So, it might be surprising that I don't call myself a feminist now. I'm not afraid of the word and I don't equate feminists with man hating. I don't feel hate when I hear the word, I feel frustration, and frankly anger that women's rights has allowed itself to follow the same path as so many political movements before it, allowed a dogma to replace common sense and common decency.
Friends, hear me out.
The definition of feminism is "a collection of movements aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, and social rights for women." More recently, the definition has included rights for other disenfranchised groups like LBGT and racial minorities. Anyone that isn't a hetero while male, basically. So far, so good. I stand by all of that.
Feminist theory is what lies behind feminism. It didn't start the movement, but it arose from scholarly research on the topic of women experiences, largely researched by feminist social scientists, writers and journalists.
"Feminist researchers embrace two key tenets: (1) their research should focus on the condition of women in society, and (2) their research must be grounded in the assumption that women generally experience subordination. "You see, women had it pretty shitty for a long time. The 19th amendment wasn't passed until 1920, finally allowing us representation in our government. Wearing pants in public was considered obscene. Certain jobs were just not open to women. Women were mothers and wives unless there were unmarried, in which case they could be school teachers, nurses and seamstresses or do factory work. The definition of rape was such that a husband couldn't rape his wife and victims were usually at fault in some way. Birth control was non-existent. When a woman got pregnant, there was nothing (legal) to be done and her life would never be the same. The inevitable marriage was for all intents and purposes a sentence to perpetual baby making, with the possibility of death in childbirth a very real result. This is of course an extremely abbreviated version of the injustices that women were forced to endure, suffice to say that life was no bed of roses for women of the past.
-Wikipedia
We should all be grateful to the women's rights activists in the past. There's still work to do, but it's much better. Cups raised to all the women that lost their lives, their livelihoods and their loved ones in the pursuit of equal rights. I thank you from the absolute bottom of my heart.
So what was going on with men during this revolution. Were they lounging in their libraries and dens, smoking pipes and drinking bourbon, enjoying secret stashes of scantily clad women? Yes! And also, running the world! But really, the answer to this is that the overwhelming majority were not.
Before the early 1900's, premarital sex was pretty scandalous so the only way to have sex was to pay for it and risk your junk, or get married. Being married had a lot of other advantages besides. You gained a partner that was as invested in your well-being as you were. You gained the comforts of a family and a home. You gained connections within your community. So most people got married.
Imagine you're a man in the US in the time prior to women's right activism. It wasn't until the mid 1800's that men who didn't own property could vote. So, unless you had a good job or a rich family, you also had no say in your representation. You were legally and socially responsible for your wife, meaning that if your wife committed a crime, you were considered responsible. This included paying of debts accrued without your knowledge. Contrary to popular belief most places had domestic violence laws, and beating your wife was discouraged. On the other hand, if your wife physically abused you, you had no recourse but to hit her back. If you were handicapped in someway, or simply to nice to hit back, too bad for you.
You were required by law to support your family. The only birth control at the time was unreliable and discouraged so if everyone was healthy, the babies just kept coming. Unless your wife took care of that somehow. More babies meant more work for you which meant no chance to see your wife kids. Staying at home wasn't even a option. You were lucky if you say your kids an hour a day, unless you were a farmer.
If you were working outside the home and poor there was a good chance what you did was pretty dangerous, like factories or mines. Or during war you were required to join the military.
So where we the men's rights activist in all this upheaval? Well, with a few exceptions, there just weren't any. While things were changing for women, things were not changing as quickly for men. In fact, men deviating from the norm of being the sole financial provider were dismissed, mocked, and ostracized.
The fact of the matter is that men had it pretty shitty too, and it was, and still is ignored. The gender binary screwed absolutely everyone in one way or another.
Did women have it worse than men? I don't know but when I contrast not having the right to vote, with the legal responsibility to fight and die for a cause I don't understand or support...women come out better. Safer.
In the world I live in right now, I know that the gender binary is still screwing everyone. But for women's issues there is a dialogue, there is movement and change. There is support from churches, government agencies, and individuals for "women's" issues. Not only doesn't this exist for men, it isn't allowed to exist. Men's rights is a dirty word for most feminists, with people throwing around accusations of misogyny, sexism, racism.
I'm not going to allow feminists to define this movement for me. There are some very, very angry men involved, it's true. Anger can be destructive, but it can also breed change. Many men have just had enough of being told they don't matter unless they're rich and white.
I get it.
You do get it. This is about as succinctly as I have seen it put. Well done.
ReplyDeleteSomething that just occurred to me becauee you asked where the MRAs were in the 1800s is that it would be interesting to compare the resistance form women that the woen's rights movement got, starting with the suffrage movement but not restricted to that, to the resistance the MRM is getting from men. People resist change because it threatens vested positions of power or security.
And if you have time, you might drop by our place. You could certainly make a contribution in comments.
http://www.genderratic.com/
You partly get it. However, I do respect you willingness to be intellectually honest.
ReplyDeleteSo the definition of "feminism" that you stand for is equality for everyone, except white heterosexual men? As a white hetero man, that sucks as far as I'm concerned.
"Feminist researchers embrace two key tenets: (1) their research should focus on the condition of women in society, and (2) their research must be grounded in the assumption that women generally experience subordination. "
-Wikipedia
They're basing their "research" on a pre-existing assumption? What if that assumption is wrong? The scientific method is that you don't rely on assumptions, but instead base your conclusions on what you find. If you do make assumptions, you must be willing to challenge them if your results show otherwise. You don't start with a conclusion, and then conduct research to prove yourself right. Sounds like feminists already knew what they want to prove.
Actually, I disagree with (2). I do think that in the past there were gendered roles in which men and women were expected to fulfil. However, that's not the same as saying that women generally experience subordinate.
>The definition of rape was such that a husband couldn't rape his wife and victims were usually at fault in some way.
According the CDC now, the definition of rape is such that a women cannot rape a man. Forced sexual intercourse by a woman on a man is not defined as rape. If you do consider forced sex (rather than penetration) to be "rape", than you find the approximate gender parity between the sexes.
>Birth control was non-existent.
Sounds like the situation for men now.
>When a woman got pregnant, there was nothing (legal) to be done and her life would never be the same.
I think if you swapped out "her life" for "his life", that would be about right for the current situation.
>This is of course an extremely abbreviated version of the injustices that women were forced to endure
Forced? By whom? Men were to blame for childbirth being difficult? And for life being hard in general?
>So what was going on with men during this revolution. Were they lounging in their libraries and dens, smoking pipes and drinking bourbon, enjoying secret stashes of scantily clad women?
That's right--they weren't. They were working in the fields, in the factories and the pits. In working class communities, the man's pay packet would go straight to his wife who would be the one responsible for spending it. Have you ever heard of the phrase "pop goes the weasle"? That meant when the man's pay was spent in the pub, rather than giving it to his wife. Of course this happened (there have always been alcoholics since grapes were first crushed), but we are talking generally here. Generally women got the man's pay, and that doesn't sound like subordination.
> The gender binary screwed absolutely everyone in one way or another.
You're looking at the past with the 21st century perspective. Life was different back then. Often it was on a subsistence level, and priorities were different. In fact, given the possibilities that were available at the time, much of the way things were were in fact optimal for women and children, not men. They were the ones down the pits, in the fields and factories--remember?
>Men's rights is a dirty word for most feminists, with people throwing around accusations of misogyny, sexism, racism.
Thank you for realising that.
May I suggest that you read "The Woman Racket (Moxon)" for an alternative perspective. Also take a loot at the "GirlWritesWhat" videos on Youtube.
Best wishes
I'm sorry, there's a lot of your comment I just don't understand. For example:
ReplyDelete"So the definition of "feminism" that you stand for is equality for everyone, except white heterosexual men? As a white hetero man, that sucks as far as I'm concerned."
I don't stand for feminism. That why the post is called
"why not feminism".
The rest of your post criticizes points I make about women in the past, but I think you failed to see that the post is set up to point out that for every female injustice, there was a male one as well. I also never used the word "subordinance".
I'm sorry I just don't get it. But thanks very much for your comment.
>I don't stand for feminism. That why the post is called "why not feminism".
ReplyDeleteThen I'm really confused. This is what you wrote in the post:
>The definition of feminism is "a collection of movements aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, and social rights for women." More recently, the definition has included rights for other disenfranchised groups like LBGT and racial minorities. Anyone that isn't a hetero while male, basically. So far, so good. I stand by all of that.
You say, "I stand by all of that".
So help me out, here. I tend to interpret things literally (borderline Aspie), and there's a lot in your original post that I obviously don't understand. I'm not sure it would be helpful to start picking out examples (I could if you want to discuss), however, would I be right in thinking that you are basically coming from the following point of view?:
"Feminism has been a really thing overall, but perhaps things have gone a little too far and men are being ignored etc. And that perhaps, unlike many feminists suggest, men didn't always have it so good.", and based on the last paragraph in the post, you are saying that "you are *no longer* going to stand for feminism, certainly not given the direction it seems to be going?"
I'm genuinely interested to hear of your perspective.
No, I'm saying I support women having equal rights with men. I support gay rights. But I feel like men's rights are being entirely left out of the discussion.
ReplyDeleteWhen is said I'm not going to let feminists define the movement for me, I meant that they believe the MRM is a hate group. I'm not accepting that definition even though there are people like that in the movement, they don't define it either. Does that make sense?
I want to thank you for having an open mind, its refreshing to see someone finding their own way. Researching subjects yourself and taking your own analysis of any problem is the way to go. That avoids ending up buying into someone else's propaganda. P.S: One problem that people have is how they understand specific words, things can be so subjective it causes issues, so do not take that to heart.
ReplyDeleteThank you so much for this, it really means the world.
DeleteFrankly, something like feminism may have a future with women like you. Encouraging.
ReplyDeleteHi Allan, I'm not exactly sure what you mean by that. Can you explain?
DeleteI like this very much thank you I was wondering if I could make some posts here?
ReplyDeleteThank you so much for this.
ReplyDeleteSince boyhood I have always felt undervalued for being male. Wherever I look the message is "women are precious, men aren't". It has caused a lot of depression and despair.
I never asked to be male and I sure as hell would have chosen differently if I could have.
In my later teens I even thought I was a transsexual and started taking hormones. Turns out I wasn't. i was just a guy who hated the way men get treated. Even animals have more advocacy. Why do you think beggars always get a sad looking dog to sit with them? Because that wins people's compassion.
Anyway I don't want to clutter this great blog with too much ranting.
Know that there's at least one person in the world who thinks the world is just a little bit better because you exist. Thank you!