The Roar of Enlightened Manhood
A troubled student writes:
As a proud male feminist,
Oh, go on. Guess where.
As a proud male feminist, I believe it’s important for men to rally around the feminist movement to provide support and to act as an example for other men to follow. So it confuses me that at university a shockingly large number of male students I speak to refuse to apply the term to themselves, instead being evasive and avoiding such an empowering title.
Yes, dear readers, it’s both shocking and confusing that in the twenty-first century, in one of the most cosseting and politically corrected environments in all of the developed world, some male students feel no need to describe themselves as feminists. And calling oneself a feminist, announcing it proudly to the world – or at least to other, likeminded, equally proud students – is apparently the duty of all righteous beings, especially those with testicles. It’s empowering, you see. And never a sign of narcissism, credulity and pretentious moral grandstanding.
The scandalised and bewildered author of this piece is Mr Lewis Merryweather, a first year student of comparative literature at the University of Warwick. “He is a proud feminist,” reads his Guardian profile, “and writes poetry.” And the sorrows of his life are there for all to see:
I often encounter negative reactions when declaring myself a male feminist at university.
Missionary work is hard. Bring handkerchiefs, quickly, a dozen at least. And possibly towels and a mop.
I find this attitude among male students worrying… Perhaps it stems from male panic, that, foolishly, male students worry they may lose power and opportunity in a world of feminism. Perhaps guy students are embarrassed to align themselves with a word that lexically alludes to female-centrism.
Yes, that must be it. Those lexical allusions are a real bugger.
Maybe they’re worried about feeling emasculated.
Says our fretful poet. A man agonised by the existence of peers who don’t think exactly as he does and won’t wear his badge. And to make matters worse, there’s the ever-present shadow of hegemonic oppression:
In the words of Colm Dempsy, a male feminist who spoke at the forum I attended: “I am a proud male feminist. I am willing to fight with you. If you let me.” This is a statement every man, inside university and outside, should be able to shout without fear of being silenced by society.
Silenced by society. In a national newspaper.
Of course the reason for the annoying non-compliance of other male students is all too obvious:
I think the main reason so few male students identify as feminists is because of the spreading virus of lad culture at university. Lad culture is the idea that overt acts of masculinity prove some form of superiority over others. The reality is that lad culture is a prominent part of university life. Club nights often encourage the sexualisation and degradation of women through dress code, and lad values tell male students it’s important to get drunk, pull women and act like a noteworthy lad.
Heavens, it’s a virus, and on campuses too. And this gendered beastliness, in which women apparently have no autonomy at all, even in matters of fashion, weighs upon the breast of all right-thinking people. Or rather, left-thinking people – the ones who will save us from ourselves and usher into existence a brighter, fluffier world – if only we’d do as they say.
It’s hardly laddish to try and deconstruct a patriarchal system. Lad culture at university makes many potential male feminists feel demeaned; it can be hard to fit in if you don’t keep up with “the lads.”
Well, yes, I suppose “lexically alluding to female-centrism” and unironic “empowerment” – while mouthing an intent to “deconstruct a patriarchal system” – that will signal something to those less priggish and credulous. But perhaps those men and women who don’t want an Official Feminist Hat And Authorised Mental Mechandise™ aren’t being “silenced” by a “virus” of “lad culture,” or by a need to crush womankind underfoot. Some, for instance, may find such ostentatious signalling a tad self-serving, and have little appetite for purity tests and competitive scolding. Others may take issue with Mr Merryweather’s assertion that “feminism simply means you believe in equality.” Perhaps some are wary of a term that is often associated with things like this, and this, and this, and with ludicrous pseudo-scholarship, in which reality is an obstacle to the chosen narrative.
And maybe some are wary of joining a club whose members include such fragile, indignant souls as Mr Lewis Merryweather, of which there are so many, and whose baggage is often fascinating.
Via BenSix.
Steve,
Oh I get it. Those comments can ONLY mean that I am for legislation as opposed to, for instance women being strong, proud, successful etc. on their own terms
Well, I hope you’ll see how one might read what you’ve written and be unclear as to what it is you mean. We were talking about professing feminism, publicly, which generally implies some kind of urging and activism, which in turn tends to imply demands and reform. Something more than simply being in favour of “women being strong, proud, successful etc.,” which are sentiments shared by plenty of people who don’t regard themselves as feminists. Advocating for women, as you put it. Hence my question. I was asking what such demands and reform might be, given existing laws.
To return to an earlier point. Like Anna, I can’t think of any female friends or relatives who’ve used the word “feminist” as a serious self-description, as something they’d be happy to identify with. And the women I’m thinking of are hardly downtrodden flowers. One or two have used the term in an ironic or mocking way, either to acknowledge how quaint the word sounds to them or to denote the kinds of people mentioned here over the years – people who rail against the “patriarchy of capitalism,” or who demand gender quotas as unassailably just and essential for human progress. Or, as seen recently, people who are “shocked” to discover that some of their peers don’t find the “feminism” label either necessary or appealing. And maybe the reason the label seems quaint and unappealing has something to do with the kinds of personalities so often drawn to it.
“…It says each year at least 1.2 million women and 784,000 men in Wales and England experience domestic violence…”
Soo, and while noting Henry’s comments on counting, we’ve got a statement claiming nearly two million reasons to address domestic violence . . .
Yes, there is a stated difference between the genders of some 460,000. Then again there are noted differences in genders, like size and resulting advantages on many occasions, among some possibilities, where the most important note is that the count of one gender ain’t cancelling out the other.
While noting that the numbers are rather likely to have a degree of error, the total count is nearly two million . . . .
@dicentra
“Oh, for the love of Pete, put on some PANTS.”
I have followed your fashion advice, it works! I had to tie a couple of knots in them, otherwise they slip over my eyes, but hey.
Re: 1.2 million wimmins etc… Henry makes a very valid point, particularly as the British Crime Survey rules were changed after 1997… My argument goes like this: 1.2 million a year victims of DV, yet only two women a week are killed because of it; and that is the standard feminist response. 104 women a year, out of 1.2 million. That’s 0.000087 %. Surely, if violence and hatred of women was so endemic, the numbers would be higher? What do you think? Bullshit or not?
@spoltchy
“In an interview with Betty Friedan, [Simone de] Beauvoir said: No, we don’t believe that any woman should have this choice. No woman should be authorised to stay at home to bring up her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one. It is a way of forcing women in a certain direction.”
Feminists, like all left wing types, like all fascists… they don’t do choice.
I’ve been coming here for at least 5 years. It’s the best, maybe. I do like Tim Worstall too…. anyways, I am feeling flush, I dropped you a donation to the Volcano Re-development Fund. May The Guild of Evil prosper!
. . . No woman should be authorised to stay at home to bring up her children. . . .
Heh!!!!!!!!!
Lesseee . . . . let’s have a look a couple of different ways of seeing about getting things done, or not, as the circumstances call for. Let’s cite one . . . someone not too hypothetical—the behavior is absolutely bloody familiar, but an actual person just isn’t popping into mind at the moment—, and quite by contrast let’s look at one fellow who immediately came to mind when I read that . . .
A)
Some . . . alleged adult, where a right wing extremist will say a union member, but this sort of crap is the individual choice and occurs in many situations and not merely among some union members . . .:
I’m not gonna do that, I’m not licensed for that, I don’t have the wallpaper claiming a Uni degree from some diploma mill, that’s not in my culture/race as perceived by someone else, that’s not in my job description.
B)
Robert Heinlein:
A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
So expressing an opinion, spending an hour explaining and failing to cave to the first challenge is evidence of aspergers? Thanks Doc, I’ll bear that in mind too.
Yes, Steve. That’s exactly what I meant. [/sarcasm]
Let’s try this analogy:
I cannot play chess. My brain just does not go there. Any game that requires me to strategize — Freecell, Minesweeper, checkers — is a game that I will lose and lose spectacularly. If I win at all it’s by accident, because I only look for the next obvious move. It’s essentially a Kamikaze “strategy”: make moves until I’m dead but make no effort to plan out moves to prolong my lifespan. Worse, if I’m dealing with someone else’s strategy, I cannot anticipate what that other person might try beyond the next move, if that.
Let’s imagine that you and I play chess and you easily win without losing a man. We reset the board, you make exactly the same moves as before, and I show no indication of having learned to defend myself. In fact, I don’t seem to be taking your moves into account at all. As far as you can tell, I’m just making random moves without any evident strategy or plan. And again you win without losing a man.
Reset the board. Again you make the same moves and again I don’t seem to be paying attention to what you’re doing. Over and over we reset the board, over and over you make the same moves, and over and over I lose because I am not taking your moves into account nor am I employing any discernible strategy.
When you observe that I don’t seem to understand chess, I protest, “So correctly moving chess pieces around the board all this time isn’t playing chess? Gee, thanks Mr. Kasparov.”
Would you or would you not conclude that I was missing the point by a country mile?
Maybe we’ll get further if we make this less, um, personal. Having re-read Steve’s comments, my impression is that, although he doesn’t want additional laws reflecting current feminist ambitions, he would, I think, like to see an end to the “old fashioned attitudes” he mentioned earlier. Attitudes found on some building sites and in “unfashionable inner city areas,” and among “factory workers, call centre workers… particularly when in large same-sex groups.”
Well, some attitudes change with the generations; some are pretty much eternal. Steve mentions “drunken tantrums,” boorish husbands and marriages that are, to say the least, disappointing. But the question remains. How would those “old-fashioned attitudes” be changed – by more than the passing of time or shifting demographics – without some kind of external force being exerted? How does one spare anyone else a disappointing marriage to a disloyal, drunken arsehole? And what might such measures entail? How might society ‘correct’ these personal shortcomings, and should it – we – even try? If, as Steve says, “the laws are all in place and things like wage gaps… are more likely to be explained by career choices etc., made by women,” which they are, what would someone calling themselves a feminist have us do? Or am I missing something?
ftumch,
I dropped you a donation to the Volcano Re-development Fund
Cheers, matey. And to all who’ve chipped in recently.
David “Regarding Palin’s candidacy (and whatever one makes of her politics), the reactions to her from leftists, and noted feminists in particular, were often extraordinary. And, I think, telling.”
Only one quibble: I don’t think what they did was literally “extraordinary”. It was in fact entirely normal for leftists. What they did was just one more step in persuading me that there not only is no decent left but cannot be a decent left.
“No, we don’t believe that any woman should have this choice. No woman should be authorised to stay at home to bring up her children.”
–Simone de Beauvoir
She should have been reviled for advocating totalitarian tyranny, but instead she was virtually universally praised and admired by so-described feminists.
More on Simone de Beauvoir from Wikipedia:
“Beauvoir was known to have a number of female lovers. The nature of some of these relationships, some of which she began while working as a professor, later led to a biographical controversy. A former student, Bianca Lamblin (originally Bianca Bienenfeld), in her book, Mémoires d’une jeune fille dérangée, wrote that, while she was a student, she had been exploited by her teacher Beauvoir, who was in her thirties at the time. In 1943, Beauvoir was suspended from her teaching job, due to an accusation that she had, in 1939, seduced her 17-year-old lycee pupil Nathalie Sorokine. Sorokine’s parents laid formal charges against Beauvoir for abducting a minor and as a result she had her licence to teach in France permanently revoked. She and Jean-Paul Sartre developed a pattern, which they called the “trio,” in which Beauvoir would seduce her students and then pass them on to Sartre.”
Funny how so many “progressives”, while claiming to be fighting for a better more humane world, turn out to be thoroughly vile, even monsters.
Maybe we’ll get further if we make this less, um, personal.
It would seem that my particular brain defects got the best of me (though mine tend to be biochemical rather than structural). To the extent that my chess analogy was too aggressive or personal, I apologize.
As a humanities puke (technical writer) who works at a software firm, I run up against brain differences all day, only I’m the one who fundamentally misunderstands what’s going on. I am continually told, “no, that’s not it,” and I have to stop, change gears, and try to grasp the conceptual paradigm that I totally missed the first time around. I also have to remember that my inability to think in their terms is not a failing on my part but just a difference. In fact, that difference pays the bills: I have to translate engineering stuff into a coherent narrative, something most engineers struggle with.
Likewise, Steve dropped into this thread and fundamentally misunderstood what was going on. His misunderstanding doesn’t owe to malice or hubris but merely to a different way of thinking that is consistent with Asperger Syndrome.
I was HOPING to point out that whatever conflict that emerged wasn’t that Steve disagreed, it was that he misinterpreted the intent of the thread, which would then lead to Steve stopping and rereading the thread in that light.
Having different brain structure isn’t a character flaw, but it is useful to recognize it as the source of misunderstandings. Tends to defuse any rancor that builds up.
dicentra,
To the extent that my chess analogy was too aggressive or personal, I apologize.
Oh, there’s no need to apologise to me. I’m just wondering how best to get to the nub of the issue. I’m just not sure what it is a declaration of feminism is meant to achieve – practically, here, today – beyond the usual vanities and peer-group positioning.
David,
“…We were talking about professing feminism, publicly…”
You were initially, others seemed more broad in their condemnations. I gave you some examples earlier.
“…I can’t think of any female friends or relatives who’ve used the word “feminist”…”
I can’t think of any friends or relatives that like to wear rubber or participate in military re-enactments but I have no trouble believing that there are people that do both.
With regard to the reasons for people identifyng themselves as femininst, or anything else for that matter, publicly or privately, there are many. Some that spring immediately to mind would include giving meaning, or, at least, the illusion of meaning to a sad, unfulfilled life, reaction to actual or perceived injustice, identification with a group, a cause or just another human being (I believe there’s this thing called empathy) I could go on and I’m sure there are many more reasons that I couldn’t think of if I sat here half the night.
I’m not sure of the precise reason why my wife identifies herself as a feminist but, as I mentioned earlier, I do know that, in spite of the fact that she is precisely one of those highly qualified women who chose to stop her career and become a mother, she is bizarrely unconvinced that the gender pay gap is caused, amongst other things, by women like her and still believes that there is a glass ceiling to be breached. (The LSE taught her well). She is not a feminist in any active way it’s just a personal thing. In her defense, if she needs one, I don’t think she does, you appear to think she does, her mother was/is a senior ‘educationalist’ and crazy old-school bra-burning feminist, her father was very senior at the CRE (commission for racial equality), her step-mother was a senior lecturer at a supposedly prestigious journalism school and her step-father is an environmental scientist. So that’s a bloody lot of baggage to shake off. Perhaps it’s just nostalgia?
People that you will probably know, most of whom, I imagine, you would, at least up to a point, respect & admire, and who happily label themselves feminists and / or women’s rights campaigners include Joan Bakewell, Nonie Darwish, Raheel Raza (author of “Their Jihad… Not My Jihad”), Aung San Suu Kyi (recipient in, I think 2011, of The Feminist Majority Foundation’s Eleanor Roosevelt Awards for Global Women’s Rights), Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Nazanin Afshin-Jam, Alanis Morisette – this could go on a while too and I think I know which of those is likely not to meet your approval but, whatever else she may or may not have said or done ‘you oughta know’ is one of the finest slices of rage ever publicly aired and she deserves much respect for that alone). I can imagine young women wanting to identify with any one of those women. Can’t you?
Dicentra,
Your chess comment didn’t bother me at all. The fact that you think there is a strategy involved in minesweeper is so pitiful I just ended up wanting to hug you. The comment before was the nasty one. That whole ‘noone here agrees with you so just shut up you look stupid’ line of attack was indistinguishable from one of Laurie Penny’s put downs. The thing is, when she does it she does at least usually have a fundamental philosophical disagreement with her ‘opponent’. The whole idea of two professional writers piling into a casual commenter seems a bit rich too – I mostly do drawings for a living and am quite aware of my clumsy writing style and general inarticulacy. It really doesn’t need mentioning. Your whole ‘aspergers’ obsession is total BS. I have a reasonably good friend with aspergers and he would laugh in your face at the suggestion (he is a very good litigation lawyer who works for a large firm but works from home because he can’t stand to be around people and has very few friends.) My step father-in-law, the environmental scientist, is also aspie and actually has no friends. What you see that you think is aspergers would more accurately be described, in my totally unqualified opinion, as a form of torrettes which frequently prevents me from shutting the hell up, combined with a stubbornness which is sometimes really annoying to other people but has been vital to every bit of personal & professional progress that I have mustered, along with an almost complete lack of interest in the acceptance of strangers. Especially internet strangers. I’m not so stubborn that I can’t change my mind when presented with facts though, and noone has still offered even the feeblest explanation of why generalizations made here about feminists are any different from… Asking the same question over & over is, believe me, as boring as reading it.
BTW people think Sarah Palin is stupud because she sounds stupid (“…The Dutch—they are known, and the Norwegians—they are known for dikes…”) and most people can’t be bothered, or just can’t, look beyond that. Funny how you can see through her ridiculous baby-speak and still see an intelligent woman but assume, because I write badly I must be stupid. Perhaps you are a feminist after all.
Steve,
I can’t think of any friends or relatives that like to wear rubber or participate in military re-enactments but I have no trouble believing that there are people that do both.
Heh. I wasn’t doubting the existence of people who call themselves feminists here in the UK. I was trying to tease out what their reasons might be for calling themselves that, and what it is they might want to see changed in light of existing laws. You’ve now offered some possible explanations as to why some people might choose to define themselves in that way. Thanks.
I can imagine young women wanting to identify with any one of those women. Can’t you?
Possibly. Though I notice that most of the examples you mention, some of whom I do indeed regard as brave, aren’t particularly concerned with the travails of the typical woman here. I mean, women as a whole, not just members of certain immigrant groups, among which the normative values of the host culture are patchy at best. Four of those you mention are largely concerned with Islam and related depravities from the developing world. Which is sort of what I was getting at.
In parts of the world, including those that concern some of the people you mentioned, the term “patriarchy” can refer to obvious and objectionable things. However, when used closer to home, say, by leftist commentators and student activists, the term “patriarchy” is often used in ways that are wildly tendentious or simply laughable. In my experience, British feminists tend to be middle-class, university educated women with leftist inclinations – women whose concerns are often quite removed from those of women I know, who rarely fret about the gender ratios of academic gatherings, or whether toy trucks are sometimes shelved as “boy’s toys,” or the patriarchal something-or-other of celebrity tattle magazines. And what we’ve seen here many times is a tendency to inflate fairly trivial or made-up issues as if competing for victimhood with women in other countries whose basis for grievance may be rather more substantial.
I think this is now officially the longest thread we’ve ever had here. So. Cake for everyone.
[ Edited. ]
David,
I was going to leave that as the last word but, oh that bloody torrettes!
“…You’ve now offered some possible explanations…”
Since the level of insight in those ‘explanations’ was practically zero, I’m finding it hard to believe that someone as intelligent as you could consider any of it to be news. I’m still waiting for the hammer blow.
And on self-labelling, surely it can’t be news to you either that some people, actually many, many people, do not have particularly high self-regard and, unable to fall back on identification as ‘that guy who’s a great writer’, ‘that bloke who designs beautiful homes’ or ‘that girl who thinks she’s a geranium’ attach labels to themselves to provide themselves with an off-the-shelf ‘identity’. Feminist is one of those labels. (For me, it used to be ‘punk’, then ‘indie-kid’, then ‘surfer’).
“…I think this is now officially the longest thread…”
Yes, amazing how a question about whether the use of some different language could help reduce collateral damage and avoid scaring away uncertain newcomers could blow up into such a thing.
On a different, happier note, it seems Sarah Palin is a foreign policy genius after all…
http://order-order.com/2014/03/03/guy-news-palin-and-romney-were-right/
Steve,
I’m still waiting for the hammer blow.
It wasn’t a set-up. I was just curious.
Some people… attach labels to themselves to provide themselves with an off-the-shelf ‘identity’. Feminist is one of those labels. (For me, it used to be ‘punk’, then ‘indie-kid’, then ‘surfer’).
Heh. It’s funny you should say that. I briefly wondered whether to suggest that some people may self-identify as feminists in much the same way that some young people become goths. It’s not just me then?
“…It’s not just me then?…”
It rarely is.
It’s not just me then?
Oh, Hell no . . . . . not even close . .
Consider the masses of people who operate with the reasoning of I have or declare item X, therefore I am Clearly Description Y and to be seen by others as being as Description Y.
—I have a particular car, therefore I’m upper class. I’m a member of the NRA, therefore I shall be considered as something additional to someone who pays the dues and gets the magazine. I call myself cultured and sophisticated, therefore someone else is to think that too. I have clothing with some particular brand name on it so someone is to think and acknowledge some particular meaning. . . . Etc. As has been being noted this covers; I declare myself to be a feminist—or several other declarations—, and what this means to others is automatically known to all others, and they support me at all times regardless of probably having never met me or having any idea of what random thought wandered through my head this morning . . .
And then contrast that with I do/practice/believe that/Etc . . . and I see where that gets me . . .
—I read, therefore, after reading, I have read. I have some not so particular car, which I make use of, and am not particularly concerned with what someone else thinks of it. I ride a bike, because I find it convenient for me and am not concerned with those belonging to the evident faith of bike riders . . and so on . . .
And another thing….
Only joking. Actually my other half agrees with Steve about the baby and the bathwater. She may have babies, rather than bathwater, on her mind at present.
(or indeed, if I may say so, in her tummy)
Henry,
“…or indeed, if I may say so, in her tummy…”
Congratulations (I think) and thanks for that small voice of support.
Some words by people considerably wiser than me which seem appropriate:
“…Eternal vigilance is required and there have to be people who step up to the plate, who believe in liberty, and who are willing to fight for it.” — Milton Friedman
“Freedom is never an achieved state; like electricity, we’ve got to keep generating it or the lights go out.” — Wayne LaPierre
“”… in every generation the idea of liberty must be reasserted by those with the vision to see through the fog, and rediscovered by the young and courageous.” — Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.
And here’s Ezra Levant speaking this weekend about his latest free speach trial http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WG9flxlWqxM . A few short years ago who would have seriously thought that this could happen in Canada in the 21st Century? If we can’t take freedom from blasphemy laws for granted I’m not sure that we can take anything for granted.
Thanks, Steve. Yes that was an inebriated, perhaps inappropriately placed, and certainly very late mention of the thing that’s filling up my thoughts at the mo.
Nice quotes. And yeah, it’s been you vs several others in this thread, I noticed