#alanrickman pic.twitter.com/4WXwnoUtM7
— Emma Watson (@EmWatson) January 14, 2016
Earlier today, as you no doubt have heard, legendary British actor Alan Rickman passed away, at age 69, from cancer. Actress and activist Emma Watson, who had worked with Rickman on numerous Harry Potter films over the years, paid tribute to a man she had considered a friend, writing on Facebook that she felt
lucky to have worked and spent time with such a special man and actor. I’ll really miss our conversations. RIP Alan. We love you.
Watson followed up her tribute by posting a number of quotes from Rickman on Twitter, including the one above.
And that was all it took to rouse the vast internet antifeminist troll army, who took to Twitter to attack Watson for supposedly “exploiting” Rickman’s death to push her evil man-hating agenda. They called her a bitch, a feminazi, a whore, a tw*t, and of course an SJW; they dropped the c-word so many times I fear it might be permanently broken.
Never mind that the “agenda” she was supposedly pushing was in fact Rickman’s agenda too. She didn’t make up the quote; they were his actual words, from an interview he gave to Australian chat show One Plus One. Watson was remembering Rickman as the feminist he was proud to be.
Perhaps the most offensive Tweet of the day came from the unlovely and untalented “journalist” Milo Yiannopoulos of Breitbart. Several days ago, you may recall, Milo attempted to use David Bowie’s death as a way to get some cheap publicity for himself; he rather outdid himself in this department today with this insensate Tweet:
I told you feminism was cancer pic.twitter.com/syKFBkF3cG
— Milo Yiannopoulos ✘ (@Nero) January 14, 2016
Congratulations, Milo; you’ve won today’s Worst Person on the Internet award.
Delete your account.
Oh no, we’ve just lost Giorgio Gomelsky; cancer hates good music 🙁
@ Alan Robertshaw
This has been the worst month in the performing arts in a long time. God knows how upsetting this is getting.
I’m beginning to wonder if I’ve gravely misunderstood what feminists mean when they talk about “patriarchy,” because if patriarchy is what I think it is, and feminism can be defined as the anti-patriarchy movement, I don’t understand how there can be any question whether men generally will benefit from feminism; the discussion of whether feminists will or should work on “men’s issues” also confuses me because it seems to me that feminists would end up solving the majority of men’s issues more or less by accident.
I never thought “patriarchy” referred simply to male supremacy, but to a complex system of oppression in which male supremacy happened to be a feature.
Indulge me, if you will, while I run through some history and etymology, which I hope won’t be a mansplanation. I’m not writing this out because I think y’all don’t already know this, but just to make clear which details I personally think about when I try to parse “patriarchy.”
So, I believe “patriarchy” has mixed Greek and Latin roots — maybe it’s all Greek — and by the roots it would mean “rule of the fathers,” not “rule of men.” This reminds me of “patria potestas,” the Roman legal doctrine which allegedly gave fathers the power of life and death over both their daughters and their sons, and control of their property as well. The sons, of course, got a better deal in that they might someday exercise that power themselves — provided their fathers didn’t execute them first, and also that they were citizens, not slaves.
Thus, I have always assumed that in feminism, patriarchy meant “the social and economic dominance of a small number of wealthy old men.” As the majority of men are not and never will be patriarchs, it seemed clear that men in general stood to benefit from feminism. The antebellum analogy I would have drawn would not be to plantation owners but to the *non*-slave-holding white folk. Slavery might have given them an ego boost, but the end of slavery gave them economic opportunity.
I have always believed that a feminist victory would necessarily benefit almost everyone, not because of some intersectional solidarity but because the same boot is on everyone’s neck. For instance, prestigious academic and political positions were long controlled by an insular network of upper-class white “good old boys,” and still are to some extent. While it’s conceivably possible that the “good old boys” could be persuaded to give equal treatment to “good old gals,” I’ve always believed that the most plausible way to secure opportunities for women would be to break the power of the good old boy institutions, which would expand opportunities for most men as a happy side effect. Similarly, the feminist push to enable women to live independently by liberalizing divorce, ensuring healthcare privacy, and reducing the power parents have over children necessarily benefit men and women alike.
Have I been led astray?
(PS: This is the main reason why, pace EJ, I’ve always been skeptical of the idea that a distinct “men’s movement” would be necessary. If feminism is defined as “the movement to abolish patriarchy,” it would seem to include most or all of the legitimate work of a “men’s movement.”)
@ Orion
It’s probably ok for two blokes to mansplain to each other but I’d be interested in what the women think about this. In the interim though here’s my thoughts.
I wont reiterate the points in my original post but it seems to me that, whist there are various forms of feminism, at heart the core principles are:
1. A recognition that women get the shitty end of the stick compared to men in all sorts of ways.
2. An acceptance that this is wrong.
3. An attempt to remedy that.
Or to put it simpler, feminism just tries to bring about a world where women are treated equally with men.
I understand about intersectionality and the other injustices in society (race, wealth, disability etc) but to me intersectional feminism addresses those inequalities in regard to how they affect women, rather than society as a whole.
Obviously many feminists DO work with regards to society as a whole bit I’d see that as just being a decent human rather than it being an aspect of feminism.
What you describe to me seems more like the ‘we should be egalitarians so there’s no need specifically for feminism’ argument.
Now there’s nothing inherently wrong with egalitarianism, my French friend are quite keen on it, but you’ll be aware that the word as been hijacked in MRA circles to mean something else, specifically as an anti feminist canard.
Please be assured, I’m not suggesting for one moment you mean it in that sense.
But yeah, I do believe that there’s a specific need to address issues that disfavour women particularly.
I suspect that even in a society where everyone had equal wealth, regardless of background or colour or disability, women would still get catcalled, raped and murdered at a disproportionate rate. So it’s completely proper that feminism focuses on that.
That’s true. What I and many other women object to is not the idea that feminism can be beneficial to men. What we object to is the notion that feminists have to put equal, if not more energy directly into helping men at the expense of ourselves. What we object to is the notion that in order to win male allies, we have to focus on men. Women have already been expected to take a backseat in literally every other social justice movement. To ask us to drop everything to help men in our movement is absurd.
And extremely misogynistic. In fact, the expectation that women exist to serve men and their needs is a huge part of patriarchy.
No. Did you get feminism mixed up with brogressivism? Class oppression and gender oppression can and often do work together. But all men are privileged and all women are oppressed under patriarchy. Poor men still have male privilege. Black men still have male privilege. Gay men still have male privilege. To dismiss patriarchy as nothing more than class oppression in which non wealthy white men suffer just as much is to completely misunderstand intersectionality. You’re not new here, so I’m not sure not sure why this feminism 101 stuff needs to be explained to you.
I don’t really have the energy to educate people who should know better about male privilege right now so I’ll just leave this here
http://amptoons.com/blog/the-male-privilege-checklist/
Bernardo Soares: my college dorm used to have skirt day once a month. It was all these nerdy guys with novelty T-shirts and hairy legs and such tape daggers and what have you and they’d just be wearing skirts.
I want to emphasize this because it references a really common thought process that’s deceptively misogynistic.
1) The idea that recruiting male allies is a thing feminists want/need to do.
2) The idea that feminists will alienate potential male allies by being too strident/shrill/etc.
3) The idea that even a movement with the express purpose of advocating for women should preference men’s needs.
It’s all predicated on the notion that recognition of women’s basic humanity is men’s to bestow and that men will withhold this recognition unless women show them deference. It’s why the discussion of whether men can be feminists and/or allies is a thing; because men who self-apply those labels can so often be found making the above arguments.
Yep.
While I think that many men would definitely tangentially benefit from the aims of feminism, it’s not about men.
But this is why I have patience with those who are really trying to be allies.
It can be difficult to navigate around your privilege – as any white feminist who’s found herself making an ass of herself while trying to be a good ally to a POC cause can attest.
But I guess that’s where ‘splaining and saviorism comes in.
I can be a hell of thing to know where effectively and constructively leveraging your privilege ends and tromping all over the place begins, but growth and progress are seldom comfortable things.
Editing to clarify: That’s not meant to be, “And people should just get over it when allies mess up!” but, “People who wish to be allies will bump into their own limitations – that’s part of the deal, and it’s not anyone’s duty to make it comfortable for them (me/you/us).”
I’ve mentioned before why I don’t call myself a feminist, at best I think all I can say is I support the aims of feminism, but I’m also not sure men can even be ‘allies’
To me, ‘ally’ implies you’re in the same struggle together and you face the same consequences from the enemy.
That’s not the case with feminism and patriarchy.
Women are particularly the victims of patriarchy. I know we’ve heard about how patriarchy can affect men, but that’s ‘collateral damage’; were not the actual targets.
To say men and women are allies in the fight (a) suggests, falsely, that we’re both equal victims and (b) puts an onus on women to fight for men that isn’t justified or necessary.
Hope that makes sense.
@katz:
nice. I’ll definitely think about getting a skirt myself for the next Manifa, although it’ll depend on the weather. Warsaw isn’t exactly famed for its mild climate…
@Tyra:
I love these dialects in general. My mom, when talking to her siblings, speaks a weird dialect from the Westerwald, a mountainous region between Frankfurt and Cologne. It’s like a different language to me, with a lot of peculiar vocabulary. There is a lot to like about the German language, despite its obvious downsides.
Even worse than misogynistic insults (of which there are some really bad ones) is imo the unreflected use of the expression “bis zur Vergasung” (until I am gassed) to express exhaustion, which I still hear sometimes. It’s actually a remnant of soldier sarcasm in the trenches of the First World War (referring to chemical weaponry), but it should be clear that the association is different after the Holocaust. More directly a remnant of Nazi language is the word “Judenfürzle” (Jew farts), which in Baden-Württemberg (at least when I was a kid) was used for little New Years’ Eve crackers.
Re: role of men in feminism
While that’s not its purpose, I always felt that feminism was in my interest, too. I don’t want to call myself an ally, I’m a feminist. That does not mean that feminism should cater to my special needs as a man, but I can only see more freedom for everybody in feminism. It also doesn’t mean I should ignore my privileges, work actively toward losing them (in order for everybody to have them in the end), or tell other feminists, especially women, what to do.
There is a great Swiss singer/songwriter, Mani Matter who has expressed the problem of privilege, the economic, social and political status quo and progressive movements in one perfect song in Bärndütsch, one of the most beautiful dialects of Swiss German:
dene wos guet geit
giengs besser
giengs dene besser
wos weniger guet geit
was aber nid geit
ohni dass’s dene
weniger guet geit
wos guet geit
drum geit weni
für dass es dene
besser geit
wos weniger guet geit
und drum geits o
dene nid besser
wos guet geit
“Those who are well off
would be better off
if those were better off
who are less well off
but that won’t be possible
without those who are well off
being less well off
That’s why not a lot is going on
for those who are less well off
to be better off
And that’s why those who are well off
aren’t better off too.”
@ Bernardo
To follow on from our discussion about the fall of Rome. You may be aware that the Western Emperor Honorious passed a law forbidding the wearing of “barbarian trousers” in Rome in an attempt to quell the growing German influence.
@Alan:
I shall honor this civilisatorial and wise decision, then, and throw away my barbarian trousers.
Aside: of course, as you probably know, there’s no such thing as Germans in the sense of Germanic tribes as predecessors of modern Germans or even as a coherent culture. There is a long and horrific history of a specific misreading of Tacitus and some linguistic evidence found in the 19th century, which got swept up in the nationalism of the time and then the Völkisch movement.
I’m gonna get Total War: Attila now. All this talk of the fall of the Roman Empire makes me want to actually do it, and I see that the Humble Bundle Store has a deal…
@ Bernardo
Wise decision, Salve!
I’m currently ploughing though a book you might enjoy, “Hitler’s Empire”. Goes into a lot of detail about the Nazis’ nostalgia for a past that never actually existed.
@Alan:
That’s Mark Mazower, right? Fantastic book, have fun reading!
Yeah. It is brilliant. Very well researched and some interesting analysis on a subject that’s not well covered elsewhere.
No blue tick for you Milo!
re: the word “ally”: I dunno.
One “placed in friendly association with” or one “who has sided with or supports” both turned up as definitions in my admittedly half-assed and impromptu search.
Those seem to fit.
But you (Alan) are a lawyer and I can see why you’d call for a more clear delineation.
Reading the above, it feels like it may strike as snarky. It’s not meant to be, but I’m in a crap mood and I’m not sure anything less jagged’s going to come out.
Adding (again, without sarcasm, though it may come across that way):
But I think that someone with similar goals as or with sympathy towards feminism who doesn’t want to use the terms “feminist” or “ally” is fine not doing so.
I mean, I’m not the definition police, especially when it comes to self definition. Intent and action matter more.
@ mockingbird
Oh I don’t think being a lawyer gives me any better expertise at defining words other than in a legal context.
Maybe my feelings about “ally” come from beng specifically a military lawyer; in military context the definition can be quite important.
Personally though I think using ally is to an extent co-opting someone else’s struggle so I don’t self describe. Each to their own though.
@ mockingbird
Yeah, it is our mindset to have very specific meanings for words. It’s important in law to make sure that we’re all interpreting things in the same way.
Maybe my views on ‘ally’ are influenced by my being a military lawyer. The word has a particular legal meaning and also implies a specific relationship in those circles.
To me though, using ‘ally’ does seem to be co-opting someone else’s oppression and the struggle against that, so I personally don’t identify that way. But each to their own of course.
To avoid all trappings of gender performance, I recommend wearing nothing.
Honestly? Because — and I think this is a common phenomenon — lots of ideas I developed or was taught when I was young have kind of “gone underground;” I don’t really think about them often but I still nominally “believe” them even though on reflection I can see that they’re not fully consistent with other things I’ve done or learned since.
@Alan Robertshaw
You’re looking, uh, blue. And patterned all over. You need to get more sleep.
Or am I hallucinating from lack of sleep?!
@Orion
Good question! The way I see feminism, all men have privilege that women don’t. Here’s an example: A man is less likely to be afraid to travel alone after dark.
It’s also true that some men have more power than other men. Hierarchy breeds hierarchy. And hierarchy is the way the patriarchy works.
Patriarchy works to make all men go along with the program by offering all of them some power. Of course, some of that power isn’t real. Here’s an example: A man is seen as manly if he uses a loud voice or aggressive body language to try to dominate a discussion. The discussion could be totally trivial — which baseball team is better — but the louder, more physically domineering guy thinks, I’ve won! He ignores the bad feelings that he’s created. So really, what has he won?
Traditionally, patriarchy has enforced its power by allowing husbands to beat their wives into submission. Of course, this has been changing in the past hundred years or so — but it’s taken a massive effort by extremely dedicated people, most of them women. And many men do still feel entitled to beat their wives. This makes them feel powerful. But again, they ignore the very, very bad feelings that they’ve created. So really, what have they won?
It’s a complex issue!
I would never deny the existence of male privilege. Men as a class, regardless of race and orientation, even the most impoverished, have many privileges over women as a class. The assumptions I’ve been working are something like
(read all this to refer to the Americas and Western Europe, the places I know best)
–All men are the beneficiaries of male privilege
–Most men are the victims of some combination of classism, racism, heretonormativity, toxic masculinity, etc. etc.
–In order to eliminate male privileges, feminists will have to abolish or re-make many powerful institutions
–Many of the institutions that protect male privilege also use their power to exploit labor, perpetuate racism, persecute noncomforming men, enforce religious hegemony, etc.
–Therefore, the success of feminism will as a side effect liberate many individual men from various non-gendered oppressions those men happen to be suffering.
–It is not necessary for feminists to explicitly or intentionally spend time and energy on “men’s issues” or working for the benefit of men; these benefits to individual men will happen automatically when women work for the benefit of women.
–The majority of men will benefit more from the weakening of straight privilege, class privilege, white privilege, Christian privilege, and so on, than they will suffer from the loss of male privilege
–Therefore it is rational self-interest for most men to support feminism even though men as a class don’t benefit from it.
@ Orion
In what way will men ‘suffer’ from a loss of privilege?
This isn’t a rhetorical question or a dig; I’d be interested in any examples.
To me it’s not a zero sum game you see.
So, if, for example, we get a society where women’s opinions or contributions are listened to and taken as seriously as men’s, that doesn’t mean people will suddenly start ignoring me.
If women find they can walk down a street in peace, men aren’t suddenly going to start catcalling me and I doubt rapists will decide that I’m an alternative target.
Perhaps it’s a language thing. “Dismantling privilege” perhaps gives an impression of dragging men down, whereas the reality would just be allowing women the same privileges.
(Which I suppose by definition when everyone is equal means they’re no longer privileges, but you get my drift)
You’ve seen my earlier points that, straight white guys at least, have everything going for us so feminist don’t have to do anything to help us, but we don’t lose any of that just because women get to be on board too.
So what’s the downside, to men, of women being treated equally?
@Alan
I’m interested in reading orion’s reply, but meanwhile…
As a n00b here, I really don’t want to be arguing for these arsehole anti feminists, but the ones that I read on alt.feminism 20 years ago had a few.
The vast majority were clearly extremely bitter and angry over what they perceived to be unfair treatment by the court system that allowed their wives to have custody of the children and an unfair divorce settlement, especially if the wife was unfaithful and chose to end the relationship.
A few argued that affirmative action in education and the workplace was unfair.
Some complained about domestic violence against men being ignored/victim blaming.
Many blathered on about choice4men, arguing men should have the same ‘reproductive rights’ as women, i.e. they should be able to have sex with multiple women without protection and then have no responsibility to provide for their children etc.
There were other issues which elude me right now but these were the main ones.
Basically they wanted to return to the days when women didn’t get (or want to get) an education and thus offered no competition in the workplace, and when women were encouraged to be passive, doting wives whose only desire in life was to be a perfect housewife.
I think most of them forget that this was a post-war propaganda campaign by the government to encourage women who’d worked during the war to allow returning soldiers to have their jobs back.
In the UK it happened too, I think, despite there being a massive shortage of labour.
It’s bizarre that so many desire a return to a period in history that was brief and temporary. Working-class women have always worked.
I guess most of them were children of the 50s and 60s, of middle-class parents whose mother embodied this ‘perfect housewife’ ideal. They wanted what their fathers had. An obedient, subservient wife who needed them for survival and who could be punished if she stepped out of line.
On the topic of the OP…
@ Katz
Oh, that’s so wonderful . Is it stealable? I have some friends I’d like to share it with.
(Sorry, I failed to credit properly. I found it on Twitter.)
https://twitter.com/SteveGonsalves1/status/688879098811277312
Ah well if I understand twitter etiquette you’re encouraged to forward stuff, so copying the pic to mates amounts to the same thing.
On the topic of privilege, there are some limited resources that will need to be shared better if women and people of color are made equal, and that’s where white men stand to lose things. For example, acceptance into universities. There are a limited number of spots available, so if we fix the system so that women and people of color have an equal chance of getting into that STEM school that’s currently overwhelmingly white male, less white men will get in.
As another example, white men tend to dominate the conversation in meetings, so if women and POC are given equal time to talk, white men will get less time.
On the subject of men in the feminist movement:
Personally, I now call myself a ‘feminist’ or an ‘ally’ only when speaking to those outside the movement. In such conversations, trying to explain the nuances of why I might avoid the term are usually a bit of a derail of the actual topic (say, abortion rights), and would pull the spotlight away from what’s really important.
When in feminist fora like this one, I try to avoid using those labels, because it’s a good way to keep in mind that I possess privilege that I cannot ignore. I try to be an ally, but the only people who can decide if I am succeeding or not at any given time are the women I’m seeking to support. So if a feminist calls me an ally, I will accept the label with the honor it implies, but I do not self-apply it.
This same duality extends to the “feminism helps men, too” concept. In here, honestly, there’s not much point in going on about how men will be helped by feminism. In a discussion with other men who are not feminist supporters (particularly on specific topics), OTOH, I will sometimes resort to appeals to enlightened self-interest.
I appreciate that this is not a super-recent thread and the discussion has moved on a little bit, but I thought this was such an incisive observation! Especially since a lot the MRAs who make this objection seem to be from the ‘classical liberal’/’equalist’ (as opposed to the out-and-out neo-Nazi wing – I guess that might be a distinction without a difference) and not necessarily totally opposed to social justice movements, at least on paper (in practice, I think most of them are so lukewarm and use such narrow and qualified definitions regarding racism, sexism and other struggles that it makes zero odds). Like, you’re prepared to support the movement specifically established to correct injustices against women as long as it doesn’t spend too much time correcting injustices against women? AUGH!!
Also, while I’m catching up: does anyone know if the random post feature is genuinely random, or if it selects articles that are at least somewhat similar to the article in question? Because last time I was catching up on this thread, I followed a link to a random article from a few years ago and there was someone else arguing about why it was totally unfair that they weren’t allowed to use the c-word….
I’m pretty sure it’s truly random and it’s just a coincidence because it’s such a common whine topic.
Feminists , still retarded after all these years. There are women who face real issues in the world, instead you retards focus on first world problems.
Women get their clitoris chopped off in Muslim countries, you retards don’t say a word.
Feminists don’t want equal treatment, they want preferential treatment.
These scumbags are so fucking disrespectful. It’s good that Milo was permanently banned from Twitter eventually.
Also Jeremy, fuck off.