Noah Brand makes the case that gender theory applies to both genders.
This article is a response to “Why Being a Good Man is Not a Feminist Issue” by Tom Matlack.
The reason I agreed to come on board as editor-in-chief at the Good Men Project is that this site is doing something nobody else is doing, at least not on this scale. Its core mission is born of personal and transformative experience of how men’s lives and stories are too often ignored, devalued, or limited by painfully constricting gender roles. Most websites targeted at men blithely buy into the beer-football-tits model of masculinity, the implicit ideas that men can’t be complex, can’t be introspective, can only be knuckle-dragging cartoon characters in ties.
Whatever our other differences, I hope we can all agree: fuck that noise.
The Good Men Project is doing something else, something more profound and true, providing a space for the expression of all the things men are trained not to express. We provide a platform for men to tell their stories, talk about their struggles, their triumphs and their tragedies. We are, if I say so myself, pretty good at it. But, and this is the good part, we do more than that.
To say that our culture has an outdated and toxic notion of manhood is true, but it’s merely identifying a problem. That’s only the first step. Next one must understand the problem, and then take steps to address it. To assume that one can simultaneously challenge and subscribe to traditional notions of masculinity is ludicrous. It’s like raising a toast to quitting drinking. So one of the things we’ve gotten good at doing, in addition to telling our stories, is looking at why it’s hard to tell those stories in the first place. We talk about changing our destructive attitudes, and we also ask where those attitudes come from. We talk about the mistakes we’ve made, and we learn to put those mistakes in context, to figure out why they seemed like good ideas at the time.
In short, it is neither possible nor desirable to talk about men’s issues without talking about deeper issues of gender roles and masculinity. And that brings us to the question of how we’re going to talk about those.
♦◊♦
For well over a century, British mathematicians had to use an inferior form of calculus notation. Sir Isaac Newton had developed a form of notation he called fluxions, which performed the same function as the differential calculus developed by Gottfried Liebniz, but not as well. The difference, from the British perspective, was that Newton’s system was developed within the blessed borders of Albion itself, whereas Liebniz was just some bloody German so who cared about his system?
This is known as the Not Invented Here problem, and it’s serious enough that… well, it has its own name. It’s when, due to some imagined turf war or opposition or whatever, people attempting to solve a problem will actually reject and ignore solutions already developed by others, simply because they were developed by others.
Feminism has made extraordinary strides in breaking down the old, dysfunctional ideas about women’s roles, women’s potential, women’s inner lives. Through constant internal battles, schisms, false starts, and the general pain-in-the-assery that is the nature of any movement based around human beings, the overall thrust of feminism has succeeded brilliantly in liberating women from outdated gender roles, and continues to do so today.
What I’m getting at is that I want to help liberate men from the bullshit cultural ideas of what manhood is “supposed” to be, from the broken machismo and useless stoicism that just close us off from each other. And I don’t want to do it using goddamn fluxions.
Feminism has developed a toolkit for addressing gender issues, and it’s a set of verbal and conceptual tools that, I cannot overemphasize, we already know works. It’s been working like a mad bastard for decades now. Feminists have embraced the language and ideas necessary to recognize one’s own blind spots and privilege, to unpack the subtext in conventional wisdom, to truly question the received notions about what men and women are “supposed” to be. Now we can put those ideas to work on the flip side of the same problems, analyzing culture with the same incisive eye and freeing our minds with the same empowering concepts. To reject that toolkit, those words, those transformative ideas just because they’re somehow perceived as “other” is the height of folly.
♦◊♦
Now, I get that there are some reservations about this idea, and I want to address those. First, let’s just get rid of the stupid notion one hears that “all feminists hate men.” I’m standing right here, I’m a feminist, I’m a man, most of my friends are feminists, none of us hate men, let’s grow up and move on. Acting like there’s some kind of Valerie Solanas Fan Club that anyone listens to is not engaging with reality in any adult fashion.
More relevant is the notion that feminist theory can only ever focus on women. That’s a more legitimate point, because historically, that’s mostly what’s happened. However, just because something has been true does not mean it has to go on being true. Think of the founding of America and the radical notion that all men are created equal, the idea that the circumstances of one’s birth did not grant anyone an inherent superiority over anyone else. We all know that wasn’t applied very consistently… basically ever. But once that concept existed, once that principle was established, it began to be applied to more and more people, because the principle itself was so strong and so true that it could not be denied.
In the same way, feminism began as a movement to liberate women from their stupid, limiting gender roles, but as others have written and I’ve pointed out myself, there’s no separating women’s horrible gender roles from men’s horrible gender roles. Every dumb cliché about how women are overemotional carries with it the connotation that men can’t have or express emotions. Every joke about men being lazy slobs implies that women are destined to do all the cleaning. The idea that women are helpless objects to be protected from everything is tied right in with the idea that men are disposable cannon fodder, whether in combat or civilian life. Men’s issues and women’s issues simply are not two separate problems, and the illusion that they are is just another outdated notion we need to outgrow.
Thing is, that’s a logical argument, and the truth is, most people come to these matters on an emotional level. If something just feels wrong to us, in our guts, no amount of logic in the world can persuade us otherwise. So we need to talk about why feminist talk just feels wrong to some guys on a visceral level, or we’re not getting at the real issue.
It is hard to admit that you’re part of an unfair system. It’s really hard to face the fact that you’ve been, to some extent, participating in the system that’s been screwing you over. I look back on all the petty acts of humiliation and unthinking social enforcement that I’ve been party to, and quite frankly am still sometimes party to, and I feel ashamed. As a kid, I ostracized the boys who acted “too girly” along with the rest of the class. As a teenager, I bought into the idea that I had to be the toughest and strongest, and that the only emotion I was permitted was anger. As a grown man, I’ve sneered “man up” at guys who dared underperform their assigned gender role. One of the things that applying feminist theory to your own life does is it makes you realize “Oh shit… I’ve been being a jerk.”
Women are by no means excepted from this unpleasant process. Indeed, most of the feminist women I’ve talked to have rueful stories of how they used to call girls fat just to hurt them, how they ignored the signs of abusive relationships that are obvious in retrospect, even how they bought into the idea that men’s issues were some totally alien landscape that had nothing to do with them. All these things, they realize, were wrong, and they all came to this awkward realization by honest application of social justice theory. Their experiences, in short, were exactly like mine.
Men face a similar awkward realization, each one of us, and a lot of guys don’t want to face it. It’s way easier to justify your participation in an unfair system, or to flatly deny that the system is unfair, than it is to accept that you have not always been a good man. It is hard to admit one’s weaknesses, one’s mistakes, one’s petty cruelties and private shames, but it is necessary if we are to become good men. We’re lucky, though. There’s a set of tools designed to help us do just that, a roadmap to a more fair system where we, and everyone else, are free of the pointless strictures of an outmoded past. To my mind, the only truly good thing to do is pick up those tools and get to work, because there’s a lot to be done.
Photo—Puzzle Heads from Shutterstock
Stoicism is hardly useless. It’s pretty handy when you’re in any earthly hellish place (see POW camp). It’s also nice when you have to work triple shifts for days at a time and pretend you’re as fresh as the first hour you started. If you’re an adult you better know how to handle pain and suffering for long periods of time. The world isn’t going to wait on you to “feel” better.
People who are not social constructionists do not believe they should be monitored and supervised by social constructionists, conversely social constructionists will make every effort to monitor and supervise everyone. The marxist notion of “male gender” and “female gender” is extremely dissimilar to the natural (existential) reality of there being a “male sex” and “female sex.” In order to escape from the supervision of those who want to control us, we must com,e to the realization that even the use the term “gender” in our own speech and writing when we mean to refer to the sexes is undermining us.… Read more »
The biggest problem I have with feminism is the theories of male privilege and patriarchy (with a big P as in a culture that spreads male privilege and female subjugation, not the anthropology definition of father-lead homes). These theories are a narrative that only have a basis in fact, when one goes through with a broad revisionist brush of history to white out male disposability. The idea that women face systemic gendered oppression, but only some men faced oppression due to their identity as being in a sub-group (like black or gay) is a broken concept. Women also have female… Read more »
Not sure how male disposability has anything to do with the point at hand. Feminism focuses on a specific, gender-based discrimination. Classism focuses on a specific, resource-based discrimination. They are not mutually exclusive, and male disposability certainly doesn’t invalidate feminism’s arguments. It’s a related issue which merits its own nuanced discussion.
Culturally enforced male disposablity isn’t a type of gender based discrimination?How?
I’ve always seen privilege applied to the group(s) that are more suppressed, implying it’s a relative thing. Like I can have advantages from being female, but they add up to a tenth of the advantages you get on a daily basis, as a man. So I guess I’m saying, I don’t think that word means what you think it means. And since feminism has proved itself a flexible thing, maybe throwing your weight behind campaigns to get women in to ALL parts of the military and workforce in equal numbers will even out the disposable problem in the now (well,… Read more »
“By stepping out of the movement altogether instead of applying pressure in the right places, you’ve deprived a legitimate movement of an ally and yourself of a tool to get your passion realized.” But you seem to have completely missed the point. You even say it yourself. You say what needs to be done is to “throw your weight behind campaigns to get WOMEN” what they want. Your focus remains solely on the workforce, failing to even acknowledge that inequity exists in the family, because there, women already have the power, so your feminism never seems to look there, except… Read more »
Really 10%…. So 4 more years of life means little? I wish I’d kept the link to the German study that compared monks and nuns life expectancy under the same daily regimen. The average mortality variance female/male was under 6 months.
“Feminism has made extraordinary strides in breaking down the old, dysfunctional ideas about women’s roles, women’s potential, women’s inner lives.”
It is the biggest lie I have ever read. It was not feminism, but the enlightened men of the society in the Western world who helped remove the obstacles in the way of women for achieving their full potential. In countries where powerful men have put their feet down, feminism can do nothing. For example, take the case of Saudi Arabia where women have recently got right to drive. There any deviation from the rules are dealt with heavy hand.
Actually not even – for the most part, it was technology.
Wait wait wait…so feminism is this ineffectual movement which has been unable to achieve even it’s stated goals (i.e. breaking down old ideas about women’s roles), but at the same time it’s this horribly powerful movement with huge backing and influence in the government and responsible for screwing over men? How has it managed to both have such a huge impact and yet do so little?
What a good question!
I think Rapses holds a substantially more radical view of Feminism than most of the other commenters here…
But it’s strange how the conversation has become all about Feminism. Again. Instead of about men. Oy vey.
Oi now…it’s only about feminism because these articles are about feminism. If Tom’s article didn’t mention feminism, then I’m willing to bet Noah’s wouldn’t, and then Rapses might not have made that comment…and then I wouldn’t have responded…etc.
The point is, by saying “let’s not talk about X,” inevitably you end up talking about X…that’s just how it goes, regardless of what X is.
I agree to an extent. Mostly I’m just disappointed to see the conversation devolving into the same old binary “Feminism sucks!” or “Feminism is awesome!”
Instead of, y’know, taking a nuanced approach and focusing more on men. But I digress.
I think men are groovy. MEN!!!!! 🙂 I wish the man that lives in my house would get home so I could nom on him!
“Wait wait wait…so feminism is this ineffectual movement which has been unable to achieve even it’s stated goals…but at the same time it’s this horribly powerful movement with huge backing and influence in the government and responsible for screwing over men? How has it managed to both have such a huge impact and yet do so little?”
lol…well if Republicans can do it, why not feminists?
While I don’t entirely agree with Rapses (though I do think feminism pushed and speed things along, they did so on things that were inevitable, and have taken credit for things that were available decades before feminism became popular), I do need to ask… “so feminism is this ineffectual movement which has been unable to achieve even it’s stated goals” What stated goals of feminism (since second wave) have feminists said “got it. Mission accomplished. on to the next one”? Every single feminist goal “still has work to be done”. Even when the education gap literally reversed, and then some,… Read more »
The education gap has only “literally reversed” at the youngest ages. The older the students get, the more likely women are surpassed by men. Now, the trend continues in favor of women and the young girls who are out-performing young boys will most likely to continue to do so (and this needs to be addressed! If one gender is out-performing the other and we can just mush it around with some programs, there’s something wrong.) BUT we still need these programs because it’s not that women have more education than men and still need more or that they’re better students… Read more »
“BUT we still need these programs because it’s not that women have more education than men and still need more or that they’re better students than men but need to widen the gap, it’s because you find women disproportionately in “women’s” fields and conspicuously absent from more “masculine” programs — such as science.” Except if this really were the case, the proposed solutions wouldn’t be so one sided: http://www.openmarket.org/2012/07/10/quotas-limiting-male-science-enrollment-the-new-liberal-war-on-science/ Where are the quota’s that would restrict women’s participation in the liberal arts, etc, to that proportional to men? The simple answer is, women doing better than men is the standard… Read more »
@ Rapses
“It was not feminism, but the enlightened men of the society in the Western world who helped remove the obstacles in the way of women for achieving their full potential. ”
Are you referring to the tales of the goddesses Artemis and Diana or the tale of the Amazons as the forerunners of modern day feminism?
Leibniz’s calculus and Newton’s calculus were, to all intents and purposes, identical. It was the scientists’ philosophies about calculus that were different. D –
I don’t know Noah. I think you captured part of feminism well. And clearly men stand to benefit from the now widely accepted principle that one’s gender should not define or limit oneself, particularly when those limits and definitions are used as a means of systemic control and direction by one’s culture. But I think it really ends there with men and feminism. Unfortunately feminism advocates an adversarial relationship between the genders that is inseparable from the movement. The very language “feminism” and “patriarchy” will always frame the conversation in terms that remind me, that as a man, I am… Read more »
I think you’ve nailed it, random stranger. I don’t call myself a feminist for the same reason thanpt I don’t call myself a libertarian. Although many of the principles I hold are comparable with the literal, academic interpretation of those labels, the labels have taken on a popular meaning (or in some cases many popular meanings) that don’t align. My rule of thumb is: if I have to explain what I mean my a label every time I use it, it’s a bad label. So if I say I’m a feminist (by which I mean I believe in gender moral… Read more »
Are you saying that politics is self serving enterprise that needs opposition to stay relevant, and that this characteristic is both the thing that keep it alive and eventually ages it to irrelevance?
And that any opposition to the above is termed backlash, and instead of introspection and adjustment, the politic views this as just another fundraising cross to bear, just more evidence of oppression?
Unfortunately feminism advocates an adversarial relationship between the genders that is inseparable from the movement. The very language “feminism” and “patriarchy” will always frame the conversation in terms that remind me, that as a man, I am the object of your protest.
Um, no. Google ‘individualist feminism’.
It feels like herding cats at times, keeping up with all these permutations.
I just Googled it and Wiki is right at the top – ifeminism, an emphasis on individualism. The Ayn Rand version: woman as a heroic being whose happiness is her moral purpose. Cooperation comes about because it’s less stressful, two heads are better than one, all making me happier. Christina Hoff Sommers is listed as one.
Agreed on the herding cats analogy. Thought iFeminism does appear to be one of the good ones. It’s FAQ speaks honestly about men’s issues, and openly critical about other aspects of feminism. That’s the kind of approach feminists need to clean up their movement and find a common ground with men.
Hi Kristen, Yes, I know there are multiple, multiple, multiple variants of the feminist idea. And perhaps I’m characterizing a certain strain of feminism, but the existence of ‘individualist feminism’ does nothing to diminish the palpable presence of the feminism I am most familiar with (evidently its called marxist feminism, it appears right next to ifeminism when you Google it). Perhaps its unfortunate, but marxist feminism, for reasons endemic to its outwardly activist philosophy, is far more likely to be most men’s first experience with feminism, and it comes with a shaking fist. Regardless, all forms of feminism at their… Read more »
You’re into Wendy McElroy?
Hey Noah… I don’t keep up on everything over here but I do have you guys in my FB news feed and read articles here and there, occasionally feeling amused or enlightened. I read Tom’s piece today and had my finger on the judgement button, about to write GMP off as unfocused, clueless, and largely not worth my time. Then I read this piece. I guess I’ll stick around 🙂
Hey Noah… You were saying something about rejecting ideas because they came from the “other”?
Is this really the attitude you feel will help men become better men?
“about to write GMP off as unfocused, clueless, and largely not worth my time.” – It shouldn’t have been worth your time to begin with because it’s about men creating a space for other men and going by your name, you are a woman. Writing against feminism (which is about liberating women) as having nothing to do with men and their suffering, reflects more on you than GMP. Good to know that women are still attempting to co-opt movements intended for men, unless it falls in line with what they want. I don’t know why a woman thinks she is… Read more »
I figure that I’m probably being nit-picky, so I’ll go ahead and preface my comment with an acknowledgement that I’m doing so in pursuit of a larger critique. Basically, I’m uncomfortable with the analogy being drawn between calculus and feminism. Calculus is only a model used to replicate stuff that happens around us, and it’s usefulness is completely dependent upon how accurately it replicates stuff. That being said, calculus is awesome. And it’s used in everything from physics to ecology to economics to what-have-you because it’s awesome. And, oh my god, did I mention that calculus is awesome? And this… Read more »
This is an absolutely brilliant article, Noah. I’m pretty immersed in this stuff at the moment and this article comes as close to my heart and thoughts as anything I’ve read in a long time, thank you. The idea of feminism offering a toolbox to men is, I think, really important and rarely acknowledged I think I only have one key disagreement with you -I don’t call myself a feminist. And the reasons why are actually hinted at in your article here: All these things, they realize, were wrong, and they all came to this awkward realization by honest application… Read more »
I’d suggest your friends and you didn’t need to be feminists to recognize that bullying, gender role policing and all of that were wrong. You just needed awareness of social justice and a bit of human empathy. Got in one Ally. That speaks to some of the problem people have with feminists and their movement. It’s treated like the one and only solution to gender issues. To the point that you get remarks like, “If you aren’t a feminist then you’re a bigot.” or “If you’re not a feminist you might as well kill yourself” (okay that second one was… Read more »
There’s two problems, one you glide over in the article, and the other you’re completely unaware of. The obvious one first then. Feminism is anti-male. Feminist techniques are sexist. Even if you deny it, then you must admit that’s the perception of many men and women. You can’t gain men’s trust if you approach them with that sort of title can you? That should be obvious. The second problem is more fundamental about the nature of feminism vs a men’s rights movement. Feminism is essentially a conservative movement preserving Victorian era cultural stereotypes in many cases about how women are… Read more »
“To say that our culture has an outdated and toxic notion of manhood is true, but it’s merely identifying a problem. That’s only the first step. Next one must understand the problem, and then take steps to address it. To assume that one can simultaneously challenge and subscribe to traditional notions of masculinity is ludicrous.” After reading Hugo’s article, I had to stop at this point. Although you are a little more subtle than he was, you prescribe to the same theory, a theory common amongst feminist, and the very reason feminism does not belong in the discussion of manhood… Read more »
“Feminism has developed a toolkit for addressing gender issues, and it’s a set of verbal and conceptual tools that, I cannot overemphasize, we already know works.” We know it works for women, for feminists. That is not to say it will work for men. For example, the common “blame men and demand they fix it” used in rape and DV campaigns (“only men can stop ______”) isn’t going to be so effective with men’s issues. The negatives of those tools have also not been considered, such as the solution for girls in education being to change education, to the detriment… Read more »
Too the main point of the article there is a difference from copying and utilizing the tools that feminism has created than utilizing the tools they use for their own purposes for ours. In business terms, we would like to R&D and create our own rather than subcontract to feminism.
“Now, I get that there are some reservations about this idea, and I want to address those. First, let’s just get rid of the stupid notion one hears that “all feminists hate men.”” Its not the belief that they hate men. The belief that ALL men are inherently above women and privileged is. Some are creating false enemies and arguments with some men because of this belief. So lets even the playing field by seeing that men hold some cards and women hold others and that screaming that he has a card up his sleeve when you do also is… Read more »
It’s your burden to prove that feminism’s “toolkit” isn’t, in fact, the fluxions in your analogy. I’ve seen very little to indicate that feminism isn’t woefully inadequate at dealing with men’s issues, or that it even tries to be otherwise.
Feminism has developed a toolkit for addressing gender issues, and it’s a set of verbal and conceptual tools that, I cannot overemphasize, we already know works. It’s been working like a mad bastard for decades now. That is not entirely true. A more accurate statement would be that the feminist “toolkit” works for has been working for feminists for decades. Every ideology creates its only “toolkit”, its own set of rhetoric and theories to explain the way the world works. Just because people use something for a long time does not mean it is accurate, let alone that it actually works.… Read more »
Crap. Thought I caught all the word filters.
What a shame. I was hoping you would actually acknowledge the argument before deleting it, at least.
If a word filter catch’s a post, it goes into limbo, it does not get deleted. A moderator WILL look at it at some point (they do not have 24/7 moderators, and they have been, traditionally, very good about keeping posts and not deleting them. That said, there are still limits.
Excerpt: “Feminism has developed a toolkit for addressing gender issues, and it’s a set of verbal and conceptual tools that, I cannot overemphasize, we already know works.” The problem comes when we look at the difference between academic feminism and the lobbying arms of feminism (like NOW and AAUW). The simple fact is to my mind the total aggregate affects of feminist advocacy do *not* = equality. Many proponents of feminism keep posting on these boards and saying feminism does = equality. They may even be right if you judge the overall makeup of members of feminism (rather than advocacy).… Read more »
Well put John. The fact is people are not against feminism because of the liberation of women; who’s against that? I never ever met in my entire life somebody who disliked the idea that women should be free from gender restrictions. Even the most patriarchal man I ever met, agreed to the idea and was supportive. But people (the opposition) are against them exactly because of their action, that contrast their words. I know not all feminist are alike and not everybody agrees on everything (especially the ones who is present here). But there are a good portion who is… Read more »
Hey Blurpo. Thanks for the nod. I enjoyed your whole comment, but one thing caught my attention. You said:”People in history have commited some of the worst crimes against humanity in name of ideologies and religions.” There is an incredibly appropriate saying that goes:”The road to hell is paved with good intentions”. It is entirely too easy to let sensationalistic tendencies (i.e. mob mentality) drive crusades like “keep kids safe”, “women’s rights” or any other crusade become so large it tramples personal freedoms. It’s time to set sensationalism aside and realize that women’s rights isn’t the end all be all… Read more »
I read something about Tony Porter today that:
It is Tony’s belief (…) that the liberation of men is deeply rooted and tied into the liberation of women. That one cannot happen without the other, because the concepts of gender behavior and roles are created from the same system.
In this context, I see Noah’s “feminist tools” as being the means by which we recognize the cause of our gender oppression as men. What we do about it is another question. As other commentors seem to be saying: women’s answers here aren’t necessarily men’s answers.
It seems like these days most forms of oppression of men ARE feminist tools.
A lot of people here seem to be interpreting this post as Noah saying that a) all men interested in developing critical perspectives on masculinity should accept everything any feminist has ever said, including misandrist statements and b) that men should uncritically and without alteration apply the tools of feminist liberation to their own lives, regardless of how useful they actually are for solving men’s problems. Obviously I don’t speak for Noah, but the way I interpreted this post was an argument in favour of not automatically rejecting all feminist thought, because there may be some useful lessons for men’s… Read more »
Really? Because I think his article pretty plainly states that “we don’t need no damn fluxions.” Or, that Feminism should be the only/most important tool men use. Obviously a lot of other people agree, so perhaps you’re just reading it differently?
Feminism has developed a toolkit for addressing gender issues, and it’s a set of verbal and conceptual tools that, I cannot overemphasize, we already know works. It’s been working like a mad bastard for decades now. Feminists have embraced the language and ideas necessary to recognize one’s own blind spots and privilege, to unpack the subtext in conventional wisdom, to truly question the received notions about what men and women are “supposed” to be. Now we can put those ideas to work on the flip side of the same problems, analyzing culture with the same incisive eye and freeing our… Read more »
Given that many prominent feminists teach that there is no such thing as misandry how can one hope to use it as a toolkit to combat misandry? I personally have quite a bit of empathy for the problems women can experience in our society. I also unequivocally agree that women should not face restrictions simply due to gender. However, when a feminist applies circular reasoning to explain away obvious examples of systemic bias against men it becomes obvious that this person IS NOT my ally. I especially love it when said feminist uses a whacky set of reasoning that “proves”… Read more »
Noah, You said, “This is known as the Not Invented Here problem … people attempting to solve a problem will actually reject and ignore solutions already developed by others, simply because they were developed by others.” I’m curious though. Feminists have, overwhelmingly, intimated that Feminist spaces are NOT spaces for men to work out their issues. How do you think the men Tom Matlack talked about would be received if they began talking about their distinctly male issues in a space designed to address Feminist issues? Even my girlfriend has OFTEN said, “when I’m talking about things that affect me… Read more »
Excellent point. That thought struck me as well. Feminism has indeed developed some powerful and effective tools for handling the problems and issues women have to face in a gender-role-driven society. For example, they have a response for being treated as emotion-driven and irrational; they have a tool for being denied access to the workplace; and they have a highly effective method for gaining access to education and not being treated as a walking womb. But those aren’t the problems men are facing. Men are facing problems of disposability; of exclusion from the home and family; of contemptuous treatment based… Read more »
When the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
Feminist’s take on men’s issues, seems very similar to this.
I have thought of feminism as a rejection of culturally obligatory narratives. The one of the woman who is content to be submissive to her husband, to bear children, care for them, to make a home, to support a man while being selfless, blindly devoted regardless of reciprocity, and accepting her limitations as imposed by the status quo. It is a rejection of being tamed, shamed, and silenced. Feminism is not born out of a desire to reject men, but rather the culture shaped almost exclusively by and for the benefit of, men. So the aim of this site, for… Read more »
-“Feminism is not born out of a desire to reject men, but rather the culture shaped almost exclusively by and for the benefit of, men.”
How is such a specious argument even remotely plausible when you consider the higher suicide, Homelessness, violence, incarceration and death rates of men?
Keep feminism and Just give me self determinism.
I struggled for several minutes trying to understand exactly what your point about men having higher rates of violence and suicide has to do with the highlighted quote you chose to reference from my post. And I got nothing. Really not sure what that has to do with my opinion of feminism. I guess you’re trying to say that our culture, or our society has not been disproportionately beneficial to men as compared to women? I don’t see how men having higher suicide rates or being homeless proves in that theory. It’s pretty clear that wealth, power, sexual liberty, religion,… Read more »
What bothers me about that statement is the belief that male leadership “Almost Exclusively” benefits men. That’s just not true. If you could not protect your women, your culture would have been eradicated.
You may call it “Patriarchy” but I choose to see it as practicing Male disposablity as means of survival. The remnants of which still go on to this day hence the high suicide, homeless & incarceration rates.
sorry for not making myself more intelligible.
Feminism is a set of tools. Not “the” set. It is, I believe, a good set albeit with its own limits. All toolsets have limits. Why not use all the toolsets we can? Why these goddamn poles? They are all stories, whether data or image, fact or feeling, theory or myth. We can’t do this without all of it. Theory is as important as basking in the glow of a personal story. Theory is born from collected stories. We lose when we as a culture only use one set.
Noah thanks for this piece.
Well…
I’m sympathetic, but there are two things bothering me:
1)the name. I know it’s a petty thing, but how inclusive can it be if it has the root of one gender in the name?
2) a lot of the pain in my own life has come from women, some of it coming from internalized patriarchy on the part of the women in question, but not all. Some women have hurt me just because. How does feminism help me with that?