but more to the point, addressing the inequality that exists now between men and women is the important issue. Realizing that that are power-gradients in society and systemic discrimination based on gender is also a part of what feminism is about.
The point you made is often made by LWD in running defense for the system that privileges, condones and supports their point of view and way of life. Were you being defensive and attempting to defend your privilege from criticism, or were you alluding to something else? It is not for me to say, as I can only go by what is written and not the attitudes behind the text.
LikeLike
April 25, 2013 at 1:13 pm
heinrich
”
Statements like this demonstrate a misunderstanding of how class and social gradients work.
”
”
Realizing that that are power-gradients in society and systemic discrimination based on gender is also a part of what feminism is about.
”
And statements like those make you sound like a parent lecturing a child.
”
Does the notion that feminism is about putting men under the boot-heel of women pervade your idea of what feminism is?
”
No. And quite frankly, I find that depiction of what men think feminism means to be childish and somewhat offensive to thinking men.
I have no intention of ‘running defense’ for a belief system that is not, and never has been, mine.
Men, as a class, are privileged in our society. Men, as individuals, however, come in all kinds. You seem to assume that LWDs are monolithically ignorant of, or uninterested in, feminism… Not so.
While I am male, and have doubtless been the recipient of privilege, I am not your enemy. Just an old fashioned “equality” feminist.
LikeLike
April 25, 2013 at 2:46 pm
The Arbourist
@Heinrich
You’ll forgive me, but this is the internet and the assumption that men and LWD, haven’t made the effort to understand what feminism is not unwarranted.
Again, given the general quality of responses out there, usually it is pretty close to the mark.
It has been my experience, that the condition you are describing is the exception, rather than the rule in general when it comes to feminism and the issues of women.
LikeLike
April 25, 2013 at 2:48 pm
The Arbourist
@Mera
Thanks. :) It is nice to have a bit of a salve against the silliest of what MRA have to offer.
LikeLike
April 26, 2013 at 2:16 am
bleatmop
heinrich:
Did you ask me a question or want me to respond to something in your post to me?
Also:
“I fully acknowledge that as a male, I am not the direct subject of the sexist tropes that women are forced to confront every day. But you know what? I talk with women, I hang out with them, I love them, I instruct them professionally, I read what they write, and I listen without cutting them off mid-sentence.”
Congratulations. Today I also managed to do most of those things (although I’m not an educator, so those examples I wasn’t able to do). I also didn’t kick any dogs, torture small animals, or commit any crimes against humanity. Furthermore, I followed traffic rules, did not crop dust (fart and run away) anyone, or spit in anyone’s soup.
Ok, now your turn to list things that everyone should be doing and that do not deserve special recognition for doing. However, if you think those things are an ironic waste of time, please let me know.
LikeLike
April 26, 2013 at 8:12 am
heinrich
bleatmop:
“Ok, now your turn to list things that everyone should be doing and that do not deserve special recognition for doing.”
First it was “straw-man arguments” – now it is ‘oh, look, a man who wants a hero-biscuit for being civilized’.
Thanks so much. Obviously, I wrote my comments as an ignorant but proud self-identified “special snowflake” dude who is in desperate need of emotional support from any random internet commenter who can offer it.
But you are too clever by far – you’ve seen right through my vain, attention-seeking ruse. I’m crushed. Back to the frat house for me, eh?
LikeLike
April 26, 2013 at 12:21 pm
The Intransigent One
Heinrich, You may not actually be an ignorant sexist douchebag, but you’re sure sounding like somebody just out looking for an excuse to get butthurt that feminists are mean. If you’d like to dispel that impression and have a civilised and interesting discussion, please try to read for comprehension; put your emotions on hold; and ditch the sarcastic counter-attacks.
My understanding of the cited article could boil it down to two points:
1. The playing field is not currently level
2. For the things where patriarchy can be shown to hurt men, the solution is more feminism, not less.
Regarding the epistemic gulf between women and men, of course it exists. There’s an epistemic gulf between all persons, and the more different those persons are, the wider gulf. After all, all anybody can know about anybody else is their outward behaviour, and then you make inferences about their inner life, based on your understanding of human nature, which in turn is based on your understanding of yourself. You can guess, with some reliability, what it’s like to be person X or a member of class Y, but you can’t really know, in the philosophical-ideal, deductive logic kind of way. You’re always subject to the inferential fallacy.
See, for example, the essay, “What is it like to be a Bat”, by Daniel Dennett. Does it mean it’s pointless to try to understand others? Not at all, just that there are limits on how much you’re going to understand, and when somebody is speaking about their own experience, it’s the height of hubris to think you know better than they do. And the more different their experience is than yours, the more important it is to shut up and listen rather than try to come up with the reasons they’re wrong.
If you’d like to discuss this, I’m game. Or, you can just call me condescending and sexist and retreat like Achilles to your tent. It’s up to you.
LikeLike
April 26, 2013 at 2:32 pm
heinrich
TIO,
Thanks for your considered response.
I do not disagree with your two summary points.
“You’re always subject to the inferential fallacy. See, for example, the essay, “What is it like to be a Bat”, by Daniel Dennett. Does it mean it’s pointless to try to understand others? Not at all, just that there are limits on how much you’re going to understand, and when somebody is speaking about their own experience, it’s the height of hubris to think you know better than they do. And the more different their experience is than yours, the more important it is to shut up and listen rather than try to come up with the reasons they’re wrong.”
I’ve read Dennett’s essay.
I think you may have meant “intentional stance” rather than “inferential fallacy”…?
I used to volunteer at a crisis center. One of the first and most important things I was instructed to do was to NEVER question the claims being made by callers in distress. I understood that I should put aside any skepticism I might have for the benefit of the caller – my function was to listen. And I did.
But the general idea that someone has a prerogative to tell others to shut up and listen quietly simply because they hold ‘different’ opinions is bollocks. Sorry. That is exactly the means by which stone-age religious stupidity and bigotry retains its grip on so many people.
A blog is not a crisis center. And the more ‘different’ an opinion is, the more it ought to be questioned – questioned, not as a threatening “I know better than they do” challenge, but as a means to understanding.
Clearly, Arb and others here presume to understand and educate LWDs such as myself. Likewise, I presume to understand something of feminism.
You or I can never ‘be’ a bat – However, we can nevertheless gain a good understanding of bats.
LikeLike
April 26, 2013 at 3:31 pm
The Intransigent One
No, I do mean inferential fallacy, as in, while inference is a generally effective tool for learning about the world, things you know by inference, you don’t have the same level of epistemic certainty you do with sound arguments. You can infer things about others’ inner lives, but you can never really capital-k Know.
“My experience of X is Y”, is not an opinion, it is a fact. You can’t say, no you didn’t have that experience. You can certainly ask questions that lead you to better understand how a person might come to have such a different experience than yours, but you can’t say, you were wrong to have had that experience.
Under many circumstances, you can ask questions or provide information that causes others to see their own experiences in a different light. One of the circumstances where you shouldn’t, imo, is if you are espousing the dominant social paradigm, to a person who is oppressed by that particular aspect of it. For one, they are doubtless already familiar with said dominant social paradigm and don’t need it explained to them. Plus you’re just adding another teaspoon doubt/invalidation to the burden they may already carry. People tend not to take kindly to having their personal experience of oppression co-opted for devils-advocate thought-experiments by people who haven’t been through that crap themselves. (Any of the aforementioned behaviours can rightly be characterized as acting like a privileged asshole.)
LikeLike
April 27, 2013 at 4:55 am
bleatmop
heinrich:
“First it was “straw-man arguments” – now it is ‘oh, look, a man who wants a hero-biscuit for being civilized’.”
I’m glad you understand your behaviour so far. Perhaps you can work on correcting it in the future?
“Thanks so much. Obviously, I wrote my comments as an ignorant but proud self-identified “special snowflake” dude who is in desperate need of emotional support from any random internet commenter who can offer it.”
I was going there; but hey, if that’s how you want to describe yourself, go ahead. I won’t stop you Snowflake.
“But you are too clever by far – you’ve seen right through my vain, attention-seeking ruse. I’m crushed. Back to the frat house for me, eh?”
Sure, if you want. That’s your prerogative. I mean, you could respond to my posts like you have so far and prove everything you’ve just said about yourself or you could do so as an adult. I actually illustrated a serious issue in your comment to me when I pointed out how your were listing things that any normal person should be doing in your list of feminist credentials. You could have looked back at what you wrote and reflected upon it. If you did, here is what you would have saw.
You started the paragraph with “I consider myself a feminist – and I happen to be male”. Good topic sentence. I approve. I assume the paragraph will be you evidencing why you are a feminist. I like this idea. Here is what I had the misfortune to read for your evidences; “I talk with women, I hang out with them, I love them, I instruct them professionally, I read what they write, and I listen without cutting them off mid-sentence”. — Not exactly compelling stuff. In fact, it sounds exactly like what you described, that you were “a man who wants a hero-biscuit for being civilized”.
Now I’m sorry that me pointing this out upsets you. This however is not my problem. It’s yours. Is this perhaps your first day on the internet? Now, if you don’t like being criticized then I suggest not throwing your hat in this marketplace of ideas called the internet. This internet can be a rough place.
ARB and TIO have been quite civil and patient with you. They’ve taken your aspersions, such as calling Arb sexist or Mansplaning to ITO as to what her argument actually is (intentional stance vs inferential fallacy) with grace and responded to you thoughtfully. I do not have their patience and tend to be blunt with my comments. So if you don’t like reading things that challenge you, I suggest you stop reading my comments.
LikeLike