I don’t claim clairvoyance and I work pretty hard to unpack the privilege I know I have as a white man. But I can also identify with a collective experience of being oppressed—and this is not unique to anyone reading, regardless of your biology or psyche.
I believe every inequality oppresses the oppressors as well as the oppressed because inequality erases opportunity and choice. As a man, I have privilege, but I’m also bound by strict social constraint. I’m not able to cuddle with acquaintances whether female, male, or intersex without being seen in a predatory light. I’m not able to express emotionality without fear of humiliation. And apparently, I learned painfully for the first time through this Femquake thing, some feminists believe I’m also not allowed to offer leadership in gender justice activism no matter how amorphous or self-empowering (as opposed to dogmatic) that leadership is intended to be.
Inequality is not the reality I want for humanity’s sons, nor its daughters, nor the rest of its children. That is why I call myself a feminist.
There are no truths without full and original context
Before I go any further, let me provide some background. On Sunday, April 25th, I witnessed a surprising amount of debate over whether Boobquake was essentially anti-feminist, and I learned that Brainquake was organized to counter it. Unhappy with this dichotomization, I created another Facebook page and event called Femquake in the name of unity and self-empowerment:
Everyone should have the right to do as one pleases, from showing off cleavage to showing off intellect—or both! The real issue is not a woman’s body or her mind, but her humanity. Empower one another to live the lives we want, free of coercion.
What seemed pretty simple and straightforward at first quickly became more complicated when a blogger by the handle Feminist Mom attributed the creation of Femquake to Feministing.com and I left a comment to correct the misinformation. Then, an anonymous commenter on Feminist Mom’s blog expressed disappointment that I am a man, as they had been hoping Femquake was started by a woman. Now that they knew a man started the page, they said the sentiment I had expressed through creating Femquake “means…less” to them, despite still being a good one.
When I questioned why this might be the case, Feminist Mom offered this explanation, which I understand and disagree with:
When men step up as leaders for the women’s movement, it looks like we can’t even lead ourselves.
Anyway, consider reading the full comment thread on my post, as well as on this followup post by Feminist Mom questioning, “Men as feminist leaders?“. It’s Feminist Mom’s post and the anonymous commenter there that I’m responding to, below.
Ultimately, the conversation seems centered around two concepts: equality and leadership. To avoid any potential miscommunication or further conflations, I want to address both of them distinctly, and as succinctly as I can.
Leadership
Feminist Mom begins with a question:
What you said was, “for people to realize a desire to be independent, regardless of whether they are women or men, ‘following leaders’ is not the way to do it.” What is the way to do it then?
I thought I was pretty clear about my thoughts on leadership when I said this in an earlier comment:
All of us who started a “*quake†are leaders. But so are the many people who spread the word about the events. Jennifer McCreight could not possibly have done what she did without the leadership of her “followersâ€, which I count myself among.
What I am pointing to is the initiative of each person involved in collective action, such as the 160,000 people who wore “immodest” outfits on Boobquake, the several thousand who participated in Brainquake by showing off Iranian women’s intellectual achievements, and the several hundred who participated in Femquake by doing one, the other, or something else of their own choosing. In my view, many of these people could be considered leaders as well as followers. When I said that ‘following leaders’ is not the way to [achieve independence]
after describing the ideal of self-empowerment that I tried to put forth in coining ‘femquake,’
what I meant was each individual can find independence through intentionality, but not through thoughtless action.
Independence is leadership of oneself, for oneself—but not necessarily by oneself. When someone has the freedom to choose their actions, they are no more followers than they are leaders. They may also be following the lead of one person while leading others themselves. To construe freely following a leader as being placed in a hierarchy in which there is no opportunity to move around is to misconstrue choice with force, and personal initiative with disempowerment.
So, the way to achieve independence is to acknowledge that you can both lead and follow at once, or you can do one or the other, and at your own volition. Otherwise, you are beholden to either your leaders or your followers. If you choose to follow a leader, do so with intent and without sacrificing skepticism. If you choose to lead, do so through example and without antipathy.
Equality
The Anonymous who I quoted in my last post left several more comments:
maymay is really misguided on how the infrastructure of feminism actually works. I can tell that simply by his disbelief in a feminism hierarchical…of course, I’m just reading off this page and hasn’t ventured into his blog yet. I imagine it’s a lot of RAH RAH YOU ROCK and I’m sorry that I can’t be the one, it’s a sweet effort and I appreciate that his heart is in the right place but nobody wants to hear from the white man on damn near anything to do with fucking equality, okay?
[…] get off my nuts b/c we’re talking about maymay here and not me.
Nobody wants to hear how a man lead us to unite our boobs and our brains and that is the long and short of it here. Men are NOT feminist leaders. They can be active participants in the movement, but they have to take a back seat in the charge and that’s just what it is. I’m sorry.
In regards to “how feminism actually works,” there is probably a lot of sociopolitical nuance that I have yet to learn. 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.
Since you say you haven’t ventured into my blog yet, I can easily forgive your ignorance on the fact that I am a bisexual man. This instantly places me outside of the heterosexist viewpoint you seem to have already “imagine[d]” me in. Furthermore, I can forgive your ignorance on the fact that I am a sexually submissive man. Or that I am a Jewish man. Or that I am a non-monogomous man. Or that I am a man diagnosed with bipolar disorder. Or that I am a man without a high-school degree. Or that I am a man like many others who has faced any number of additional circumstances that would cost me certain privileges in one sense or another.
But should any of those things even matter in defining the value of Femquake? On the Femquake page, Ian Iverson said:
Part of gender equality is to not let gender be a basis for projecting motives onto others.
I think it does a severe disservice to any and all social justice causes to stand under a banner of equality and wave a flag of feminism while speaking assumptively about who someone else is due to either real or perceived privilege. I feel this is doubly true when one does this while admitting to indolence. It’s actions like the ones Anonymous demonstrates that retard the progress of gender justice because it alienates people who would otherwise easily identify themselves with feminist ideals.
I felt hurt—deeply hurt—that my gender would be the cause of a devaluation of the message of Femquake. I am left wondering: what role would Anonymous have men take as “active participants in the movement”? I, for one, do not advocate for equality so as to be told my place.
Later, Anonymous commented again and said this:
It annoyed me further to see that there is a wiki article about this now and the comments were all “I’m glad to see women discussing this, taking charge of this”.
YEAH, ABOUT THAT. The brainchild behind Femquake is a fucking man, so we don’t even have that glory hole, it’s his…and that’s why it means less to me.
As it should.
Feminism is about gender equality, and until we have gender equality, everyone of all genders will continue to pay a horrifically painful cost one way or another. In feeling that Femquake somehow belongs to men because a man started the page, Anonymous is playing a simplistic (and very sad) zero-sum game where the actions taken by people of one gender necessarily invalidates the value of another.
That is an old, ugly game that can never lead to equality. Feminists ought never to play it.
And that’s all I have to say to or about Anonymous.
by Stilllearning
30 Apr 2010 at 06:16
Your response here, maymay, is another proof of your leadership. Fueled by hate and anger, even when “justified” as a response to oppression, one cannot lead and truthfully one cannot follow either. You have a knack for keen observation level-headed analysis, clarity of thought, and powerful yet organic delivery of a message. You clearly know how to avoid being overcome by hate and anger, (either because you are not hateful nor angry, which would be almost impossible, or because you mastered this emotional intelligence capacity) and that alone makes you a leader in my book. That, the fact that you can deal with stressful situations and seek solutions to dire problems, with the grace of clear analysis and positive intent, is a shining inspiration to lead the way when hate and anger, regardless of their origins, obscure and overshadow a safe passage. Beyond all your arguments dealing with the specific issues you fight for, it is your emotional intelligence which literally saves me everyday from loosing myself to being hijacked by hate and anger. For that I am so grateful and proud. Any feminist, woman or else, better choose a leader to lead with or follow, not based on biology but on capacity.
by Marty Q
30 Apr 2010 at 07:42
This same argument is made all the time to exclude trans women from “real” feminist events/discourse. The Michigan Womyn’s Music Festival and with their “womyn born womyn” policy being the canonical example, but interactions between cisgender gay rights activists and transgender activists have not always been harmonious either. Emi Koyama, if you don’t know her work, writes really eloquently about intersecting feminist interests.
Really what needs to be said is that patriarchy hurts everybody, not just women. Racial injustice hurts everybody, not just racial minorities. Transphobia and transmisogyny hurt everybody, not just trans people. And to exclude men (or transwomen) from leadership positions implies that only (cis) women stand to gain from the goals of feminism, which is counterproductive both in theory and in practice.
by Ian Iverson
30 Apr 2010 at 09:04
Well said, Maymay! Anonymous seems to completely miss the point of your message that we can value both each others’ brains and bodies without having to devalue either. It’s odd that every movement seems to attract a few image-conscious people who miss the point and actually alienate their would-be allies. As a matter of fact, if Anonymous is still so concerned about this, I would invite them to actually organize, as you did; actually do something about it, as you did. Otherwise, this person is no more than a troll.
by lissy
30 Apr 2010 at 09:18
You should feel deeply hurt maymay, because its bullshit. If men aren’t allowed to be feminists or feminist leaders then feminism will fail in my opinion. I have a son who I hope will one day choose to identify himself as a feminist and be a feminist leader. I have more thoughts but they are half-formed and sleepy… and cranky.
by jeffliveshere
30 Apr 2010 at 09:29
People sometimes laugh, and bring up the “but what about the menz!11!!!” meme, but it’s not easy being a feminist man, sometimes. It’s tricky. Being a white feminist man is even trickier. So I want to start out by saying that I think I get some of how you’re feeling and thinking about this, and I appreciate this post.
However, I disagree with a some of what you have to say here, and with the general tone of “hey, that hurts! I should be able to do things like start Femquake without acknowledging that it’s tricky for a man to do that because feminism isn’t all about women!”
I know that poor analogies abound, but I would appreciate you trying this one on for size: Imagine an anti-racist white man starting up a civil rights march on Washington. When called to task for doing so by the african-american community, he responds, “The Civil Rights movement is about racial equality, and until we have achieved racial equality, I should be able to lead and follow as I please. Calling me on this is oversimplifying!” As I said, I think it’s tricky.
I do like your analysis of what counts as “leadership” and what counts as “following” or “participating”–but I think that we, as men, need to take what folks like Anonymous have to say *very* seriously, even if we disagree (especially if we disagree) with the vehemence with which she (presumably) feels about it. Not that her vehemence means she’s completely correct–but it counts for something important, because that vehemence (as you probably understand very well, being a member of several oppressed communities) comes, in part, from being oppressed, and as such it ought to count for something in our decisions, as men, around how we want to participate in feminist movements.
I also want to add that, for every feminist I’ve met who think that men should take a seat most of the time, there is a feminist who wants men to participate more fully. And, difficult thought it may be, we, as men who are feminists, need to give lots of weight to both views, I think.
I don’t see what it would have been such a hardship to put up the Femquake site, with an acknowledgment that there are…complexities…around a cisgendered man doing so, and perhaps even asking a woman to take it on or take it over. Sure, someday we hope that we won’t have to make such considerations, but it seems to me that it’s ok that we have to for now. As long as there are spaces for men to be feminists, we don’t need to be involved in every space, y’know?
by maymay
30 Apr 2010 at 10:35
Jeffliveshere, that was not at all the intended tone of Femquake, or this post. Also, where did I say something to the effect of “I should be able to do things[…]without acknowledging that it’s tricky…”? I feel like you’ve just put words in my mouth.
Two things: First, you (and Feminist Mom, by introducing Anonymous’s comments with the phrase ) seem to be suggesting that by not disclosing myself as a man during the 5 minutes or so I thought up and made the Femquake page, I was somehow hiding that fact. So again, I refer you to Ian Iverson’s well-made point: and remind you that I have not obscured any facts, and in fact this debate began when I politely corrected a mistaken one. :)
Second, do you think that Anonymous or other like-minded people would have been any more inclined to think differently than they do now had I done differently than I did? Somehow, I doubt it.
As with Iranian clerics, people drenched in such anger don’t tend to let reality lead them towards understanding, but rather look for anything they can find in reality to corroborate a worldview they already have. And like speech, I think the solution to “bad” or “missing” leadership is more leadership, not less. As I wrote on the Femquake Fallout post:
I am confused by the persistent implication that I am somehow taking “space” away from women who would be leaders merely because I also stepped up to “lead” and am not one. I neither insisted upon leadership, nor oppose women-as-leaders. In fact, I’m pretty confident that everything I’ve written with respect to Femquake is quite encouraging of both leaders in general and leadership by women in particular.
As for not acknowledging “that there are…complexities…” to this issue, I purposefully brought this discussion to the Femquake page itself. Everyone is welcome to discuss the situation there, here, or anywhere.
by Saraline (aka Feminist Mom in Montreal)
30 Apr 2010 at 11:40
Hey, Jeff, I really like your comment. I don’t really have anything to add, just wanted to say that I appreciate what you have to contribute to this discussion.
@marty
This same argument is made all the time to exclude trans women from “real†feminist events/discourse. The Michigan Womyn’s Music Festival and with their “womyn born womyn†policy…
This isn’t how I feel about trans people. They’ve been on both sides of it, and I think they have a unique perspective because they know firsthand the differences between being a man and being a woman. Not to mention, trans women have given up their privilege as men and feminists should welcome them as women.
@maymay
First, you (and Feminist Mom, by introducing Anonymous’s comments with the phrase Upon learning the true identity of Femquake’s creator) seem to be suggesting that by not disclosing myself as a man during the 5 minutes or so I thought up and made the Femquake page, I was somehow hiding that fact.
I think you’re making this all about you. Neither Jeff nor I suggested that you were hiding it. The issue here is that anonymous feels differently about a man leading Femquake than she would if a woman was leading it, and that’s how I feel too.
I’m finding this whole discussion to be exhausting and a bit absurd. I think that these two comments from others on your twitter and from the Femquake facebook page are quite ridiculous:
[I] think it means more when more privileged people acknowledge the problems and contribute to solutions.
and:
If anything, I think it’s better that you’re a man.
I think that comments like these are much more dangerous to feminism than saying that a feminist leadership role means less coming from a man. The fact that feminists are saying that men’s roles in feminism are MORE IMPORTANT than women’s roles is both sad and hilarious. I can’t even take this discussion seriously anymore after seeing these comments. So, as you can see in my newest blog post, I am now approaching this with humour. You should know that I’m laughing as I write this comment and I will continue to laugh, and laugh, and laugh.
by jeffliveshere
30 Apr 2010 at 11:47
Apologies for putting words in your mouth–that’s not my intention at all, and I want to acknowledge that, in trying to sum up the tone that I was getting from this piece, I should have noted that tone is notoriously difficult and subjective, especially tone in blog posts and (even more) in blog comments. I was attempting to show you how this post could easily be read by a feminist who has too often had men take over leadership.
I wasn’t trying to say that you were hiding your cisgenderedness (though others may have been) regarding femquake. I was suggesting that putting it out there from the very beginning that you are a cisgendered man can be helpful in these sorts of situations–it may not have made Anonymous feel any better, but I think it would have made me feel better, and, while I may be alone in this, I doubt that I am. So yeah, I think it would have better to put it out there from the beginning, to acknowledge that there may be feminists (quite a few of them, in my experience) who will have some problems with that.
And while I really appreciate the sentiment of “”Part of gender equality is to not let gender be a basis for projecting motives onto others,” I think it’s also important to acknowledge that we have not yet achieved gender equality, so we ought to do things with full acknowledgment that there are many, many, many, many, many, many men out there, and quite a few feminist men, who don’t take into account their male privilege enough, even when being feminists, and feminist allies. It seems like a hassle to have to do that, and might seem unfair on some level, but I still think it’s needed, and don’t see why somebody who eschews false dichotomies in so many areas feels so strongly that you shouldn’t have to.
As far as acknowledging complexities goes–I don’t think you’re trying to dodge the complexities of the situation, and sincerely applaud you for having this discussion, and bringing it up in the first place on Femquake. I just thing that it would have been better to acknowledge those complexities up front. When I was involved in The Men’s Story Project (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpDP7pZeH8w), the woman who created it made a point in her introduction to note that there are complexities around a woman starting up that sort of project. It’s a way of letting the folks out there who don’t know you at all know that you’re mindful of your privilege. This doesn’t mean that you should start every sentence you write with “I am a cisgendered male…”, but it might mean that, when starting up a project like Femquake, where lots of folks might get involved who don’t know you, but who HAVE had to deal with men who don’t recognize their privilege every single day, to have it in mind from the start that you recognize all of that, y’know?
I know this is getting long-winded. Sigh. Apologies for that, but you said a lot!
I think what you mean by “taking up space” and what I mean by it might be different, because, while I acknowledge that being a feminist leader isn’t a zero-sum game, I also want to acknowledge that cisgendered white men have, historically, been given room to lead in ways that others have not. And I want it to be important to feminist allies that we acknowledge that “not insisting on leadership, nor opposing women-as-leaders” isn’t enough, just as it’s not enough for, say, white female bloggers to respond in a similar way to claims that feminist blogs are way too white and way too straight and way too cisgendered, etc. I might be very open to women asking questions in class, but if I ask questions without regard for my male privilege, that in itself is taking up space.
Having said that, this is complex stuff, so I’m not trying to convince you of something, so much as trying to offer up another viewpoint and encourage you to take the comments of Anonymous even more into account regarding white male privilege than you already have (and clearly, you have).
by mivox
30 Apr 2010 at 15:12
Exactly. There’s even a technical term for it… http://www.google.com/search?q=motivated+reasoning
And frankly, I’m not sure trying to listen to and take into account points of view like Anonymous is going to help at all. It’s people like that who’re giving anti-feminists all their ammunition, and who are driving away MANY younger women who would otherwise gladly stand up and claim the title of “feminist” for themselves. It took me years before I decided that rather than rejecting the label “feminist”, it would be better to embrace it and prove to at least a few people in the world (hopefully) that not all feminists are man-hating extremists.
Every time a young woman decides she’s “not a feminist,” because feminists “hate men” or some such nonsense, and every time a man starts throwing around words like “feminazi” instead of engaging in meaningful friendships and relationships with strong, independent women, everyone in society is hurt. While maymay is actively working *against* that kind of hurtful dogmatism and divisiveness, Anonymous is just driving the wedge deeper. Whatever “charge” she thinks she’s leading, count me out.
by SnowdropExplodes
30 Apr 2010 at 17:28
Here’s an anecdote:
Back in 1997 I attended a political rally in London, organised by the Students’ Union protesting at government plans to abolish student grants. At one point, one of the invited speakers (someone important in the Union leadership, as it happened) said, “Downing Street is near here – we should all go down there and tell them what they think directly!”
As one, the crowd of protesters moved off to go to shout at Downing Street.
The speaker suddenly realised the mistake they’d made (the legal, authorised protest was at Hyde Park, going to Downing St was not agreed with the police), and tried to call everyone back. The crowd ignored the speaker and we were off. We had a purpose, we were driven by a good idea, and it was now OUR idea. The police, as it happened, decided not to oppose the new march that we’d formed, but watched the protest carefully to prevent trouble and clear the way.
Now – who was the leader of that unauthorised march?
By the same token, once the idea of femquake had spread and taken off, who was the leader? To whom did it belong? It belonged to the people who took part and took on board the idea.
If I’ve understood the OP correctly, that’s what it’s all about.
@jeffliveshere – your analogy fails because it appears that you believe that no POC would have turned up for the white dude’s civil rights march. But suppose they did? Suppose they proceeded to engage in it and make it their own, taking the idea and running with it? Suppose then that some POC were to say “oh, a White guy came up with the idea, that means the contributions of everyone on the march mean that much less”. Sensible? I don’t think so. The anonymous commenter is effectively belittling the collective effort of women that femquake represented and she is privileging a single man over all the women involved.
At least, that’s how this white cis male sees it.
by James
30 Apr 2010 at 19:03
Reactions such as those of Anonymous and Feminism Mom (through the tacit acceptance of such vicious attacks) are why I, as a white cis-gendered man, left Feminism, Gender Studies and Gender Equality Activism as a program of study and attractive career. I loved the intellectual discourses, the connections to important contemporary issues and the brilliant integration of various previously lost (or unfounded) knowledges. I was a gifted student and natural leader, often helping my (higher year) classmates grasp concepts and asking questions the professors found important and useful in exploring topics. However, I quickly burned out trying to defend the idea that I too was an important part of the movement toward equality to easily 4 of every 5 of my classmates. In out-of-college activism work I also consistently had to defend my right to have and express ideas often from harsher and more judgmental attacks. That I was in such a hostile environment, in a movement which set out to do away with gender based hostile environments, was heartrending. I could not continue to feel welcome and appreciated, so I walked away from the position of having immersed myself.
Nonetheless, I think my experience has given me some insight which may be valuable here.
But first, Maymay, to liken Anonymous, and the women who are threatened by male leadership in what they experience as their movement, which is often one of the only places these women feel that they have safe space, to Iranian Clerics who intentionally set out to pervert and distort the great words of the Prophet Muhammad, this is profligate and terribly inappropriate. It trivializes the true evils of these Clerics while disregarding the genuine distress and real experienced needs of many women who devote themselves to the Feminist movement.
I do not wish to suggest that men who identify as Feminists should take the back seat, as Jeffliveshere seems to suggest. Trading near exclusive male leadership for near exclusive female leadership might, in the short run, help our society or boost a movement, but in the long run it is no more than a coup d’état of power structures and will solve nothing. What, I believe, men in this movement need to do is acknowledge the fears and legitimate feelings of being threatened from many women who have received little or nothing from men besides oppression. Part of that acknowledgement is to work with those whom we can work with to find ways for us to be full participants that are less threatening. It does not diminish leadership when a leader works to help others in the movement feel more at ease, even if it does change the nature of the leadership.
Of course, it does seem to me that Anonymous over-reacted, albeit (likely) from a legitimate and respectable feeling and experience, but an over-reaction none the less. I wonder where the equally large and passionate group of women who welcome Maymay’s leadership, which Jeffliveshere suggests really do exist, are? In my experience, these women tend to be intimidated or otherwise without the fortitude to stand up to the self-righteous attacks on full participation from men. To me, this is perhaps the saddest thing about my experience with Feminism, that I had allies, but they almost never came to my defense.
Jeffliveshere has a good point, and his Civil Rights analogy is well taken, no white man ALONE could ever have organized a Civil Rights March. However, Jefflives fails to take into account the enormous leadership and work of the white civil rights lawyer Mel Leventhal, and others like him, without whom the fall of the Jim Crow laws would have been delayed by decades if not impossible. (I’m drawing on biography of his wife “Alice Walker” by Evelyn White.) Also, did you know that in the famous “March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom” in 1963, better known as the event where “I Have a Dream” was delivered, included Bob Dylan and Walter Reuther (among other white people) as key presenters, and was in part organized by white people and mostly white organizations? (I’m drawing on the Wikipedia article about the march.) The point is that the Civil Rights Movement wasn’t only led by black folks, so suggesting that, like Civil Rights, Feminism should be led by women is silly. Similarly, Maymay ALONE could never have made Femquake a big deal. It became a big deal because it was an idea that lots of people picked up on. Kind of like the idea for a march.
Finally, it bears pointing out that the name of one part of this larger movement is “Feminism.” This branch was started by women with the stated intention of elevating the social and economic position of women. Names and histories are, in fact, important. Maybe those of us who want full gender equality could benefit from moving on to new titles (there are a lot of options)? I know some people believe that when Feminism focuses on anything but women-born-women it’s been co-opted. In the original late 1800s sense of the idea, it has been.
by maymay
01 May 2010 at 12:48
Really, Saraline? I’m making this all about me? Really? It feels suspiciously unreasoned to me that you would think this, seeing as how you and Anonymous seem to object to my actions when they’re connected to my gender, even while the point of my actions “is a good one,” as Anonymous has said on your blog.
Good. Laughter is healthy. I wish I felt like laughing with you, but it’s hard to feel jovial when you feel like people are laughing at you.
That’s a very valid point, jeffliveshere. It’s quite possible, even probable, that this would have been better/smoother/more approachable for people like Saraline and Anonymous and yourself. That said, I think Saraline and Anonymous have both shown me that there is an endemic animosity towards some men’s initiatives in gender justice advocacy, and while this animosity may be emotionally legitimate, nothing in this discussion has lead me to believe that it is helpful.
In fact, Saraline and Anonymous’s responses have shown me in very personal ways that such animosity are actively harming hopes for a future in which gender equality is possible. And that’s just, well, it’s counter-productive, to say the least.
What is the difference between starting a sentence with “I am a cisgendered male…” and starting a Facebook page like Femquake (which I don’t view as a “project” but rather as a “statement”) with the same disclaimer? It is very, very easy to start a Facebook page. It was very, very easy to start Femquake. In fact, it takes me more thinking to start some sentences than it does to start some Facebook pages. :)
For what it’s worth, yes, even though I didn’t say it above, I will say now that I think a disclaimer about the gender of the person who came up with an idea (or who is beginning to speak) is something someone “shouldn’t have to” provide. It is precisely because I eschew false dichotomies that I believe this. Believing, as Saraline and Anonymous seem to, that men cannot be feminist leaders because they are men is the definition of a dichotomy: they couple feminist leadership with one’s gender, a belief that necessarily restricts people’s acts based on their self-identification. Isn’t that also called sexism?
Reiterating, that’s not to say such a disclaimer couldn’t be helpful in practice. Nevertheless, if we are all in fact working towards gender equality as I believe we all are, recycling sexism by saying such disclaimers should be necessary is something I believe does more to impede, not advance, the goal of gender equality.
I could not agree more, Mivox. Also, thank you so much for teaching me about motivated reasoning. I am reading about it now. I find it fascinating and very relevant to this discussion!
Exactly, SnowdropExplodes. The notion that leadership is a concept which necessarily removes the potential for self-empowered agency among “followers” is flawed, just as the notion that baring breasts in the name of feminism necessarily equates to a loss of self-empowered sexual agency is flawed.
You’re correct, James. I didn’t intend to liken Saraline or Anonymous as individuals to Iranian clerics; I don’t think that’s what I said and I don’t think such an analogy is representative of reality. What I said was that the anger such people harbor is similar, and the resulting actions they take looking for anything they can find in reality to corroborate a worldview they already have is also similar, as this discussion has clearly demonstrated to me.
I agree here, too, James. Specifically, I use the phrase “gender justice” in place of “feminism” at times, akin to using “gender justice advocate” in place of “feminist” at times. That said, since I also believe in the importance of names and histories, I also use “feminism” and “feminist,” and I don’t view these phrases as being mutually exclusive of one another. In fact, they are not only related, but complementary.
by sara
01 May 2010 at 13:07
1) Why do you expect women to keep themselves calm when they explain your privilege to you? Do you realize that being able to demand that is, in itself, a function of privilege? I’ve been reading your blogs for years, and I don’t think you’ve ever remained calm when discussing the various structural oppressions you face.
2) Why did you think you had the right to create something like Femquake?
3) Do you understand that you are still a man telling women what to do?
That’s the long version of my comment, which can basically be boiled down to “bite me.”
by maymay
01 May 2010 at 13:17
@sara:
Expect? I don’t. Hope, I do.
Where am I demanding anything? Also, I don’t think being able to demand that is a function of privilege. Oppressed people, such as women, often (and rightfully) demand calmness and reason from others.
I’m very aware that it’s hard to remain calm. You’re right that I haven’t always been calm, although I’ve been trying my damnedest to remain calm as much as possible, as I believe this post and comment thread, this other post, this earlier one, and also this post clearly show. To hear that I’ve never remained calm from someone who has “been reading [my] blog for years” is a suspiciously misleading statement.
Um. No thank you.
by sara
01 May 2010 at 13:30
Where am I demanding anything?
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.
by maymay
01 May 2010 at 15:25
Good point, sara; perhaps I wrote hastily. :) If I understand correctly, your second question was:
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
by sara
01 May 2010 at 18:48
Do you think that I don’t have the right to create something like Femquake? If so, why don’t I?
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. As a white chick, I don’t get to take a leadership role within black issues. As a cis woman, I don’t get to take a leadership role within trans issues. Communities need to liberate themselves, and that means the role of a good ally is to follow the lead of community members. No ally, no matter how well-meaning, can truly understand the oppression faced by the group in question. It’s the ally’s job to recognize that, recognize their privilege, and follow the community’s lead.
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.â€
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.
How is the tone argument a double-edged sword?
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.
by Dae
01 May 2010 at 22:42
@ sara, and anyone else who would ask the questions she did:
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.
by maymay
03 May 2010 at 08:36
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. :(
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.
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:
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.
by Rachel Elizabeth Dillon
03 May 2010 at 10:08
Sara, I was with you until this:
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.
by mivox
03 May 2010 at 15:19
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.
by jeffliveshere
05 May 2010 at 10:17
This has evolved into a fascinating discussion, and I want to thank everybody for taking the time to write and think more about all of this, especially Maymay and his staunchest critics.
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.
by Ohma
12 Jun 2010 at 13:12
Okay sorry, I’m going to be a bit of a useless commenter here but anyway:
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.
Pingback
by Maybe Maimed but Never Harmed › A primatologist’s suggestions for happier orgasm control
10 Jul 2010 at 04:38
[…] despite all the politics and recent dramas surrounding me and my work, sometimes it is about the sex. Lately, I’ve been wanting to write more about sex […]