Monday, 27 September 2010

An essay on the problem(s) with Feminism, in (just over) 1000 words.

I've been thinking a lot about Feminism* lately. I was thinking about it a lot before I attended an Anarcha-Feminist (I always thought that would be Anarcho-Feminist, but they seemed quite insistent) workshop featuring an excellent discussion of Adventures In Kate Bush & Theory (no, really) and some inspiring/inspired left-leaning stand up comedy by the eminently talented Liz Ely, but more so since.

Here's my main problem with Feminism. A good deal of Feminists don't think it means what I think it means.

–noun
1.
the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men.
2.
( sometimes initial capital letter) an organized movement for the attainment of such rights for women.

That seems pretty clear to me, and nowhere in that definition does it say you need to have ovaries to believe the attainment of the above should be sought. Many feminists, however (including, I'm lead to believe, the Glasgow Feminist Network ) believe that the possession of a penis and the possession of Feminist opinions and beliefs are mutually exclusive, and that a male Feminist is an oxymoron. I should point out at this opportunity that the organisers of the workshop mentioned, held at the Forest Cafe in Edinburgh, didn't have this problem and I was made to feel very welcome and that my opinion was as valid as anyone else's. I doubt I could articulate fully, however, how angry it makes me feel to be excluded from the conversation when that's not the case. All we're talking about is the pretty simple belief that woman are not inferior to men, and as such should have the same rights and opportunities as men. Why shouldn't I, as a man, be able to handle that? Why can they, as women, not?

The reason they can't is that they believe, not that women are equal to men, but that women are better than men. I have a problem with this. Not because I am a man and therefore viewed as inadequate. I'm pretty clear on my fellow man's faults, of which there are many. I'm no picture of perfection myself. I just can't see this as any less sexist than the belief that women are inferior to men.

I can get on board with the theory that our planet would be a far less scary place if women had more of a hand in running the place (although, sadly, our only female Prime Minister to date could be used an argument against that theory, dragging us, as she did, into just as unnecessary war as Blair), but not the conclusion that line of thought often leads to. Perhaps the reason that most, if not all, of the most dangerous and deadly weapons ever conceived were created and designed by men is that those same men were afforded the kind of education and development that women were barred from. I understand the powerful argument that men create these things because we are the destroyers as opposed to the creators of life. I know where that line of thought comes from, and it is compelling, but I don't think it's the only reason. Frustratingly, it's not even an argument that can be proved or disproved. Perhaps the most interesting ones can't be.

Anyway, that's not really what I want to discuss. One of the reasons I've been thinking about Feminism lately is that I find the term itself to be unhelpful. The professional footballer, Rohan Ricketts, recently tweeted something which I found very surprising. Something clearly had him upset, and he made a few comments you don't really expect to hear/read from footballers. Basically, he was making the point that not enough men show enough respect to women. He went on to qualify that statement by suggesting that some women don't have much respect for themselves, but that this is no excuse to take advantage of said women. (Sorry if I misrepresented your comments in any way, Rohan. If so, let me know so I can amend). Coming so soon after the comments Darren Purse, the Sheffield Wednesday captain, made on homophobia in football, hopefully many people will amend their opinions of footballers and their intellect. It's always encouraging to see evidence of thinking men within the game.

The question of respect to and for women is something which must be difficult for a young, intelligent and feminist footballer who isn't part of the pack. I imagine there must be a lot of peer pressure for this hypothetical young man who is suddenly earning vastly more money than his peers and finds women throwing themselves at him. It's a microcosm of our society in general, I think. I've been to some of the seedier clubs in this city, accompanying friends who fit the description above of women riddled with insecurities and completely lacking self-respect, trying to fend of the vultures only too happy to take advantage of them. Like I said, it must be hard for that young man to swim against the tide in this particular situation. (I should point out that I'm not saying young men shouldn't have sex with young women, or young men for that matter... just that it would be nice if it was for the right reasons.)

Part of the reason I'm talking about this is that I firmly believe that most men, most people, are feminists. Most people believe that there is nothing that makes men better than women, or women better than men. So why does our society make the distinction between a man sleeping with 20 women and a woman sleeping with 20 men? Why is this man viewed as a hero by his peers and the woman a whore by hers? One of the things that angers me most about this double standard is that many women seem happy and eager to enforce it. This isn't necessarily a double standard created and implemented by men. Why is that? I just can't understand it, and it's emblematic of the problem. Some see females as automatically more qualified as feminists purely because they are female. That is simply not the case. I and some of my male friends are more feminist in outlook than many women I know. I think a gender-neutral term is needed to refer to equality of the sexes. How many men out there hold feminist principles but wouldn't call themselves feminists because of some of the negative connotations attached to that term? I used to be one of them. Nowadays I wear the badge with pride, but it's not without it's faults. We, as feminists, are the majority. So why doesn't it feel like it?

*Please excuse the inconsistency of Feminism & feminism. I just couldn't be bothered capitalising every one.

8 comments:

  1. The 'problem with feminism' as you put it really isn't the problem as you seem to think. The idea that one gender is in any way better than the other or that your views as a male are deemed invalid are preposterous, and are not views the vast majority of feminists would endorse, in fact the majority strive to distance themselves from such negative stereotypes. It's not helpful to the movement making such sweeping statements, and especially not projecting these views upon the Glasgow Feminist Network, which many of your friends are hoping to be involved in and relaunch into a valuable resource for the feminist community of Glasgow, when they simply aren't true.

    What I can only assume it is that you are referring to the use of female only spaces in such meetings and workshops, which is in no way the same as proclaiming women are better than men, or that their views are any more worthwhile. While I, like many feminists, am divided about the exclusion of men in such environments, it's important to understand the reasoning behind it before making such broad assumptions.

    In a world where women are still in many areas treated as second class citizens, still earn less and own less, are still under-represented in areas of power and have voices that are still deemed less important than those of men, it is important they have spaces where their voices can be heard loud and clear, they are empowered, and are able to control their own movement, in the same way men have been allowed to for thousands of years without the input of women. Somewhere were they can share the experiences and problems of being a woman in a patriarchal society. With male privilege still existing, it's difficult for women to do so in the presence of men, therefore a female only 'safe' space is helpful, with women being able to share thoughts and feelings with other women who are all directly effected by the issues.

    Personally, I think a mixture of women-only spaces and shared-spaces is the best way forward, and I hope the Glasgow Feminist Network can decide on this on an event-by-event basis, like many other similar organisations do. The support of male feminists is crucial to the movement, and of course men can have just as valid opinions and ideas to bring to the table. For society to change, we need the support of as many people as possible, regardless of gender. However, men involved in the feminist movement have to accept that they do not face the same issues and problems as women (obviously a patriarchal society is also harmful to men, but in an entirely different way) and respect female-only spaces.

    I can understand there are valid arguments against the use of such spaces, however it is important to understand the arguments for them. Suggesting that the use of such spaces correlates with female-supremacy is not only untrue, but extremely damaging to a movement that, as you quite rightly stated, is fighting for equality above all.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hi there Stoo, firstly thankyou for being so nice about me (blushes)

    I think Claire makes some really good points, and
    would add that it's difficult for men coming to feminism to get to grips with some things ( I appreciate that probably sounds patronising, but gender and feminism is uuber complicated and based in experiences, and a difficult thing to negotiate even for people who spend all their time reading and thinking about it)

    As regarding the word feminism, it has a long history of important battles which changing the name would risk losing the connection to. A lot of feminist mens groups use the term 'pro feminist' rather than feminist, and there is an interesting debate on the London Pro feminist men's group about it.

    http://londonprofeministmensgroup.blogspot.com/

    also I would check out 'feminism 101' as a lot of the issues that you have with feminism are covered on that site in a more lengthy and articulate way than I could manage. Obviously you don't have to agree with it all, but it does have a lot of good links and stuff.

    http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/

    also, these days a lot of feminists use the term 'kyriarchy' instead of patriarchy in order to draw attention to the fact that there are many different forms of opressions (such as race/class/ability/sexuality) and that your gender is not the main thing.I am undecided about it's utility as a term but it's something else to think about.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Liz, I like the term Pro-Feminist. That makes sense and I never thought of that. I wasn't seriously suggesting a change of name for the whole movement (you probably realise this) as I do understand the historical struggle but the term Pro-Feminist pretty much sums up what I'm trying to say. Thank you. Your reply was constructive in it's criticism, and that is appreciated.

    Claire, it would seem I have offended you. I'm not going to apologise for that. You seem to have taken exception to my complaints about a relatively small proportion of feminists. I don't understand why you have taken exception since I wasn't (as far as I know) referring to you since I've never known you to make those kind of statements.

    You have also taken offense on behalf of everyone who's ever been connected with The Glasgow Feminist Network, or ever hopes to be involved, but that doesn't change the fact that a close friend of yours advised me not to attend meetings as I wouldn't be welcome. That doesn't mean everyone who has ever attented or is hoping to attend is sexist, but that some of the members are.

    While my title was a (clearly cackhanded) attempt at humour, this is a problem Some (stress on "some", not all) women are sexist. The term sexist does not refer solely to men subjugating or demeaning or patronising or etc etc etc women. I'm not stupid enough to suggest that our society is no longer patriarchal. I would hope you would give me more credit than that. However, I don't see how you can sidestep the point I'm making. Some women are sexist. Some women think men shouldn't be part of this discussion. I have a problem with that.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Claire, I've walked away from this to give myself some time to really formulate what I want to say. I don't want this to become an argument, and I know I can seem confrontational on the internet at the best of times due to my fairly blunt conversational style, so please keep that in mind when reading this.

    With your comments "However, men involved in the feminist movement have to accept that they do not face the same issues and problems as women... and respect female-only spaces" and "What I can only assume it is that you are referring to the use of female only spaces in such meetings and workshops, which is in no way the same as proclaiming women are better than men, or that their views are any more worthwhile. While I, like many feminists, am divided about the exclusion of men in such environments, it's important to understand the reasoning behind it before making such broad assumptions", you have missed the point quite spectacularly. Not only that, but to suggest that I, of all people, don't understand the need for women-only spaces and support mechanisms... Given what you know, about me, about those close to me... I don't think I can get close to articulating how reading that made me feel. Do you really think that I can't get my clunking male brain around those concepts? Really?

    ReplyDelete
  5. There's a world of difference between 'some women' being sexist and 'a good deal of feminists', which is what you said in your original post.

    As for saying Claire took offence on behalf of the Glasgow Feminist Network, you pretty much went ahead and tarred everyone involved in it with the same brush when you said "Many feminists, however (including, I'm lead to believe, the Glasgow Feminist Network ) believe that the possession of a penis and the possession of Feminist opinions and beliefs are mutually exclusive, and that a male Feminist is an oxymoron.", based on one person telling you you wouldn't be welcome. At the moment the Glasgow Feminist Network is a women-only space voted for by consensus for the reasons Claire gave above. I'm not saying that that isn't without problems and I agree with Claire about the idea of being open to having a mix of women only and mixed events. That doesn't mean that men's opinions aren't welcome or valued, that the Glasgow Feminist Network believes that men don't have a place within the feminist movement or that we believe men can't identify as feminist. To say that 'a good deal of feminists believe x' is incredibly presumptuous.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Christina, I take on board the difference between "some" and "a good deal". That's something I've written for easiness sake to avoid being overly-repetitive and it's not particularly accurate, at least not in this context. I do still believe that too many feminists do feel this way, but I honestly don't have any information on the overall feel of the Glasgow Feminist Network for the reason outlined above. You've belittled that reason without cause, as far as I can see. One person didn't tell me I wasn't welcome. One person told me the group in general would be "uncomfortable" with my presence. There's a big difference between those two statements.

    On the other hand, clearly I should have said "some at the Glasgow Feminist Network" or something similar. I'm not sure that would have blunted your response much, though. Overall, both your and Claire's comments seem... vitriolic in nature. I'm still a bit bemused by that.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I'm sorry you seem to have taken this so personally Stoo, and I really do apologise if you feel this has turned into some personal attack on you, which it really wasn't intended to be. But you've opened up discourse on a topic that is close to my heart while making statements not only do I not agree with, but feel the need to discuss and try and explain.

    Of course sexism exists among both sexes, but I simply don't believe it's as big a problem as you made out in your original post, and I'd sincerely like to think it wasn't a problem within the members for the Glasgow Feminist Network. The way your post was written seemed to emphasise the link between such views and organisations such as the GFN far too strongly for my liking, which I took exception to. When you were advised not to attend the meeting, I very much doubt it had anything to do with sexism. It sounds to me that the reasoning behind the creation of a women only space wasn't articulated to you well, and I'm sorry you came out of the experience with such a bitter taste left in your mouth.

    I know you're heart's in the right place, and I admire that you feel strongly about the topic and want to be as involved and supportive as possible, but please don't try and turn me into the enemy by putting phrases in my mouth like "clunking male brain". My aim wasn't to undermine your intelligence, but from how I understood your post, you were equating the exclusion of men from women-only spaces to anti-male sentiment and the exclusion of men from discussion and participation in feminism entirely, and I felt I had to clear that up.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I'm glad you wanted to clear it up. The reason I was upset by your mention of the women-only spaces and I used the phrase above was that I was talking about something completely different (which, I agree, I didn't articulate well and I've conceded above that I wrote about in a lazy fashion - remember I haven't written anything like this in a very long time) and you made that assumption. I think making that assumption, despite the information you have at your disposal... Well, I've covered that already.

    ReplyDelete