Black Dagger
19th February 2009, 10:29
The following is some of a guest lecture i gave last year at the University of New South Wales (the topic was 'men and feminism'). There's large parts of the lecture missing - that were apart of the theme - including 'can men be feminists?' and critiques of the 'male left' - but i'm posting this specifically for the content on 'male liberation'. There was a thread on 'masculinism' earlier today which i moved to the OI forum from here in discrimination.
This was help explain my reasoning:
"...
There are four main 'male responses' to feminism:
Anti-feminist
Apathetic
Pro-Feminist
Male Liberationist
The anti-feminist response is quite simple, and usually takes the form of sexism or an otherwise patriarchal attitude – however some anti-feminist men move beyond this kind of crass sexism into more elaborate but nevertheless anti-feminist discourse, such as ‘male rights’ or ‘male liberation’ – which I will come back to in a bit.
The apathetic men are those who response to feminism is quite muted – neither seeing feminism as an attack on men, and so leaping to their defence – such as with anti-feminist – nor embracing the feminist critique. Pro-feminists, or sometimes ‘male feminists’ – are men who embrace a feminist critique and support and often participate in the struggle for women’s liberation. The last and probably most fuzzy category is ‘male liberationist’. I say fuzzy because although some men who position themselves as ‘male liberationists’ do so as a backlash against feminism – ‘why should only women be liberated?’ etc. other ‘male liberationists’ at least in writing seem sympathetic or even positive to a feminist outlook. In practice I will argue, male-lib is always antagonistic to feminism.
Before we get into male lib itself, I’d like to an analyse the idea that underlies it – that men are an oppressed sex.
What does that mean?
Men as an oppressed sex is the idea that men too are oppressed by sexism – now a quibble here – what does it mean to be ‘oppressed’? In terms of male oppression, the argument is generally that...as a result of the gender binary and the gendered roles that stem from this – restrictive conceptions of ‘masculinity’ etc. men are like the lion with a splinter in its paw. 'We’re not as bad as we seem, we’re just in pain'. There was another analogy I was gonna use here, involving an overseer – like a slave driver, who hurt his back from all that whipping – but I dunno – that seemed a bit dramatic. But you get my point? This sort of paraodoxical notion that men are oppressed by their own role as oppressors is evident in Bourdieu – although he is certainly not a male liberationist:
1st sentence p. 49:
'If women,, subjected to a labour of socialization which tends to diminish and deny them, learn the negative virtues of self-denial, resignation and silence, men are also prisoners, and insidiously victims, of the dominant representation. Like the dispositions toward submission, those which underlie the pursuit and exercise of domination are not inscribed in nature, and they have to be learned through a long labour of socialization,....'
p. 50 'Male privilege is also a trap, and it has its negative side in the permanent tension and contention, sometimes verging on the absurd, imposed on every man by the duty to assert his manliness in all circumstances....Manliness, [p. 51] understood as sexual or social reproductive capacity, but also as the capacity to fight and to exercise violence (especially in acts of revenge), is first and foremost a duty.
I agree with Bordieu in the sense that – yes- masculinity and the way it is socially and culturally constituted is restrictive – men are socialized into asserting violence and manliness but is that oppression? Who is the oppressor? Other men? Certainly in the case of queer men conceptions of masculinity and the corresponding inferiority of perceived femininity does lead to very real oppression – homophobia and sexism are arguably two sides of the same coin – thus ‘manliness’ as it is constructed is in many ways explicitly homophobic. So homophobia or the ‘fear of the feminie’ that borideu talks about is used in male socialization as a whip to keep men behaving like men. But does this make particularly, hetero guys – oppressed as men? Well a male liberationist, would say yes of course and argue:
“Just as women, men are expected to fill different roles in society. Men are the ones that are expected to provide for the family, are expected to protect the family, be the head of the family... etc”
Okay, but in a patriarchal society the role of women is to be subordinate to men, so are the ‘roles’ or expectations put on men really a good basis for a ‘liberation’ movement? What is its goal? I think feminists are right to be suspicious of ‘male liberation’ it does seem awfully like an ‘oppressor support group’ rather than a liberation movement.
Basically, using (hijacking?) feminist analysis of gender and masculinity these men are making the point that ‘hey, you guys have shown how sexism can be a double-edged sword for men, and you’ve got the liberation of women covered –so we’ll take on the mantle for the guys.’
The problem as I see it is that ‘male liberation’ is not really about liberating anyone. Yes men are fucked up by sexism, and by masculinity but male liberation seems more orientated towards ‘fixing’ or perfecting male privilege than liberating anyone – hardly suprising in a movement almost exclusively white hetero middle class men – the issues of race, sexuality or class that effect most men are completely ignored.
It really seems more of a revolutionary reconceptualisation of the patriarch – the enlightened or sensisitve patriarch. To make the position of certain men more comfortable, to iron out the wrinkles in male privilege, the unpleasant blowback. This is a point that I thought was made excellently in your course work for this week – about the focus of male liberation. Or lack of focus.
To parapharase carol elhrich, ‘male liberationists rarely look beyond the scope of an individual mans navel’.
And from what I can glean from reading about the male lib movement this seems quite apt – where as feminism is really for everybody male lib uses some of the language of feminism to justify rehabitaling instead of abolishing gender – after all hetero men are not oppressed by gender roles as much as they are restricted by them. In that sense I think male lib is antagonistic to feminism, especially feminisms which deconstruct gender. After all, feminism (esp. revolutionary feminism) advocates the total liberation of everyone. Feminism is not suggesting that women are better than men, or that women should be treated better and men worse - but that women should not be discriminated, oppressed, mistreated on the basis of their sex. That the gender binary and gender roles are restrictive – that masculinity and feminity are not natural states of being but socially constructed. In other words, feminism is all men need to be free, at least as far as sexism is concerned.
'Male oppression' (like 'reverse racism') is a rarity because the structures of society, our social values and 'culture', religions etc. are largely geared to serves the interests of men vis-à-vis patriarchy contributing to the oppression of women. Men experience no such structural discrimination or oppression as men. Anti-male attitudes are not common place in government or with the people in positions of authority, power or control – all of whom are predominantly men, nor in the media, religion, social cultures etc . There is no structural oppression of men as men. In light of this, to plea 'male oppression' in a society where women are so violently oppressed at best borders on the absurd, and at its worst is a misguided and anti-feminist diversion from the stuff that the real oppression of patriarchy.
...
Thoughts?
This was help explain my reasoning:
"...
There are four main 'male responses' to feminism:
Anti-feminist
Apathetic
Pro-Feminist
Male Liberationist
The anti-feminist response is quite simple, and usually takes the form of sexism or an otherwise patriarchal attitude – however some anti-feminist men move beyond this kind of crass sexism into more elaborate but nevertheless anti-feminist discourse, such as ‘male rights’ or ‘male liberation’ – which I will come back to in a bit.
The apathetic men are those who response to feminism is quite muted – neither seeing feminism as an attack on men, and so leaping to their defence – such as with anti-feminist – nor embracing the feminist critique. Pro-feminists, or sometimes ‘male feminists’ – are men who embrace a feminist critique and support and often participate in the struggle for women’s liberation. The last and probably most fuzzy category is ‘male liberationist’. I say fuzzy because although some men who position themselves as ‘male liberationists’ do so as a backlash against feminism – ‘why should only women be liberated?’ etc. other ‘male liberationists’ at least in writing seem sympathetic or even positive to a feminist outlook. In practice I will argue, male-lib is always antagonistic to feminism.
Before we get into male lib itself, I’d like to an analyse the idea that underlies it – that men are an oppressed sex.
What does that mean?
Men as an oppressed sex is the idea that men too are oppressed by sexism – now a quibble here – what does it mean to be ‘oppressed’? In terms of male oppression, the argument is generally that...as a result of the gender binary and the gendered roles that stem from this – restrictive conceptions of ‘masculinity’ etc. men are like the lion with a splinter in its paw. 'We’re not as bad as we seem, we’re just in pain'. There was another analogy I was gonna use here, involving an overseer – like a slave driver, who hurt his back from all that whipping – but I dunno – that seemed a bit dramatic. But you get my point? This sort of paraodoxical notion that men are oppressed by their own role as oppressors is evident in Bourdieu – although he is certainly not a male liberationist:
1st sentence p. 49:
'If women,, subjected to a labour of socialization which tends to diminish and deny them, learn the negative virtues of self-denial, resignation and silence, men are also prisoners, and insidiously victims, of the dominant representation. Like the dispositions toward submission, those which underlie the pursuit and exercise of domination are not inscribed in nature, and they have to be learned through a long labour of socialization,....'
p. 50 'Male privilege is also a trap, and it has its negative side in the permanent tension and contention, sometimes verging on the absurd, imposed on every man by the duty to assert his manliness in all circumstances....Manliness, [p. 51] understood as sexual or social reproductive capacity, but also as the capacity to fight and to exercise violence (especially in acts of revenge), is first and foremost a duty.
I agree with Bordieu in the sense that – yes- masculinity and the way it is socially and culturally constituted is restrictive – men are socialized into asserting violence and manliness but is that oppression? Who is the oppressor? Other men? Certainly in the case of queer men conceptions of masculinity and the corresponding inferiority of perceived femininity does lead to very real oppression – homophobia and sexism are arguably two sides of the same coin – thus ‘manliness’ as it is constructed is in many ways explicitly homophobic. So homophobia or the ‘fear of the feminie’ that borideu talks about is used in male socialization as a whip to keep men behaving like men. But does this make particularly, hetero guys – oppressed as men? Well a male liberationist, would say yes of course and argue:
“Just as women, men are expected to fill different roles in society. Men are the ones that are expected to provide for the family, are expected to protect the family, be the head of the family... etc”
Okay, but in a patriarchal society the role of women is to be subordinate to men, so are the ‘roles’ or expectations put on men really a good basis for a ‘liberation’ movement? What is its goal? I think feminists are right to be suspicious of ‘male liberation’ it does seem awfully like an ‘oppressor support group’ rather than a liberation movement.
Basically, using (hijacking?) feminist analysis of gender and masculinity these men are making the point that ‘hey, you guys have shown how sexism can be a double-edged sword for men, and you’ve got the liberation of women covered –so we’ll take on the mantle for the guys.’
The problem as I see it is that ‘male liberation’ is not really about liberating anyone. Yes men are fucked up by sexism, and by masculinity but male liberation seems more orientated towards ‘fixing’ or perfecting male privilege than liberating anyone – hardly suprising in a movement almost exclusively white hetero middle class men – the issues of race, sexuality or class that effect most men are completely ignored.
It really seems more of a revolutionary reconceptualisation of the patriarch – the enlightened or sensisitve patriarch. To make the position of certain men more comfortable, to iron out the wrinkles in male privilege, the unpleasant blowback. This is a point that I thought was made excellently in your course work for this week – about the focus of male liberation. Or lack of focus.
To parapharase carol elhrich, ‘male liberationists rarely look beyond the scope of an individual mans navel’.
And from what I can glean from reading about the male lib movement this seems quite apt – where as feminism is really for everybody male lib uses some of the language of feminism to justify rehabitaling instead of abolishing gender – after all hetero men are not oppressed by gender roles as much as they are restricted by them. In that sense I think male lib is antagonistic to feminism, especially feminisms which deconstruct gender. After all, feminism (esp. revolutionary feminism) advocates the total liberation of everyone. Feminism is not suggesting that women are better than men, or that women should be treated better and men worse - but that women should not be discriminated, oppressed, mistreated on the basis of their sex. That the gender binary and gender roles are restrictive – that masculinity and feminity are not natural states of being but socially constructed. In other words, feminism is all men need to be free, at least as far as sexism is concerned.
'Male oppression' (like 'reverse racism') is a rarity because the structures of society, our social values and 'culture', religions etc. are largely geared to serves the interests of men vis-à-vis patriarchy contributing to the oppression of women. Men experience no such structural discrimination or oppression as men. Anti-male attitudes are not common place in government or with the people in positions of authority, power or control – all of whom are predominantly men, nor in the media, religion, social cultures etc . There is no structural oppression of men as men. In light of this, to plea 'male oppression' in a society where women are so violently oppressed at best borders on the absurd, and at its worst is a misguided and anti-feminist diversion from the stuff that the real oppression of patriarchy.
...
Thoughts?