Why aren't males interested in feminism? (category: rant)

[sunnysmiles]

thanks! Did you translate that yourself? if so - that's awesome, thanks.

[Jimmy H.]

Yes, thank you for translating it and sharing the link to "Hombres abolicionistas" [Edited to add: I can't develop now, but I am still conflicted about pro-feminist mens' groups; of course, that's not a disagreement with the Manifesto's points, which are conform to the abolitionism I support]. I can see many interesting ressources for Spain and Europe as well there (glad to see that the PCE is still against legalisation, if I got that right). I was pleasantly surprised by the use of "prostitutor" (prostituidor) for the john (French Canadian feminists like Elaine Audet and the Sisyphe group use "prostitueur", but it hasn't caught up yet in France; I tried to adapt it as "prostituter" in English).

[elfeminista]

"I can't develop now, but I am still conflicted about pro-feminist mens' groups; of course, that's not a disagreement with the Manifesto's points, which are conform to the abolitionism I support]."

Jimmy: I would really like to hear about why you are conflicted, and what the sourse of trepidation might be.

[/quote] I can see many interesting ressources for Spain and Europe as well there (glad to see that the PCE is still against legalisation, if I got that right). I was pleasantly surprised by the use of "prostitutor" (prostituidor) for the john (French Canadian feminists like Elaine Audet and the Sisyphe group use "prostitueur", but it hasn't caught up yet in France; I tried to adapt it as "prostituter" in English).


Thank you for finding that law, wonderful. As I was translating prostituidor into prostitutor, I realized just how much I don't like the term "john", john makes them sound so bloody neutral, maybe even not accountable. I think from now on I will use prostitutor. In their document they made the faux pas of using "mujeres prostituidas" (prostituted women) and "prostitutas" (prostitutes), interchangeably, so I cleaned that up for the translation.
The document is solid overall and maybe we can forgive the oversight until I find them and mention it.

[Andrew]

While I hate the thing, I never thought about how much I hate the word "john". THanks for explaining why I do. ANd thanks for the Argentinian doc wwhich I am going back to read again.
"Prostituter" is very good word, but I hate the thing.

[gerry]

"

I can't develop now, but I am still conflicted about pro-feminist mens' groups; of course, that's not a disagreement with the Manifesto's points, which are conform to the abolitionism I support]."

Jimmy: I would really like to hear about why you are conflicted, and what the sourse of trepidation might be.

EL

You asked this for me. I am looking forward to the answer because i too am conflicted over pro-feminist mens' groups, but perhaps for different reasons than Jimmy's. I think i will wait with my own comments, but i will say this: that many give an impression that men are really responding when indeed this may be more of a mirage---and this may sound trivial but many such groups seem to point to the fact of the specialness of such men in their titles. I also make note that their approach to other men must be very polite and gingerly as not to put off---the method of approach often being sort of indirect in the sense of using social science terms and lang and technical methods---distancing themselves from the men they are wanting to communicate with. (use paid leaders in the field to speak at events too) where's the anger--it all seems so safe compared to the 1970s male input)

Yeah, i love the term "prosituter" too.

[elfeminista]

gerry- I am really looking forward to hearing what you and jimmy have to say.

You wrote:
"
I also make note that their approach to other men must be very polite and gingerly as not to put off---the method of approach often being sort of indirect in the sense of using social science terms and lang and technical methods---distancing themselves from the men they are wanting to communicate with. (use paid leaders in the field to speak at events too) where's the anger--it all seems so safe compared to the 1970s male input)"


Maybe that's my problem. I am not so polite. I also remember the 70s. Men were clueless then and we are clueless now. My hope is help to create a radical feminist male conciousness whith a distinct epistemology, and an form activist male caucus grass roots and other, all of this subsumed* as part of the Movement, and guided by it.
i believe that we must do feminist work together for multiple reasons, without taking Women's energy in having to constantly explain and guide the new crop of male 'pro-feminist' who may have dubious sincerity or commitment. We could screen out own recruits and do cr, educate, and in the course of that see who is real. i9 think whatis needed at first is a focussed cadre, and forexample 'pro porn feminist males' are clearly not material to form such a cadre.Why should women have the burden os constantly having to repeat themselves and answering question ad nauseam? Also perhaps this will weed out a lot of the males that are into 'feminism' just to be able to hover around feminist women, and really for no other reason. You know the type.


I want to make it clear that I do not say this about any of the males here, but I feel that the lack of interest and the lack of passion for this movement on the part of males just cowardice. i have felt that way for over 20 years.

I agree with you about the methodology of many in using social science terms and being paid speakers.

"distancing themselves from the men they are wanting to communicate with. (use paid leaders in the field to speak at events too) where's the anger--it all seems so safe compared to the 1970s male input)"

Where is the anger is right.





*(as in =sub·sume sub·sumed,
To classify, include, or incorporate in a more comprehensive category or under a general principle: "The evolutionarily later always subsumes and includes the evolutionarily earlier" (Frederick Turner).)

[gerry]

El, the 1970s response was tougher because it questioned male sexuality itself, which is the chief underpinning of patriarchal rule. a large wave of men--mostly gay--in the 1973-4 period (it did not last long) were accusing male sex as being object dependent, and all about dominance and submission. i can recall articles about ending men's sex fantasies altogether, and others attacking the separation of love and sex etc. (making one's own body replace the fantasies)

i'm not sure exactly what's going on today, but i do think most of male response to feminism is fairly tepid, and is associated with either the academy or the social services public sector (a victory of radical feminism, but not radical feminism pnce in the door) which makes it hardly inclusive, shutting out men who don't feel comfortable with these institutions (myself included, despite my association with the former) i've been in 3 groups since the around 1986 and have found a similar tone & method of operating which seems.... huh, respectable. (i guess)

and, of course, we're not even mentioning that large number of mens' groups which are anti-feminist. just countering them might take up all the pro-feminist energies, assuming that there is even enuf to succeed with this task.

[elfeminista]

i'm not sure exactly what's going on today, but i do think most of male response to feminism is fairly tepid, and is associated with either the academy or the social services public sector (a victory of radical feminism, but not radical feminism pnce in the door) which makes it hardly inclusive, shutting out men who don't feel comfortable with these institutions (myself included, despite my association with the former) I've been in 3 groups since the around 1986 and have found a similar tone & method of operating which seems.... huh, respectable. (i guess)

Do you mean male groups you have been involved with?

I am not sure that I understand what you mean exactly.
I do not know if you mean that feminism shuts out men who do not feel comfortable with the institutions.

By a males caucus within feminism, I suggest that it is our job to create our own feminist institutions, and as far as Academia, well=

Professor macKinnon says:

'Recognition of women's experience of systematic disadvantage relative to men is at the basis of feminism, a theory that began not in academia but as a movement for liberation. Feminist theory remains no self-referential theory-for-theory's-sake theory. It comes from social reality and goes back into social reality, disciplined by that relation. Its project fits its ground: to expose unequal social status on the basis of sex in order to change it."

IMO, we need a caucus to the Movement based on social reality, embracing males who are construction workers as well as PhDs, anybody who wants this change. that change being the end to male supremacy. To grow in numbers is important, and I do not think that it is impossible. We can develop relatively autonomously, whithin a feminist framework. There are enough males who know what feminism is.Now it's just a matter of putting our money where our mouths are. One of my favorite quotes about what feminism is comes from Charlotte Bunch-
"Feminism is a movement for the liberation of women which, because women’s oppression is deeply embedded in everything must necessarily, then be a movement for the transformation of the whole society"

That's our job then. The only thing we need to think about is making sure that we adhere to feminist
theory and methodology, and to take heed of feminist guidance when offered.

There is more theory and more social thinking behind feminism than any other political movement.

[elfeminista]

And lest we forget the reasons why this is a necessary
thing for males to do, this is todays news, right in the middle of New York City.
http://nydailynews.com/news/crime_file/ ... her-2.html

Is *this terrorism? yes. How about some Homeland security?

[elfeminista]

ANDERSON COOPER said on CNN today April 16th 2007 on air.

"of the 67 attacks on college campuses recorded since 1927
only 2 of the assailants have been women"

Why don't we contact Anderson Cooper and ask him to do a story on this?

[gerry]

And lest we forget the reasons why this is a necessary
thing for males to do, this is todays news, right in the middle of New York City.
http://nydailynews.com/news/crime_file/ ... her-2.html

Is *this terrorism? yes. How about some Homeland security?

The link didn't happen for me. Are you referring to the Columbia student? If so, i only wish that the response had been more than a candle-light vigil. I mean do the students learn their own history? Yes, this was a terrorist act and part of the war on women. (know the location of it very well)

PS. as to above post questions, El. yes i was referring to male groups i have belonged to. (all had/have a few women members who were sometimes present)

[elfeminista]

yes that profanity, yes.

I think we are the students.

[Andrew]

Terrorism, describes it all perfectly.

[elfeminista]

Ok we agree, so what do we do?

[Andrew]

Briefly, El, I'm doing about as much as I can now( I suspect you are too, as tired as you often sound)How can we be more effective?
I'm asking because I know this is important to you, and I want you to give us your main reasons. Is a men's group a more effective use of our resources than supporting what is going on already? A simple, honest question with no axe to grind anywhere in sight.

[elfeminista]

The most difficult and to me the most painful is the low numbers of guys that are interested at all. It's painful. There are more men involved in animal rights than there are men involved in Womens issues. There are more male anarchists than feminists,yet the work of the feminists 40 years ago is still paying dividends for people, and anarchists have not accomplished a single concrete thing. Again men do not take feminism serious as a political movement that will benefit us all in my opinion, because the main theorists and central personages of the movement are Women. All this while it is clearly logical and healthy as a philosophy and political theory as well as real-world movement,

I think that you are quite activistic as I see you trying to do your best to fight porn, and that is good.I dont see you grinding any axes. Btw, can you believe the statement i have put on my signature, made by a male pro-prorn pundit of that Blog? too much...

There are a bunch of reasons why we should be organizing a separate caucus. I will write them and come back to post them here.


I also was hoping to to hear from jimmy about his thoughs, but no pressure.

[elfeminista]

" Men who want to support women in our struggle for freedom and justice should understand that it is not terrifically important to us that they learn to cry; it is important to us that they stop the crimes of violence against us."

Andrea Dworkin

Women's work in the movement is different than male's work. While we have to educate ourselves and be there in solidarity and friendship it is clear that our sisters don't need us to do the things that they are more than qualified to do and for which they have already created an infrastructure and a methodology. Women do not really expect us to help heal the rifts dividing Women, for example (these rifts which are caused by patriarchy (us)in the first place), to be theorists, in short to become involved in the aspects of feminist discourse that we do not belong in.
We have different jobs on the practical level
Our job is to help empower Women, and their job is to EMPOWER themselves.
Some of the things that we can do, they cannot do, which are:
*Work on changing ourselves and our concept of "manhood".
*Work to remove the demand for pornography and prostitution. Pledge to not be "consumers".
*Pledge and *act* to eradicate rape.
*Pledge and *act* to eradicate DV and all forms of violence against Women and kids.
* To learn to listen and to try to *not* do things which get in the way of Women realizing their full potential, by doing the things that we are so accustumed to doing, like allways trying to lead the show, allways pushing out 'ideas" on to them, such as religion, patriarchal political perspectives, personaly crowding them in a social-emotional context, etc.
*Do our share of housework, (and childcare when relationships with children are involved).
*Support feminism as males,because since as males we have unfortunately more agency than our sisters, our united voices will help to change the perception of males from thinking "oh those are the guys that are allied with those crazy manhaters" to 'those guys are part of that political movement that espouses those politics". (this is a whole long discussion in itself,and not an easy one).

Yes, you are right, I'm often tired, and it is bedtime.If I have forgotten some things I will try to include them later.

Like anything else involving social change, coordinating of action always works best with a disciplined group that is specialized and as our job is different, then it is logical that we rally males to do that job.

[sam]

elfeminista, I've have played that Dworkin quote in my head every time I poked into Twisty's "what about men?" thread.

[elfeminista]

I had not heard of Lierre Keith until today, when I recieved an invitation to register for a workshop at Wheelock College. Yes, yes and yes.

Requiered reading and required acting for males.


Lierre Keith interview:


So for liberals, defining people as members of a group is the harm. Whereas for radicals, identifying your interests with others who are dispossessed, developing loyalty to your people, is the first, crucial step in building a liberation movement. Liberals essentially think that oppression is a mistake, a misunderstanding, and changing people's minds is the way to change the world. That's where you get this tremendous emphasis on education as a political strategy. So for instance, instead of identifying the institutions that destroy communities of color and strategizing how to dismantle them, we're supposed to go to Unlearning Racism workshops and confess to being racists. Please don't misunderstand, this is not an excuse to avoid examining whatever privilege we have. And if we've behaved dishonorably, we need to make amends. My point is that however important personal accountability is, it's not political action.

Another example. One time at an activist conference I brought up some basic statistics on rape and male violence. And immediately another woman stood up and said--in that tone that's in the border area between earnest and self-righteous--"We need to educate."

I replied, "I don't want to educate men, I want to stop them." This was, of course, met with horrified silence--what exactly was I suggesting? But there is no therapy, no rehab program, that works to change perpetrators. By now, everything has been tried. Nothing works. They don't ever learn to see women as human beings. They don't ever stop feeling entitled to women's bodies. So not only was her suggestion liberal, it was useless.

And I think that's true of people--men and women--in industrial cultures as well. They feel entitled to consume the labor and, essentially, the lives of the poor, and the body of our planet. And no amount of education makes a dent in that entitlement. Hell, the Democrats had a platform in the last election that said Americans had the right--the right--to drive whatever kind of car they wanted, including SUVs. That's not a right. That's sociopathic behavior. It's destroying the planet. It's insane.

I think that to make the leap to radicalism takes three insights. The first is that there is a thing called power, social power, political power. The second is that some people have it and some people don't. The third is that there is a causal relationship between those groups: some people have it because some people don't. Once you've got that down, you can pretty much apply it to any situation.

I'm not saying we can't work together. There may be coalition projects that both progressives and radicals can engage in, but the philosophical underpinnings are going to make for permanent tensions in terms of both analysis and strategy.

Okay, so let's assume everyone reading Aric's website is a bona fide radical of whatever stripe. You asked about identifying the sources of harm. I'd say start with the most obvious, the most egregious harms. A fist in the face is pretty obvious. So is a hungry belly night after night.

Now trace it back: who's attached to that fist? Now, name an agent. If you're talking about male violence, that's hard. Not intellectually hard--it's easy to see who's attached to that fist. But emotionally, psychologically. One reason it's hard is because there are consequences to naming men and male power. You will be ridiculed, silenced, maybe physically threatened. You might be raped. You might be killed. When the Taliban took over in Afghanistan, women who refused to wear burkhas, refused to stay entombed inside their houses, were lined up by the hundreds and shot. In Algeria, the Islamic fundamentalists have murdered 80,000 women who have resisted their demands, and the fundamentalists don't even control the government. I've heard from someone who's traveled extensively in Iraq that the same thing is happening to women there: men are picking women off one by one, any woman who looks like she's educated or has a job or is independent is a target for rape and murder.

Another reason it's hard is because there's a tremendous psychological identification with the oppressor. There's an absolutely brilliant book called Loving To Survive: Sexual Terror, Men's Violence, and Women's Lives by Dee Graham. She's come up with the concept of Societal Stockholm Syndrome. Her basic thesis is that just as captives bond to their captors in hostage situations, women--and any group that's oppressed--will bond to men or the group that has social power. Everybody should read this book. It's incredibly important.

Once you've named the owner of the fist, because you're a radical you look for patterns. Who else is getting a fist in the face? And you find out: in the USA, every 18 seconds a man beats a woman. Keep tracing it back. Do the police stop him? Do the courts, the laws? Does god? Or do they in fact support his right to hit you? Who says he has a right to hit you? It's in the bible, you're supposed to submit because it's all Eve's fault. Why don't you count as a human being? You see that you're surrounded by images of women as objects, chopped into body parts, on display, for sale. In fact, women are being brutalized in millions of pictures and it's called sex. The clothes you're supposed to wear put you on display, make it impossible for you to run or even walk. They turn you into an object, a victim, and that's called "sexy." Why are you wearing these clothes? Why do you want this attention when every 18 seconds it ends with a fist in the face?

What you find is a whole web of institutions and cultural practices that support male violence: religion, laws, the police, the mass media and pornography, heterosexuality, the very definition of masculinity. He didn't put that fist in your face because of who you are as an individual. He did because he belongs to a class of people called men, and you belong to a class of people called women, and that describes a set of power relations.

[Andrew]

We'll probably always have our differences,El, but I'm pledging and acting.Go for it.