The Feared and the Fearful

By: Owen Lloyd / Deep Green Resistance News Service

Seven years ago, I was headed out to do my laundry. It was early, before dawn, and the laundromat was across the street. Entering the building, I saw a young woman gasp, before crouching behind a washer with a look of pure terror on her face. My immediate response was to be dumbfounded, and it took the woman only a few seconds to realize that I was there to wash my clothes. She apologized, and went back to watching her laundry. I said nothing to her. Feeling frazzled, I loaded a washer, and then walked back to my apartment, still trying to process what had happened.

The woman had evaluated me as a sexual predator. The woman had evaluated me as a monster. Should I have felt indignant? After all, didn’t my overflowing basket of clothes indicate my intentions in entering the building? And why should I, simply because I was born a son and not a daughter, have been seen as a threat?

But I did not feel indignant. I felt ashamed, and I felt embarrassed. I found myself crying for some time. But I don’t want to give the impression that I felt that I was the victim in this situation. People’s actions reflect their experiences, and whatever led the woman to experience me with such fear must have been terrible.

I can hear some male readers trying to interject here. Is it really fair for a woman to judge all men based on a few “bad apples”? Isn’t it irrational for a woman to treat men as a homogenous bloc of potential abusers and rapists?

First of all, let’s try reversing these questions. Was it fair for men to do such damage to a woman that she cannot help but see us as a danger? Is it rational for a woman who has experienced this violence to deny its likelihood?

Second, these questions suggest a sort of postmodern thinking, in which gender equality is accomplished not by working to dismantle the basis for this power disequilibrium (i.e, patriarchy), but rather by simply blinding ourselves to these entrenched gender differences, and seeing men and women as “just people”. In effect, this strategy boils down to eliminating inequality by denying the possibility of its existence. Because such an approach denies the existence of power, it necessarily benefits those whose power is already entrenched. Beyond that, it allows the privileged classes to dismiss any real movement for equality as “sexist,” “racist,” or “class warfare”.

Finally, we should remember how male dominance affects the lives of women. The most recent study suggests that men rape an estimated 1.3 million women every year. Nearly one in five women in the United States have experienced sexual assault, while one in four have been beaten by a partner. [1] To put these numbers in perspective, consider that of the 2,709,918 soldiers who served the US military during the Vietnam War, 363,590, or about 13%, were injured or killed. [2] [3] To live in the United States as a woman is to live in the midst of a warzone. And so long as that war continues, so long as the male class makes war against the female class, it is absurd to suggest that women should default towards seeing us as a neutral party.

Beyond shame and embarrassment, another feeling rose within me on that laundry day seven years ago. I felt rage. Rage first of all to those whose inhuman actions did such damage to the young woman in the laundromat, and millions of other women every year. I felt enraged also that beyond destroying women, these men are destroying the possibility for men and women to co-exist peacefully. Finally I was enraged about men’s lack of response to this violence against women and against peaceful human relations.

Men can talk all they like about how rapists and abusers are a small minority. We can talk all we like about how we personally love and respect women. But until we act in solidarity with women, until we become allies against sexual violence, until we start doing the work necessary to stop those perpetrating it, we are only talking. If we want to stop being seen as a class of monsters, we are first going to have to work with women to dismantle this terroristic patriarchy.

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/15/health/nearly-1-in-5-women-in-us-survey-report-sexual-assault.html
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War_casualties
[3] http://www.uswings.com/vietnamfacts.asp

Book Review: “The Politics of Reality” by Marilyn Frye

By: Ben Cutbank

The Politics of Reality: Essays in Feminist Theory, written by Marilyn Frye in the 1980′s, is one of the most instructive books I have read to date. The succinctness of each of her essays, which cover such fundamental topics for the feminist learner as white privilege, male supremacy, lesbianism and gay rights, and violence against women, combines with an impressive comprehensiveness that leaves the reader with little room for debate. It’s simple, but forceful, similar to, I would assert, the works of radical environmental author Derrick Jensen, and especially his two-volume book, Endgame.

In one essay, a difference between love and arrogance–two forces that, in a sense, speak to the entire battle of life against oppression– is drawn out:

The loving eye does not make the object of perception into something edible, does not try to assimilate it, does not reduce it to the size of the seer’s desire, fear and imagination, and hence does not have to simplify. It knows the complexity of the other as something which will forever present new things to be known.

The arrogant perceiver’s perception of the other’s normalcy or defectiveness is not only dead wrong, it is coercive. It manipulates the other’s perception and judgment at the root by mislabeling the unwholesome as healthy, and what is wrong as right. One judges and chooses within a framework of values–notions as to what ‘good’ and ‘good for you’ pertain to….If one has the cultural and institutional power to make the misdefinition stick, one can turn the whole other person right around to oneself by this one simple trick.

As a woman living under the rule of patriarchy, and as someone with a radical feminist analysis, Marilyn Frye is no stranger to the meaning of privilege, both in concept and practice. As one might expect, she speaks thoroughly and often about the privileges afforded to men over women. However, her analysis doesn’t stop there: those with white skin, including white women, experience a certain kind of privilege as well, because the dominant culture is both patriarchal and white supremacist. Connecting these dots is both crucial and, unfortunately, too rare. Says Frye:

In a certain way it is true that being white-skinned means that everything I do will be wrong–at least an exercise of unwarranted privilege–and I will encounter the reasonable anger of women of color at every turn. But ‘white’ also designates a political category, a sort of political fraternity. Membership in it is not in the same sense “fated” or “natural.” It can be resisted.

Members of the dominant culture must be able to mark or define the sex of human beings so that it’s clear who is to subjugated and who is to do the subjugating, who is to be exploited and who is to do the exploiting. Masculinity and femininity are concepts created and enforced by patriarchy to keep the social order running smoothly. As Marilyn Frye puts it:

I see enormous social pressure on us all to act feminine or act masculine (and not both), so I am inclined to think that if we were to break the habits of culture which generate that pressure, people would not act particularly masculine or feminine.

Imagine a bird in a birdcage. The bird is confined by numerous wires, that connect with each other in order to imprison the bird. If one looks at one of the wires alone, it could seem silly as to why the bird doesn’t simply fly around it to freedom. However, it takes stepping back and seeing the whole picture that is the birdcage in order to understand why the bird is trapped. This is the classic metaphor that Frye has used to describe the meaning of oppression. She goes further to give a definition:

Oppression is a system of interrelated barriers and forces which reduce, immobilize and mold people who belong to a certain group, and effect their subordination to another group (individually to individuals of the other group, and as a group, to that group).

In a discussion of the gay liberation movement, and the fatal mistake of gay men often trying to embrace masculinity instead of rejecting it, Marilyn Frye speaks to a different vision, a lesbian vision, in a line that I believe is one of the most powerful in the book:

The general direction of lesbian feminist politics is the dismantling of male privilege, the erasure of masculinity, and the reversal of the rule of phallic access, replacing the rule that access is permitted unless specifically forbidden with the rule that it is forbidden unless specifically permitted.

It should be clear that this book is crucial reading for any person the love and courage it takes to fight for a better world. While anyone would benefit from heeding the lessons that Marilyn Frye has put forth, I especially think that men need to hear this radical feminist message and begin to join women in the fight against patriarchy and for the liberation of all of life.

The Illustrative Value of ‘Pro-Feminist’

From Forest Green Feminism

A couple of decades ago, when I was part of an activist’s listserv, I heard a compelling argument for keeping feminism by, for and about women, and using a different name, pro-feminist, for male allies.  Because feminism’s effects — all those repercussions, all the outrage and the consequences and the benefits, alike — accrue to females only, feminism is a word for female activists.  I don’t recall which radical woman staked the territory, but the fallout was dramatic.

Draw the hard line, and men, who will NOT be denied their entitlement, their access to naming, their right of defining, fight fiercely for this no-woman’s land.  They will demand, badger, cajole; they will rally other women’s support — either in the group itself or among personal acquaintances; they will challenge the credentials of any woman who blocks their easy access to this simple word.  Since the first battle I witnessed, I have understood that limiting ‘feminist’ to females is an excellent way to determine whether a man can be an ally — that is, can he assist without insistence on leading, on controlling, on having his way and on access to everything important?  Remember, we are talking about the fight against female oppression — where the repercussions aren’t going to impact him directly, where the oppression is not his.  In fact, feminism exists because he and others like him are privileged, are over-valued within the sex duality.

Men who can act credibly as allies are far more likely to accept limitations on their name access.  Men who are asked nicely to cease, and yet push on, demand their presumed due, insist that they will have what they want against a woman’s expressed discomfort … honestly there are names for men who refuse to take No for an answer.  The simple one is ‘bully.’  It’s not the only one.

Drawing this line is illustrative, even eye-opening.  But it’s so for another reason, for women’s responses, too.  What do women’s reactions mean, for sisterhood, when one woman tells men in a group that she doesn’t like them using the name that belongs to females — and another woman quickly rushes in to assure the men it’s OK for them to call themselves whatever they wish?  And another woman challenges the first woman’s right to stake any territory within feminism as her own?  I think it suggests that sisterhood is, so far, unlikely.

Before I ignite all of your defenses, I wish to say that words are less the issue than actions.  I care most what people do.  At the same time, my point here is not so much the wording as the reactions that occur around limiting ‘feminism’ to females only.  The reactions are telling — magnifying the issues that already exist within feminism.  Issues with men.  Issues with other women.

I would suggest that, tactically, we as women either tend to forget or actively deny a great deal of our oppression, of how it works, especially.  While we might like or sometimes even love individual men, they are still a part of the sex-caste, men, which oppresses women.  Men oppress women.  ALL men benefit from the oppression of women.  The only thing that men can do to ameliorate this unfortunate fact, really, is to declare and then enact their allegiance to women, without question.  To give loyalty to women who are fighting the oppression of male supremacy — misogyny — especially.  Loyalty has nothing to do with leadership, with claiming higher knowledge, with demanding access to all of value.  As I have suggested, such maneuvers of superiority at least border on a rapist mentality.

But we, as females under male supremacy, have been groomed to see as reasonable any loyalty flowing the other way, from women to men.  If men oppress women, if all men benefit from the oppression of women, then this loyalty is not in our own best interests — who looks out for females in this framing?  We must!  But we have been taught that  we can never be anything but kind in facing down our oppressors — we must be fair, we must never hurt them as they have hurt us.  We forget, just as we’re supposed to, that we aren’t equal going in, so it’s not the same if we do something — it’s not “just as bad as men” when women take a hard stance.  It’s not “just as bad as men” who formed exclusive clubs if oppressed women want to separate and heal.  Those men’s clubs excluded from a point of elitist privilege, whereas separatism allows the oppressed their space away from those who have hurt them.  And denying men access to a named oppression resistance that ONLY affects females, ‘feminism,’ cannot be claimed to be “just as bad as men” who kept women from positions of economic power, which is, again, elitism.  By definition, the oppressed cannot be elitist toward their oppressors!

And we have been taught that we need numbers more than we need quality or commitment in our allies.  But are a few difficult and demanding men really worth more than our alliances with one another?  And isn’t that the false choice the men-nurturing women are giving in to?  If men are being excluded, the woman doing the excluding has to be made to stop.  But for what reason?

What is the effect of women stepping in to say that they disagree with any limitations on men’s access?  To me it looks very much like male-appeasement — like a chance to step up and be regaled as The Good Woman, perhaps the kind woman, generous, loving, nurturing of course, not one of those extremists, harpies, too-radical types that give feminism a bad name!  And I have a hard time fitting male-appeasers into the feminism I hold most dear.  More honestly, I could name them patriarchally complicit, even saboteurs to a valid sisterhood!

I have seen situations where a woman confronted a man, and her sisters stood back, gave her space, and let her offer the challenges.  If she asked or it was clear she needed backup, other women came forward.  But not a single woman rallied to the side of the confronted man.  And not a single woman chastised her for being unfair or unjust.  It can happen, and when it does, it’s beautiful.  Unfortunately it has not yet happened in my view in regard to the name ‘pro-feminist.’  We aren’t there yet, I don’t think.  And we need to be — regardless of whether or not you believe that men are reasonably called ‘feminists.

The Male Privilege Checklist

From Alas! blog

An Unabashed Imitation of an article by Peggy McIntosh

In 1990, Wellesley College professor Peggy McIntosh wrote an essay called “White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack”. McIntosh observes that whites in the U.S. are “taught to see racism only in individual acts of meanness, not in invisible systems conferring dominance on my group.” To illustrate these invisible systems, McIntosh wrote a list of 26 invisible privileges whites benefit from.

As McIntosh points out, men also tend to be unaware of their own privileges as men. In the spirit of McIntosh’s essay, I thought I’d compile a list similar to McIntosh’s, focusing on the invisible privileges benefiting men.

Due to my own limitations, this list is unavoidably U.S. centric. I hope that writers from other cultures will create new lists, or modify this one, to reflect their own experiences.

Since I first compiled it, the list has been posted many times on internet discussion groups. Very helpfully, many people have suggested additions to the checklist. More commonly, of course, critics (usually, but not exclusively, male) have pointed out men have disadvantages too – being drafted into the army, being expected to suppress emotions, and so on. These are indeed bad things – but I never claimed that life for men is all ice cream sundaes.

Obviously, there are individual exceptions to most problems discussed on the list. The existence of individual exceptions does not mean that general problems are not a concern.

Pointing out that men are privileged in no way denies that bad things happen to men. Being privileged does not mean men are given everything in life for free; being privileged does not mean that men do not work hard, do not suffer. In many cases – from a boy being bullied in school, to a soldier dying in war – the sexist society that maintains male privilege also does great harm to boys and men.

In the end, however, it is men and not women who make the most money; men and not women who dominate the government and the corporate boards; men and not women who dominate virtually all of the most powerful positions of society. And it is women and not men who suffer the most from intimate violence and rape; who are the most likely to be poor; who are, on the whole, given the short end of patriarchy’s stick.

Several critics have also argued that the list somehow victimizes women. I disagree; pointing out problems is not the same as perpetuating them. It is not a “victimizing” position to acknowledge that injustice exists; on the contrary, without that acknowledgment it isn’t possible to fight injustice.

An internet acquaintance of mine once wrote, “The first big privilege which whites, males, people in upper economic classes, the able bodied, the straight (I think one or two of those will cover most of us) can work to alleviate is the privilege to be oblivious to privilege.” This checklist is, I hope, a step towards helping men to give up the “first big privilege.”

The Male Privilege Checklist

1. My odds of being hired for a job, when competing against female applicants, are probably skewed in my favor. The more prestigious the job, the larger the odds are skewed.

2. I can be confident that my co-workers won’t think I got my job because of my sex – even though that might be true. (More).

3. If I am never promoted, it’s not because of my sex.

4. If I fail in my job or career, I can feel sure this won’t be seen as a black mark against my entire sex’s capabilities.

5. I am far less likely to face sexual harassment at work than my female co-workers are. (More).

6. If I do the same task as a woman, and if the measurement is at all subjective, chances are people will think I did a better job.

7. If I’m a teen or adult, and if I can stay out of prison, my odds of being raped are relatively low. (More).

8. On average, I am taught to fear walking alone after dark in average public spaces much less than my female counterparts are.

9. If I choose not to have children, my masculinity will not be called into question.

10. If I have children but do not provide primary care for them, my masculinity will not be called into question.

11. If I have children and provide primary care for them, I’ll be praised for extraordinary parenting if I’m even marginally competent. (More).

12. If I have children and a career, no one will think I’m selfish for not staying at home.

13. If I seek political office, my relationship with my children, or who I hire to take care of them, will probably not be scrutinized by the press.

14. My elected representatives are mostly people of my own sex. The more prestigious and powerful the elected position, the more this is true.

15. When I ask to see “the person in charge,” odds are I will face a person of my own sex. The higher-up in the organization the person is, the surer I can be.

16. As a child, chances are I was encouraged to be more active and outgoing than my sisters. (More).

17. As a child, I could choose from an almost infinite variety of children’s media featuring positive, active, non-stereotyped heroes of my own sex. I never had to look for it; male protagonists were (and are) the default.

18. As a child, chances are I got more teacher attention than girls who raised their hands just as often. (More).

19. If my day, week or year is going badly, I need not ask of each negative episode or situation whether or not it has sexist overtones.

20. I can turn on the television or glance at the front page of the newspaper and see people of my own sex widely represented.

21. If I’m careless with my financial affairs it won’t be attributed to my sex.

22. If I’m careless with my driving it won’t be attributed to my sex.

23. I can speak in public to a large group without putting my sex on trial.

24. Even if I sleep with a lot of women, there is no chance that I will be seriously labeled a “slut,” nor is there any male counterpart to “slut-bashing.” (More).

25. I do not have to worry about the message my wardrobe sends about my sexual availability. (More).

26. My clothing is typically less expensive and better-constructed than women’s clothing for the same social status. While I have fewer options, my clothes will probably fit better than a woman’s without tailoring. (More).

27. The grooming regimen expected of me is relatively cheap and consumes little time. (More).

28. If I buy a new car, chances are I’ll be offered a better price than a woman buying the same car. (More).

29. If I’m not conventionally attractive, the disadvantages are relatively small and easy to ignore.

30. I can be loud with no fear of being called a shrew. I can be aggressive with no fear of being called a bitch.

31. I can ask for legal protection from violence that happens mostly to men without being seen as a selfish special interest, since that kind of violence is called “crime” and is a general social concern. (Violence that happens mostly to women is usually called “domestic violence” or “acquaintance rape,” and is seen as a special interest issue.)

32. I can be confident that the ordinary language of day-to-day existence will always include my sex. “All men are created equal,” mailman, chairman, freshman, he.

33. My ability to make important decisions and my capability in general will never be questioned depending on what time of the month it is.

34. I will never be expected to change my name upon marriage or questioned if I don’t change my name.

35. The decision to hire me will not be based on assumptions about whether or not I might choose to have a family sometime soon.

36. Every major religion in the world is led primarily by people of my own sex. Even God, in most major religions, is pictured as male.

37. Most major religions argue that I should be the head of my household, while my wife and children should be subservient to me.

38. If I have a wife or live-in girlfriend, chances are we’ll divide up household chores so that she does most of the labor, and in particular the most repetitive and unrewarding tasks. (More).

39. If I have children with my girlfriend or wife, I can expect her to do most of the basic childcare such as changing diapers and feeding.

40. If I have children with my wife or girlfriend, and it turns out that one of us needs to make career sacrifices to raise the kids, chances are we’ll both assume the career sacrificed should be hers.

41. Assuming I am heterosexual, magazines, billboards, television, movies, pornography, and virtually all of media is filled with images of scantily-clad women intended to appeal to me sexually. Such images of men exist, but are rarer.

42. In general, I am under much less pressure to be thin than my female counterparts are. (More). If I am fat, I probably suffer fewer social and economic consequences for being fat than fat women do. (More).

43. If I am heterosexual, it’s incredibly unlikely that I’ll ever be beaten up by a spouse or lover. (More).

44. Complete strangers generally do not walk up to me on the street and tell me to “smile.” (More: 1 2).

45. Sexual harassment on the street virtually never happens to me. I do not need to plot my movements through public space in order to avoid being sexually harassed, or to mitigate sexual harassment. (More.)

45. On average, I am not interrupted by women as often as women are interrupted by men.

46. I have the privilege of being unaware of my male privilege.

(Compiled by Barry Deutsch, aka “Ampersand.” Permission is granted to reproduce this list in any way, for any purpose, so long as the acknowledgment of Peggy McIntosh’s work is not removed. If possible, I’d appreciate it if folks who use it would tell me how they used it; my email is barry-at-amptoons-dot-com.)

(This is a continually updated document; the most current version of The Male Privilege Checklist can always be found at amptoons.com/blog/the-male-privilege-checklist . To see posts discussing the Male Privilege Checklist and various items on it, please visit this archive page).

* * *

Related links

For another feminist list with a different thematic approach, see Andrea Rubenstein’s “Think We’ve Already Achieved Equality? Think Again.”

A list of links to many other “privilege lists.”

Men Who Trust Women website

Men Who Trust Women

about men who trust women

Everywhere you turn these days, people are talking about reproductive freedom.

From the uproar over the Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation pulling its funding from Planned Parenthood to the GOP frontrunner warning of “the dangers of contraception,” a lot of people in America are talking about a woman’s right to decide if, when and with whom she has a baby.

A lot of those people believe that a woman should not have the right to make that choice. And a lot of them are men.

In the past few weeks, women’s voices have been glaringly absent from the conversation about women’s health. When the House Committee on Congressional Oversight convened a hearing to talk about the fact that the Affordable Care Act allows women employed by religious institutions to get coverage for birth control, the witness panel was all men.

Seriously, look at this panel.

10 Responses to the Phrase “Man Up” (spoken-word)

Lyrics and more, at Gunate’s website.

WHY MALE ALLY?

By a Male Ally contributor

So many of us have heard the numbers from research statistics, seen a talking head analyze it, a psychologist record it, a news anchor broadcast it, a lawyer deny it, and worst of all have seen a woman justify or ignore it.  As I am writing this, a talk show is doing a special called “Ending the Silence on Domestic Violence”.  The “experts” on board listen to sobbing women tell their stories of hate, abuse, and fear.  One sociologist states to a women that she is “sorry that the system failed her”.  This woman had her eye cut out by her husband and will be getting out of jail to kill her and her child before you know it. The “professionals” suggest that these women change their name, move to hiding, have an emergency bag ready to leave at any moment, and so on.  This is why I am a Male Ally.  I’m sick of being just sorry that the system has failed all the women of this planet. Sorry isn’t good enough.  Male Ally does not mean you will do whatever is easiest through the system to protect women.  Male Ally does not mean you will help only when it’s legal, safe, and sure. Male Ally means you are committed to doing whatever it takes. Male Ally means doing everything within your power to not only support the victims of abuse, but stop in their tracks the men perpetrating the abuse.

I am a Male Ally.