How my feminism evolved

I was going to write a dummy’s guide to feminism, but I didn’t have time last night, and it got pretty theory heavy in the outline. Then I realized I was outlining a post for this blog, and I went “fuck no, shut that shit down.” This all stemmed from poor discussions of feminism on the Internet, shocking I know. Essentially, a small group of people think women oppress men (using a gender binary, which you know I love: sarcasm) and feminism force women to work outside the home. I’m still not sure how any of this works. There is no reasonable logic here; and this from a person who had to defend Dworkin in Intro to Fem Theory. I’m not a huge fan of Dworkin, but I recognize her contributions to the movement. All of this culminated in an attempt to engage two people on their position, which ended very badly. Lesson learned Internet.

Regardless, I did end up thinking a lot about why I’m a feminist during all of this, and subsequently read this post, “On Growing Up a Tomboy” by Angi Becker Stevens and watching this video by Courtney Martin below. Both addressed the challenges of growing up and aspirations, and they clearly resonated with me.

I had an interesting paradox growing up. I identified as a feminist as a child, no really. I’m not sure I fully understood what it meant at the time, but feminists on television were smart, had dry wits, and weren’t concerned with being the prettiest girl in the room. They were generally non-conformists. I wanted to be all of these things, badly. At the same time my mother was the first head of a department in the factory she worked #baller. On the other hand, I was “one of the guys” this shouldn’t be confused with a Tomboy because it occupies a different space. I got into fights and played sports, but I’m not athletic, and to be a Tomboy you have to have a certain amount of athletic ability to keep up with the hyper sport culture in Ohio. I never got into video games (outside of Mario). I did tell a good dirty joke and spent a lot of time explaining girls, sex, and dating to me male peers.

My desire to be considered “one of the guys” stemmed from my socio economic upbringing, which I was aware of even as a child. One day, I'll write about the "come to Jesus" moment working poor kids have. In junior high, all the girls in my class started to physically develop and thus receiving more attention from males. I wanted Joey to notice me like whoa, but  I didn’t want to get catcalled on the long walk through what the kids I grew up with affectionately call “the hood” past two bars and a bike shop that sold drugs out the back just to get home. I grew up in a low-income neighborhood, which in turn had low-property taxes, which creates problems traditionally seen in low-income, urban (in this case) problems. The verbal attention of 11 and 12 year boys, I knew were harmless because they were still not really sure how sex works, is very different that grown men harassing and assaulting women and girls on the street. Though, obviously not still ok, and head nod to most sexual assaults occurring between people who know each other. It culminated in the form of fliers and letters. When I was in junior high, we received our first Megan’s Letter and the fliers started coming home from school. You see a Megan Letter is based on Megan’s Law, which is when someone on a sexual predator list moves into your neighborhood, and you get a letter alerting you to this; this happens frequently in low-income communities because it is cheaper to live there when you get right out of prison or jail. The fliers might have always come home, but I began aware of them in junior high. These fliers outlined attempts to abduct young women and girls walking to and from school by men in a van. It was always a panel van. Always. I almost feel bad for people who drive those who sexual predators.

The boys didn’t get these warnings, well they did, but these warnings didn’t seem to impact their daily lives. They had what can only be described as freedom to move around our neighborhood without fear. I know this wasn’t the case for everyone, and we can talk about the harassment of men of color in low-income communities by law enforcement and gangs. But when I was young, boys had this great freedom, and I wanted it too.

But there was another side to this too, and that is the approval of men. By being “one of the guys,” I perceived that I had their approval. This approval afforded me some things my female peers didn’t have. For example, my opinion counted. Wild peeps, wild, at least I thought it did. This was in direct opposition to my feminism. Later in high school and undergrad most of the male friends I had were also really into volunteer work and the music I was into. But there was something I very uncomfortable with all this, and it was summarized nicely by a friend of mine as an adult, “I don’t trust women who want to be ‘one of the guys.’ They devalue being a woman even if they don’t mean to.”

Mind blown. Obviously, there is some merit to this. The desire to be considered “one of the guys” means I didn’t want to be perceived as feminine for whatever reason. All the while, I identified as a feminist. Now, you can reconcile this of course by claiming I reject the gender binary and embraces something these specific men had to offer, but I didn’t have this in mind in junior high or high school. I wanted to be considered “one of the guys” because they seemed to have it better. To be honest, this chapter of my life closed in undergrad when my best friend demonstrated that he could call me “one of the guys” all the time, but my word was still of less value than a man he barely knew over a sexual assault.

After a few graduate level feminist classes later, I now know “one of the” anything is a put down. They might as well be saying, “so close, but not quite.” Additionally, I came to this conclusion right around the time my feminism radically evolved in late undergrad. I watched some friends have their attempts to start a FMLA chapter shut down because they are pro-choice by a university that didn’t meet with them and that fought us every step of the way on the Vagina Monologues. I also started seeing poverty and labor as feminist issues. But this brings me to Martin’s video. Part of being involved in the movement (social justice) is being prepared to fail and fail spectacularly. I know this because while I jest, I’m not actually going to solve poverty because there is always going to be someone who wants to exploit other people for their own gain. For every victory it feels like we suffer a half dozen defeats. We get the university to sign on to the Workers’ Rights Consortium, but janitorial and cafeteria staff get reprimanded for discussing their pay. This yields burnout. I think the Simpson’s Crazy Cat Lady is the appropriate gif for this feeling. 

This feeling of burnout and disillusionment is dangerous, and seems to be an affliction several close friends are suffering through. It is hard to succeed, hell at this point it hard to even focus on the goals when you’re just trying to keep the boat from sinking. I always use the example of repro rights. It was never my jam until I couldn’t get away from it. I am a woman of privilege. I had access, though it was expensive, to comprehensive birth control and education. I recognized low-income women didn’t have this privilege, but raising Ohio’s minimum wage the priority at the time. Now, we’re fighting to keep the Planned Parenthood funded so the same low-income women can have any reproductive health care including cancer screenings.

The male liberation movement

White dudes as you know them are an oppressed people.

Just kidding. Let me begin by saying two things that might sound contradictory: 1. White hetero Christian men are not an oppressed group and 2. White hetero etc. dudes should liberate themselves from the culture of masculinity and all the things that go with it. You see some of the White hetero etc. dudes are perfectly ok with how things have always been that is why they are beginning to believe they are in fact an oppressed group because their privilege is changing and being threatened (aside: I would never presume to tell someone how they feel or should feel, situational oppression and discrimination do happen, but I’m talking big institutional/structural picture). For the White hetero etc. dudes not ok with these traditional privileges, and want to hold themselves to a standard based in equality and equity should lead a movement breaking down the patriarchy…some would call that feminism, and you’re welcome to join our party or start your own and we’ll all do a little more solidarity building.

Let’s begin with the idea that White guys are oppressed (presumably by another group other than themselves). Lindy West wrote a piece for Jezebel on the concept that the next social movement would be for White guys. Now I’m not agreeing with her or disagreeing. I feel she is by in large correct, but I don’t like how she says a lot of this. West begins with this:

“If there’s one thing I’m always going to remember about the 2012 election, it’s that it was the moment I first saw the white male monopoly lose its vise-grip on American culture. Not that white men aren’t in charge anymore—they are, and they will probably always be a dominant political bloc—but there’s a sense that they’re no longer entitled to win just for playing. They’re going to have to enter and roll, just like the rest of us (the dice are still weighted, duh, but baby steps). Mitt Romney was a white dude’s white dude, and 62% of white dudes had no doubt that their dude would win. Because, hey, he “looked like a President.” That fantasy imploded on election day—and, with it, a whole lot of never-before-questioned white confidence.”

Glorious. Of course, it is after this is when West brings up the issue she is really addressing: “what started as a fringe dude subculture has flourished into a thriving online community—the self-described “Manosphere,” a safe haven/echo chamber for men who feel discriminated against, ignored, and blames. Potentially false rape charges and “unfair’ child support payments deserve equal or greater outrage, they say, alongside actual rapes and centuries of systemic, enforced poverty.” West notes she doesn’t think these are not problems, and she prioritizes discrimination. This is not ok. Do I think a bunch of dudes talking of false rape allegations are all victims of them? Hell no, but those who are deserve to be heard, and they are no more or less worthy of our time than anyone else. That being said, the false narrative of oppression because of a few false rape allegations when 3% of rapists spend a day in jail, stemming from a philosophy that men are victims and women oppressors is a little cray-cray. Back to West:

“When your philosophy—reinforced over and over by other men who are just as scared as you—dictates that men are the real victims and women are the oppressors, the only surefire escape is retreat into traditionalist behavior models where everyone “knows their place.” Then everything will be okay again. Then we’ll have a president who “looks like a president.””

West goes on to talk about how we’re seeing these traditional behavior models coming out including the presumption that older men should be found attractive indiscriminately (Richard Cohen), The Rules as dating advice which is making a comeback, the Tea Party, Nice Guys (see this morning’s post), and the insecure men who spend all their time working out and making anti-gay slurs.

She also points to a number of editorials about how white men are getting blamed for everything and it isn’t fair. I don’t think these deserve space. West is pretty awesome here:

“Yeah, yeah, yeah—as though certain men deserve some sort of credit for not being completely entitled sociopathic assholes. Congrats, bro.”

West notes the excerpt she used was from a mainstream newspaper. She points out that these guys have their feelings hurt; people are judging them without knowing them. They don’t run the world as an individual. He’s Joe Everyman. You don’t say? People judging you because of a perception of you based on your privilege? Must be rough. Now, that isn’t to say these guys have it easy, just that some difficulties haven’t existed for White men. West points out that White men aren’t being blamed, but instead as ked to recognize their privilege and help take apart the system rigged in their favor.

So this is a good transition into another article about this request: White guys in privilege help us dismantle the broken system. The website Role/Reboot is awesome, and you should be reading it. Nicole Rodgers wrote a piece about how men need a liberation movement to cast off traditional gender roles that hold them back and oppress them. These roles are set by the patriarchy so you know, it is like when your older brother would grab your arms and make you hit yourself while saying “Quit hitting yourself.”

Rodger’s article is framed by the “war on men” concept that has been poisoning circulating the Internet. The argument in these “war on men” articles are all about how women have emasculated men, and as a result all the problems men face are because or can be linked to women’s success. However, at the same time women are victims too because we believe in this gender-bending nonsense. The Venker article is garbage; she cherry picks stats and missing the larger point. Also, this is the same old feminist backlash as always. Venker and her elk long for a time before when everything was great (provided you weren’t female, of color, or any other marginalized group). Venker’s article is preoccupied with the concept of marriage.

Rodger’s correctly points out that while Venker aims to shame women for changing gender roles, she indicts men for not changing. Men haven’t changed because no revolution has demanded change from them. Rodger argues that men need a liberation movement because without it they will remain squarely in the past while the rest of us pass them. I think it is important to note that Rodgers is using men as a blanket term and references second wave feminism in her article. I mention this because the assumption is raced; she’s talking about white men. Rodger argues that men do not simply want to be the protectors and financial supporters any longer, but instead want to be active participants in parenting, etc. As they should, but without the deconstructing of patriarchal norms they’ll never get there. Men should want to redefine masculinity.

Ok, to summarize: men are in crisis, but only because of their refusal to embrace the changing gender roles, and even more so when we add race to this discussion. Now, I openly admit this post is largely referring to white, straight dudes because we’ve come so far we’re still using the white hetero standard as a metric (sarcasm). So with that in mind, how we define masculinity needs to reflect the changing society. For example: being a woman no longer means married, kids, stay at home, but it also doesn’t mean there is anything wrong with any of those characteristics. Or we could do away with the gender binary completely, but I think that might be a large shock to the system.