There was an interesting diary recently, equating the vicissitudes of of being male in “post feminist” America with women’s on-going struggle for equality. The diarist blamed “female liberation” in part for forcing the sexes apart in an unnatural way, and contends that this makes being a man in America just as difficult as being a woman.
It has never escaped me that rigid male roles are uncomfortable, limiting and dangerous for the men that adopt them, and for everyone they affect.
I am not totally unsympathetic, although I reserve the bulk of my respect and empathy for the brave men who dare to defy the stereotypes. Because rejection of inflexible, traditional roles is at the heart of feminism, I was at a loss to understand how we could be blamed. The complaint seemed to be: “The women these days don’t respond well to the way I behave, and I resent it.”
Maybe I’ve been missing something. Perhaps my femicentrist viewpoint has blinded me to the real pain of the privileged when their entitlement runs out.
For instance, I have always felt great outrage at the institution of slavery, but I have identified only with the slaves. I never thought about how hard it was being a master in a changing world.
I Am a Masterist
Nobody appreciates the difficulty of owning people. For one thing, you have all this responsibility and the burden of command. I have to make all the decisions and see to it that everybody acts right. That is a lot of work. The other thing is, I know in my heart that I, personally, would hate being a slave, so even when they act all content, sometimes I have my doubts. I even imagine occasionally that they may hate and resent me even though I take care of them. That’s very stressful. Luckily, they are NOT like me because they’re black. Well, most of them are pretty black, except the ones whose daddies are white. Some of them are even my own children, and I can’t tell you how hard it is to remember that even though they are my blood, that blackness keeps them from being like me. That’s the part I hate worst, because it’s natural to love your children and want what’s best for them. Keeping all slaves in their place is a necessary but painful sacrifice a master has to make to keep the system going. No, it’s a good thing that blackness makes them like the opposites of whites, or I’d be even more uneasy and afraid. Those people cook my food, wash my clothes, care for my children and sleep in my bed. If I believed that they had the same feelings as white people, I’d be afraid all the time, any maybe even ashamed.
Now, what really gets my goat is that some the masters have got religion or something, and went and freed their slaves. This is a very bad precedent which might give my slaves dangerous ideas. Besides, I have to see these “free men of color”, and they don’t act right. What’s worse, I don’t know how to act with them. How do you talk to a slave who’s not a slave any more, that’s what I want to know. Suppose they were all free, and I had to figure out a way to get along with them as equals. That is sick and unnatural. I will not be dragged down to the level of slaves who were intended by God to show me service, deference and respect. We need legislation that will invalidate all manumission, because I am just as entitled as any white man to the respect I’ve always enjoyed, and nobody is going take that away from me.
Oh Susanw – you made me laugh – thank you.
I just am so astounded to be able to say, “Same sh*t, different millennium.”
Susanw, don’t let those slaves drag you down! They’ll do it if they can. </snark>
You write regarding that diary to which you are responding “The complaint seemed to be: The women these days don’t respond well to the way I behave, and I resent it.’ “
You did not understand the diary.
OR you are being willfully misleading in order to support your snark.
Or…you are unconscious of your real motives.
Since you did not LINK to it, I suspect the willfully misleading option.
WHATEVER the reason(s)…here is the link.
The M word. (I am a masculinist, myself.)
Those of you who take part in THIS thread…please read that one first if you have not already done so.
All of it…comments and replies as well.
Up until now, I have been fairly polite here.
THIS diary is insulting to me personally and to all the other well-meaning men who have wholeheartedly supported and accepted the freedom of women in any manner that any individual women might wish.
It is lame, this diary.
Get off it. Your hatred burns plainly here, Susanw.
Get off it, and get over it.
“We”…ALL men…are NOT the enemy. And people who think otherwise are both condemning themselves to isolation and eventual failure and simultaneously hurting the whole society.
INCLUDING the women that they claim to want to help.
Lame like a motherfucker..
AG
P.S. Do you know the derivation of the word “motherfucker”, susanw? It is a black American word, and in its original form it referred to those white masters who used their privilege as slaveowners to FUCK THE MOTHERS OF THE SLAVES THAT THEY OWNED. It is a term of unfathomable hatred.
And you have just equated me with the rancid pieces of human shit who committed the original sin of human slavery for which this country is still suffering to this day.
I cannot EXPRESS the depth of my anger here.
Cannot even BEGIN to express it.
Go to hell.
here’s a zero for your anger.
enjoy.
by the way, you’ve set yourself up for this, accept some of the responsibilty for the reception you’re receiving.
No, I have NOT “set myself up” for this.
Unless honestly pointing out a partially negative result that has come from the pursuit of a positive effort of some kind can be considered setting oneself up.
Has “feminism” become so sacrosanct in idea in this culture, such an orthodoxy that no part it, none of its possible results can be criticized? That it cannot be made better in some way?
I wrote on my thread here:
The ones who, when ANY man dares speak to the problems and position of women, shout him down (or otherwise diss him) because he can’t POSSIBLY know what he’s talking about, being a man.
Check out what has happened here when one man dared to point out a chink in the armor of the Grand Empress of Feminism.
Not saying that the Empress had no clothes.
Not saying the the Empress should be deposed or otherwise brought down.
Just saying that some of her policies had brought possible negative results.
MASSIVE hostility from “The ones who, when ANY man dares speak to the problems and position of women, shout him down (or otherwise diss him) because he can’t POSSIBLY know what he’s talking about, being a man.”
He must have “problems relating to women.”
It must be about HIM, because the Empress is right. She has DIVINE right.
Bullshit.
Sometimes the Empress’s shit stinks, just like the shit of the commonest among us.
And here it is, stinking up the joint yet again.
To extend susanw’s slavery metaphor a notch or two…
What happened after “the slaves were freed”?
Among other things, carpetbaggers from the interests that FREED the slaves looted the south.
Even those in the south that did not OWN slaves suffered. ESPECIALLY those, because by and large they were the poorest.
And what happened then?
After” Reconstruction”?
As is always the case, DEconstruction happened.
REACTIONARY construction.
And the slaves, who were now “free”, were right back in the same place only under another title.
And things were in some ways worse than they were before the Civil War. For the whole country.
Does that mean that a recognition of these facts is tantamount to saying the emancipation ITSELF was wrong?
That the black people of this country DESERVED slavery, were in some way inferior?
No, of course not.
But that is what is happening here in the ongoing consideration of feminism.. And I do NOT mean “here” as in on this forum alone.
Check it out.
How many times have you read or discussed or thought the idea that “feminism”, after an initial run of success, seemed to have somehow bogged down? That it hadn’t reached truly deeply into society? Not deeply enough, for sure. That it was largely a movement of middle and upper middle class women? That it had hardly scratched the surface of the psyches of the male population?
Why?
Why did this happen?
Is it a “wrong” idea, a bad concept in and of itself?
I do not believe so.
ANY idea that promises a positive change in the use of human beings…in the state of human ecology…is a good idea. One that improves the lot of one half of the people who make up that human ecology is a GRAND idea.
As grand as communism.
As grand as democracy.
So…what happened to communism again?
It failed. Mostly. As a large scale social movement.
And why?
Because it became a rigid orthodoxy and thus could no longer evolve. Evolve or die is the principle of life. On ALL levels.
And what is happening to democracy, at least at the present time?
It has been largely taken over by narrow minded, self seeking liars and used to ANTI-democratic ends.
But democracy is still capable of evolution. It is still possible to criticize democracy, and even a cursory look at BushCo’s recent problemsa of attempt to overturn it shows that it is still evolving.
Still alive.
Do you want to see feminism go the same route as communism?
I don’t.
So back off when someone makes a criticism.
You want to discuss it?
Fine.
I am NOT the enemy.
I am an ally.
But compare me to a slaveholder?
Say that it is my own “problems with women” (What a tired old lick THAT has become over the past 30 or 40 years!!!) that have led me to see a problem with some of the results of feminism?
That’s not discussion.
It’s orthodoxy.
WE’RE right, and you are wrong.
End of discussion, you arrogant male animal. You slaveholder. You anti-woman piece of shit. What could YOU know about our problems?
End of discussion.
Well…the end of discussion signals the end of evolution for an idea.
And the end of evolution signals the end of an idea.
Check it out.
AG
problems with responsibility, i see.
Back at ya.
S.
And thanks to susanw for a very adroit rejoinder…
I’d have missed this beaut but it was emailed to me for the popcorn and opera glasses value.
Perhaps my femicentrist viewpoint has blinded me to the real pain of the privileged when their entitlement runs out.
Oh, Susan, you’re being “vocal and aggressive” which means you’re “advocating for female superiority”.
I do not read in the other diary any hint of blame for “female liberation”, feminists, or feminism. I do not read any hint of advocacy for privilege or entitlement. What I read is a condemnation of all gender stereotypes, male and female. What I read is an affirmation of humanist values of equal rights and gender equality for men AND women.
What I read is a condemnation of all gender stereotypes, male and female. What I read is an affirmation of humanist values of equal rights and gender equality for men AND women.
The guy is claiming that a “big chunk” of feminists who are “vocal and aggressive”,”advocate for female superiority”. When questioned he presented examples which had nothing to do with feminism and which did not demonstrate that the women he was using as examples(feminists or not) were advocating for a cultural shift instituting “female superiority”.
If this was intended to affirm humanist values of equal rights and gender equity for men AND women there were some failures of communication. Because, the fact of the matter is that feminism does not advocate for “female superiority” but, rather, a recognition of the fact that this culture is far from achieving anything approaching gender equity.
Well I seem to have stepped in it. I read Arthur’s post last night. At that time there were only a couple of snarky comments. This morning when I read Susan’s diary, I thought that isn’t how I read that. So I read Arthur’s diary again, carefully and word for word. Not the comments, just the diary. I read Susan’s diary again, carefully and word for word. I posted a comment to Susan. And deleted it. I read some other diaries for a while. Came back and read both diaries again. Wrote another comment and deleted that. Thought some more and then posted the comment above. Still without reading the rest of the comments. My bad.
The comment I eventually posted was shorter than I intended, both in length and in tone. The first two were longer, with quotes and counter quotes. In any case I was responding to Susan’s diary about Arthur’s diary, not to the subsequent word fight in the comments. I really thought she had misread the intent of his diary. Well, that’s my fault for not reading the rest of the comments.
I will come in here on your coattails and say I generally felt the same way as you did about both diaries and then differ with you at the end about the comments changing my mind.
I too have hesitated about writing something and still not sure I should, but I think this is a case of the way words are phrased and put together rather than intent. I see this happen often in diaries of this nature, (hot topics) feminism/masculinism, abortion, religion always seem to decend into arguing about how someone has made their point or ‘their point of view’.
I guess that’s all I can say right now as I do not want to parse points and this is difficult to articulate.
I really thought she had misread the intent of his diary.
I think that your analysis was indeed his conscious intent in writing that diary and certainly that was the end point he was trying to reach and express. It’s just that he’s not there himself and resorts to insults and derogatory language when some of his misperceptions and conclusions are questioned.
I wasn’t fighting though. I was pointing out that the notion that feminists seek a world of ‘female superiority’ wasn’t valid. It’s just not true and I thought that if he understood that he might be able to understand that the problem isn’t feminism. A futile endeavor, not a fight.
If I were fighting I would have been far more vocal and aggressive…
you’ve probably got the sensitivity on your detector set too low. adjust your gain.
if you hurry, you can scroll down and read the downthread comment by the writer your referencing (if it hasn’t completely dissapeared :). that one comes through crystal clear with no sensitivity adjustments required whatsoever!
Recommended for hysterically funny snark!
Are there any males besides myself daring to post on this topic?
From the sigs, it appears that there not too many, if any at all.
I wonder why not?
Could it be…fear of being dissed coupled with the weary resignation, that so many men feel in the face of unbridled (and over the top) female anger at what has been their lot for eons?
Betcha…
But that kind of surrender to ANOTHER set of injustices (no matter how slight they may appear to be in relation to the GREAT injustices that has been done to women) is not contructive either.
And THIS homey does not play that game.
AG
I seldom comment on feminist discussions simply because there are only three alternatives:
Oh wait, there is the fourth possibility, which is to be the swaggering chauvinist asshole. That’s the only really acceptable role for a male in a feminist discussion: the despised enemy. And really, I could never hope to top Kos in that role even if I wanted to, so why bother?
And no, it’s not healthy, but since I’m basically in agreement with the policy objectives of mainstream feminism and vote accordingly, I don’t feel obligated to either play the role of the yes man or of the scapegoat by naively walking into discussions of feminism. The end result is a diary like this in which any complaint or disagreement is dismissed out of hand as the well-deserved mewling of the oppressor. When you’re up against that kind of contempt, it’s better to just shake your head and walk away. If you want to speak your piece first, by all means do. That’s what I did at dKos after the pie fight, and that’s what I’m doing right now with this hateful little sexist screed.
But stick around while things degenerate into open contempt? Pass, thanks.
And yes.
I had my say.
I weighed in over at dKos too during the pie fight fiasco.
Knew THEN that dKos was over as far as any lasting societal change is concerned.
You are correct.
A hopeless battle.
With BOTH sides.
Call me Don Quixote.
Thanks for the suggestion.
Back to my original alliance with the neutral universe on this one.
As Rosanna Dana figured out long ago…
Nevermind…
AG
Bloody brilliant diary, susanw. A perfect rejoinder.
The line I will treasure: Perhaps my femicentrist viewpoint has blinded me to the real pain of the privileged when their entitlement runs out. Superb!
This comment has next to nothing to do with Arthur’s chauvinism (which remains what it is and worthy of the criticism it has received), but there’s actually a serious point of view that corresponds somewhat to susanw’s “Masterism”: Hegel’s Master-Slave (Herrschaft und Knechtschaft) dialectic from the Phenomenology of Spirit.
Hegel suggests, among other things, that in the relationship between a master and a servant, the master is ultimately a slave to his unachievable desires vis a vis the servant (apology for the oversimplification here). Now there are many problems with the master-slave dialectic, but it’s been an enormously influential idea, especially in post-war French philosophy (though this excellent article by Chris Arthur suggests that its supposed importance for Marx’s conception of labor has been dramatically oversold). But the master-slave dialectic is, unlike Arthur’s rant against a fantasy version of feminism, a serious idea. And even if we reject Hegel’s conception itself, we can still note that patriarchy encourages modes of masculinity that hurt many men, even if it does put them in a dominant social position over women.
So you may have been writing a parody, susanw, but you were still making a lot more sense than Arthur.
(Incidentally, I believe this comment by a man on a feminist thread neither represents my shutting the fuck up, nor my agreeing wholeheartedly, nor my saying something that will simply get people to dump on me.)
It was interesting and showed you had read and thought about what you read. I very much appreciated your last remark.
That was the problem with AG’s diary was that he claimed it was in response to IndyLib’s F Word diary which was a very detailed, informative discussion of feminism but his response didn’t address a single point in the diary; it just basically suggested that feminism ignores men and their problems (apparently because he knows nothing about that feminism, he doesn’t know that it has always claimed that the patriarchy hurts men as much as women).
We feminists are happy to have debates on the ideas, actions, and philosophies of feminism. But having debates with someone who shows no knowledge of those things and no interest in actually learning about them is a pointless exercise.
Thanks for this AndiF. Very well said; represents my feelings accurately also.
I am thrilled to have discussions about feminist ideas, or to debate a particular point or methodology. I love debates within feminism.
I don’t like to argue with people about feminism itself, because that is just like arguing about gay equality or racial equality; there are degrees, certainly, but this is essentially a choice between freedom and fascism and it will always be highly emotional to me. I don’t like those arguments, but I am sometimes willing to have them depending on the circumstance.
I am wholly unwilling to engage with people who are both arrogantly ignorant of feminism at the same time as they are hostile toward it, as I feel that’s counterproductive to my own goals as well as being simply no fun for me. Some people like to fight just for the sake of fighting; I don’t.
Overall, I very much appreciate the community response to my diary. I think the bulk of the response was very good, warm, and receptive, and I appreciate that any nastiness was kept in other diaries. I want to continue to host respectful discussions for people who are interested in learning about feminism, and I hope that other people won’t feel a need to become disruptive about that.
that generated a lot of good discussion. I know how much work it must have been for you to do it and I really admire and appreciate your willingness to make such a substantial effort.
I’m looking forward to the next one.
Thank you for bringing up Hegel, GreenSooner; I did quite a bit of reading Hegel in college and have a bit of a love/hate relationship with his theory. But several of the feminist philosophers I admire did a good deal of work with Hegel’s theory while they were earning their PhDs, so I am always running into him, thinking and re-thinking about various interpretations of aspects of his System. I’ll probably wind up writing a bit about Hegel sooner or later in another feminist diary — however one may feel about Absolute Knowledge, it’s very hard to work through any modern theory without familiarizing yourself with Hegel. 🙂
I share your ambivalence about Hegel. Hegel enters a lot of feminist thought through the French, who got their Hegel (at least from the 1930s on) through Alexander Kojève. He is as, as Charles Arthur argues in the piece I linked to above, largely responsible for the focus on the master-slave dialectic over and above other aspects of Hegel’s thought. He’s also a decidedly peculiar figure, who spent much of his professional life both as a French negotiator on European union talks and as a KGB agent.
In France, Kojève influenced a generation of thinkers, many of whom attended his famous seminar on Hegel in the ’30s, including Sartre and Merleau-Ponty. But in this country, his most prominent followers are all Straussians, especially Allan Bloom and his students (though Stanley Rosen also studied with both Strauss and Kojève). Strauss and Kojève had an extraordinary mutual admiration society (see their correspondence collected in recent editions of Strauss’s On Tyranny, which is actually a debate between Strauss and Kojève on a dialogue by Xenophon). Allan Bloom wrote the introduction to the only major work of Kojève translated into English, the heavily abridged Introduction to the Reading of Hegel. Most of the sparse literature on Kojève in English is written by Straussians (a notable exception being an early work by arch-anti-Straussian Shadia Drury, who not surprisingly detests Kojève). Straussian Francis Fukuyama’s famous “End of History” thesis is Kojèvian.
How odd that Kojève,a thinker who deeply influenced the mid-20th-century French left, a man who worked for the KGB, has mainly influenced a peculiar sector of the American right!
Let me add a final, weird twist to all of this. Among the Straussians’ most indefatigable paleocon opponents are those American conservative intellectuals who are most self-consciously Hegelian, e.g. Paul Gottfried and Claes Ryn.
Curiouser and curiouser!
I am deadly serious about the damage unequal relationships and “otherness” inflicted on all parties involved. I would be as uncomfortable shoehorned into a traditional male gender role as a female one, but there is one crucial difference. The group in power has more freedom of choice to change the social balance. Each individual may have only a little wiggle room, and it takes courage to buck the system, but membership in the oppressor class (willing or no) still confers a legitimacy that the second class citizens can only dream of.
As a straight, white woman, it is my obligation, if I claim to love social justice, to support GLBT’s and people of colour. Homophobes and racists don’t care what they think, but if enough straight, white people call them on their bigotry, they may get the message a bit faster. Does this mean that I can march into a NAACP meeting and start offering up helpful suggestions ? Hell, no. I pay my dues, shut my mouth, and pitch in. Why ? Because I can never really understand being black or gay. They best I will ever be is a sympathizer, a slightly enlightened oppressor who is embarrassed and ashamed to be a beneficiary of prejudice. And if things get too dicey, I can walk away. They can’t stop being who they are because it’s inconvenient.
If men want to support women in our battle for equality, do this for us. Stand up to other men. Call them on their sexist jokes. Call them on using women’s bodies as entertainment. Call them on domestic violence. It’s hard. It means risking your membership in the band of brothers. It may well be personally dangerous, too. But never as dangerous as it is for us.