It’s strangely comforting and depressing to once again confirm my observation that childish exclusionary bullshit crosses all human boundaries. Whether it be some form of political activism, a religion, an economic philosophy, or even a hobby, people just looooove holding out their hand, saying others can’t be a part of their club and then sticking their metaphorical tongue out at them.

I’d like to think some more about what everybody has said, before I respond more at length, but I do want to issue one point of clarification: I feel as thought folks are taking my basic idea, which is that disclaimers about gender still have a place while working for gender equality, and turning it into something that many fewer people would advocate. I’m not saying Maymay shouldn’t have created Femquake. I’m not saying he shouldn’t be a leader in feminist circles. I’m saying that I think it behooves us all to consistently (constantly? ;) acknowledge that the stuff folks like sara are saying matters–acknowledgment that men have traditionally, and for a long, long, long, long time, taken up space from women in leadership roles is still helpful and necessary, and, I think, respectful of all genders involved.

This is bullshit. Many people refuse to identify with feminism because it marginalizes or disrespects them – women of color and trans women, to name only two examples – but people who refuse to identify with feminism because it’s too mean/i> are privileged fucks, not potential allies.

OK sara, I’m speaking as a cis female, raised in a welfare family for most of my childhood, groveling for financial aid all through college, etc., etc. Do I have the right to say I think your attitude sucks, and is an example of exactly the kind of rhetoric that drove me away from the ‘feminist’ label for so many years? Or does my saying that mean I am a “privileged fuck”, I’ve been co-opted by the white male patriarchy, and just don’t understand what I’m talking about?

If the former, I would argue that sounds a lot like anti-male sexism, which is no better or more helpful to the cause of equality than the usual anti-female variety. A woman can critique, simply because she’s female, and a man can’t because he’s not? Bullshit. I’ll opt out of that ‘movement’ and align with the as-yet-nameless(?) one that rejects biological entry qualifications, and supports civil, open-minded and constructive discourse between any individuals who care to participate.

If instead it’s the latter, then you’d basically be saying if I don’t toe the line, and agree with the extreme, exclusionary contingent within the feminist community, my voice doesn’t count. Which, frankly, feels anything but positive and empowering and supportive and “feminist”. It feels condescending and oppressive. And I’ll opt out of that as well, in favor of an equality movement that also rejects exclusionary ideological purity for inclusion.

No, you don’t. You don’t because you’re a dude and dudes don’t get to take a leadership role in feminism. Dudes don’t get to take a leadership role within feminism because that is just a reification of patriarchy.

Dudes don’t get to take all or most of the leadership roles within feminism because that is just a reification of patriarchy. But if dudes can’t have any leadership roles in feminism — in particular, in contemporary, intersectional, non-binary feminism — doesn’t that also reify patriarchal constructions of whose movement is whose and whose power is in which sphere?

No ally, no matter how well-meaning, can truly understand the oppression faced by the group in question.

I agree with your statement above, and thus I can’t discount your argument. But the idea that men can’t help lead toward gender equality makes me twitch, and I hope I manage to explain a little bit of why here.

Many people refuse to identify with feminism because it marginalizes or disrespects them – women of color and trans women, to name only two examples…

Part of why it makes me so twitchy is that much of the rhetoric used to suggest that men don’t belong in feminism sounds exactly like the rhetoric I’ve seen used to suggest that trans people don’t belong in feminism, except with the words changed around. With the understanding that being trans anything and being cis male are not the same, and that cis men enjoy historical and current power and support that the rest of us do not, authenticity policing seems like a bad reason to keep people out of a movement for gender equality, in particular when some men are punished quite harshly by the gender essentialism and patriatchy that I see feminism as working to undo.

A major reason I agree with your discomfort about Maymay’s creating and publicizing FemQuake is that it isn’t so much about gender equality, at least not from the text presented, it’s very specifically about women. In this narrower case I agree with you — having a guy say “Don’t let ideological feminists shame you into covering yourself up, or pressure you into exposing yourself” leaves me wondering what his contribution to this is. What’s at stake for him? Where is he going with this? What’s up with telling me how I should be relating to “ideological feminists,” a loaded phrase?

But I can’t and won’t extrapolate this discomfort to all of feminism, because I see feminism as a whole as about ending gendered oppression against all persons and working with other groups and movements to make lives more livable in general, especially in the ways that other forms of oppression and harm are tied up with gender roles and relationships. In that larger goal — which I realize not everyone shares — I believe strongly there are leadership roles for people of every gender.

In your initial post, you explicitly told women what to do: Don’t let ideological feminists shame you into covering yourself up, or pressure you into exposing yourself. Your body is YOURS. It is yours to show off however you like, whether physically, intellectually, or otherwise. That’s not appropriate. That’s unbelievably not appropriate. YOU DON’T GET TO TELL WOMEN WHAT TO DO. […] it’s not your place to tell women that. Because you’re a dude.

Sara, that you find it “unbelievably not appropriate” for a man to say that any given woman’s body belongs to that woman is…astonishing. That your objection, which I optimistically presume is to the wording rather than to the content of my message, is as ferocious as it is feels like a case of throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

Anyway, I now understand much more about why it’s so hard for men to advocate for gender equality, much less women’s rights. I’m clearly going to keep needing to take my own advice and not let ideological feminists tell me that I have no right to speak, as there’s apparently more that needs to be done to realize gender equality than even I previously thought. :(

How is the tone argument a double-edged sword?

Any tactic that can silence one person can be used to silence another; it can be used by “the oppressor” to silence “the oppressed” and it can be used by “the oppressed” to silence “the oppressor.” In general, I oppose silencing, period, because regardless of who’s being silenced, silencing somebody one disagrees with destroys any opportunity one might have otherwise had to find a win-win situation. I think the tone argument is a double-edged sword because using it can make someone acknowledge one legitimate argument at the expense of another.

I’m familiar with what happened with you and the Salvation Army folks, and I’d like you to explain to me how on earth it is structural oppression.

Perhaps we don’t share an understanding of what “structural oppression” means. For the record, I’m using the definition of “systemic (or structural) oppression” on page 3 of “The Dynamic System Of Power, Privilege, and Oppression (PDF) via OpenSourceLeadership.com:

Systemic (or Structural) Oppression = The ways in which history, culture, ideology, public policies, institutional practices, and personal behaviors and beliefs interact to maintain a hierarchy […] that allows the privileges […] and the disadvantages […] to endure and adapt over time.

When someone is called a sexual predator for advocating for a right to speak openly about sexuality, the structurally ingrained sex-negativity in contemporary culture has become oppressive; the advocate for open discussion about sexuality faces legal, political, and social repercussions (as I have) including but not limited to intimidation in an effort to force them to kowtow to the dominant paradigm. It is misguided at best to suggest that the prejudices against sex displayed by the Salvation Army folks have not been maintained by history, culture, ideology, public policies, institutional practices, or personal behaviors and beliefs that interact to form a hierarchy of “things that are or are not acceptable to discuss,” and under what conditions.

See, for instance, this case of abuse of power by a Wisconsin DA using a position of legal privilege to impede sexuality education, this similar case of powerful political opposition to sex education, this one of a city councilman using political privilege to censor sexual speech, or this instance objecting to a women-owned sexuality education business. (Shall I go on…?)

All this conversation reminds me of this quote: “If you have come to help me, you are wasting your time. But if you have come because your liberation is bound up with mine, then let us work together.” I insist that women’s liberation is bound up with mine, and I insist that myself and other men must work together with women as equal partners to realize gender equality.

First, on remaining calm: Effective discourse between groups or individuals with differing opinions simply requires it. We’re all emotional creatures; we all have varying degrees of trouble keeping our cool with issues that concern our rights and well-being. However, anyone wishing to IMPROVE ANY SITUATION that involves vitriolic misunderstanding, such as this one, must strive to stay as calm as possible and keep an open mind. Maymay’s differently-worded statement of this (“Otherwise, as should be elementarily obvious to you, I will simply refuse to listen.”) is just fact – you want to get your point across, recognize that you’re talking to a human to whom it matters how you speak to him, and not a computer (mine at least doesn’t really care when I swear at it). I have met precious few individuals who can take anything seriously and with understanding when it comes from someone spitting profanity at them.

Second, on rights: Isn’t the whole bloody point of the feminist movement that a person’s rights do not depend on gender? Maymay’s discussed this extensively and eloquently, but it bears repeating (maybe you’ll listen to a woman saying it, given your biases…?) – it is profoundly counterproductive to the goal of equality to attempt to deny any rights to men in any way (be it specifically within the movement, or outside it). If you want to be taken seriously as a promoter of equality, you had best be prepared to walk your talk with everyone you deal with, whether they are female, male, genderqueer, trans, or any other expression of gender we use. That you question Maymay’s right to create a positive-messaged facebook page based on his gender shows that you either do not understand equality, or do not really want it.

Finally, on “#3″: The first people who told anyone what to do regarding Femquake were “Anonymous” and other people of your mindset. Maymay saw a conflict, and offered a suggestion in the form of an alternative. He did not order or coerce anyone to participate in or even approve of Femquake. He did not attempt to lay guilt on anyone who participated in “Boobquake” or “Brainquake” for not jumping one one bandwagon or another. He did not step in and say “you women don’t know how do things; you need to do it my way.” He simply suggested an alternative in an attempt to build bridges.

Again, we come back to the nature of equality: it goes both ways.

And opposing the generation and expression of ideas based on a person’s gender is just about as oppressive it gets.

What’s the difference between speaking one’s mind and telling others what to do, then?
I think this question is too broad and not terribly useful. In your initial post, you explicitly told women what to do: Don’t let ideological feminists shame you into covering yourself up, or pressure you into exposing yourself. Your body is YOURS. It is yours to show off however you like, whether physically, intellectually, or otherwise. That’s not appropriate. That’s unbelievably not appropriate. YOU DON’T GET TO TELL WOMEN WHAT TO DO.

Everyone has the right to say what they want, and the message of Femquake was that women do, too.
And it’s not your place to tell women that. Because you’re a dude. And all of human history is dudes telling chicks what to do. It reifies a power dynamic that feminism is all about overthrowing.

I would say that they are “emotionally defensive.”
What I’m trying to explain to you is that you don’t have the right to ask people in whose faces you’ve just waved your privilege to respect your feelings, because you’ve already hurt theirs. When you act in a privileged way, you cause harm to those less privileged than yourself. This pisses people off, and they rightfully get angry about it. Asking them to be nice about their call-outs is just a further waving of your privilege in their faces.

You don’t have the right, after you hurt someone, to expect them to be kind about telling you. That’s one of the pitfalls of getting involved with anti-oppression movements that encompass more than your own oppression – you run the risk of pissing people off. Part of being a good ally is taking your lumps, sucking it up when you fuck up and get served, and sticking around, because it’s not all about you.

Many people—men and women—refuse to identify with feminism precisely because instinctively responding to any action as though it is privilege-waving turns them off.
This is bullshit. Many people refuse to identify with feminism because it marginalizes or disrespects them – women of color and trans women, to name only two examples – but people who refuse to identify with feminism because it’s too mean/i> are privileged fucks, not potential allies.

I’m familiar with what happened with you and the Salvation Army folks, and I’d like you to explain to me how on earth it is structural oppression. It sucks, it’s terrible, it’s scary and offensive, and none of that makes it structural oppression.

I find it “suspicious” that you didn’t answer my second or third questions.

Good point, sara; perhaps I wrote hastily. :) If I understand correctly, your second question was:

Why did you think you had the right to create something like Femquake?

My answer, which I thought was self-explanatory as well as one I’ve been repeating throughout this entire comment thread, other blog posts, and even on the Femquake page itself, but perhaps (still?) isn’t clear, is because I believe everyone has the right to advocate for gender equality in whatever way they feel they are willing and able. That’s what the message of Femquake is. Do you think that I don’t have the right to create something like Femquake? If so, why don’t I?

Your third question was:

Do you understand that you are still a man telling women what to do?

I understand that I am a man, and I understand that I have a message, which I broadcast pretty loudly. Is that the same as “telling women what to do”? What’s the difference between speaking one’s mind and telling others what to do, then? I think that’s a pretty important distinction to draw.

Everyone has the right to say what they want, and the message of Femquake was that women do, too. Further, I was pretty clear in writing out Femquake to address all people of any and all identifications. It sounds to me (and I welcome corrections if I’m wrong) that you’re addressing the issue as though my “leadership” in this instance amounted to a dictatorial decree of how women should behave. I think that’s an unfortunate, dangerous, and counter-productive misunderstanding.

This is a long-standing method for the privileged to silence the oppressed: tone argument. And if you don’t call “be nice to me or I won’t listen to you” a demand, then I don’t know what you would call it.

Thanks for the link to the Tone argument page. I’ll read more about that; it sounds really nuanced and very interesting.

As for what I would call my actions in asking Anonymous not to be mean to me, I would say that they are “emotionally defensive.” Is it so hard to believe that my requests not to be verbally abused are an attempt to foster a dialogue, rather than silencing Anonymous? If it is extremely difficult for you to believe that, then I think asking why it’s so hard is in order. If the answer instinctively comes back as “because you are a man with privilege,” then I think a certain measure of sexism is likely at play, and is worth examining.

You’re insisting that they control their 100% legitimate anger over your privilege-waving in order for you to hear them.

Actually, I’m insisting that in order to discuss the issue with me, I need to be in a place where emotions don’t get the best of me, because I know it’s going to be harder to work towards shared understanding if Anonymous keeps saying things like “fuck off” to me. And I don’t think I’m alone on in this. See James’s comment, above, for another example.

Many people—men and women—refuse to identify with feminism precisely because instinctively responding to any action as though it is privilege-waving turns them off. I agree with you that our advocacy for gender equality demands that we point out privilege-waving when we see it, but I don’t think we agree on how to do this. Saraline and Anonymous’s methods are ones I strongly disagree with, and I try hard to avoid them.

In fact, I wonder if their methods are part of the reason why so-called “Men’s Rights Activists”, who are some of the most sexist and disgusting people I’ve ever heard of (and who I propose we start calling anti-equality activists since I find that phrase a more accurate description of these people), have cropped up. I can tell you that after this exchange, while I still disagree with what MRA types say, I can understand their emotional response to some feminists and feminist methods of pointing out privilege-waving. And the fact that I can say I now understand that is fucking frightening; it at least deserves a second look.

Anyway, I think the tone argument is a very valid point and, like most things, it’s a double-edged sword—just like politeness.

As to your links, if you note my comment above you’ll see that I said: I don’t think you’ve ever remained calm when discussing the various structural oppressions you face. The posts you linked to, all of which I’ve read, are definitely instances of you remaining calm in the face of what I agree is scary and offensive bullshit. They are also not instances of you facing structural oppression.

Are you suggesting that the “scary and offensive bullshit” I’ve faced from people who call me a sexual predator because of my support of KinkForAll isn’t an instance of me facing structural oppression? Really? I think that’s…well I think that’s absurd, frankly.

Right here: You are welcome to teach me, Anonymous, if you can do so without being mean to me. Otherwise, as should be elementarily obvious to you, I will simply refuse to listen. This is a long-standing method for the privileged to silence the oppressed: tone argument. And if you don’t call “be nice to me or I won’t listen to you” a demand, then I don’t know what you would call it. You’re insisting that they control their 100% legitimate anger over your privilege-waving in order for you to hear them.

I don’t think being able to demand that is a function of privilege.

That is because you are wrong: The privilege of politeness. You are telling your interlocutor that their anger over your privilege is less important than your feelings. Being able to stay calm while discussing inequality is a function of privilege, and being in a position not only to remain calm but to be calm enough to set the terms of the conversation and choose not to listen if they are not followed – the very fact that you are able to bow out of the conversation if it stops being to your tastes – is something you can do because you are privileged.

As to your links, if you note my comment above you’ll see that I said: I don’t think you’ve ever remained calm when discussing the various structural oppressions you face. The posts you linked to, all of which I’ve read, are definitely instances of you remaining calm in the face of what I agree is scary and offensive bullshit. They are also not instances of you facing structural oppression.

I find it “suspicious” that you didn’t answer my second or third questions.