A link to This Blog Post Deconstructing MRAs led to a very long discussion with someone who elsewhere has clearly identified themselves as anti-feminist. I don't understand that mindset, and am thankful that we remained civil throughout this exchange.
At the same time, I want to acknowledge that as a man working on feminist projects, with a history of involvement in anti-oppression work and education, I owe a lot of what I said in what follows to the women who have come before me. Part of the reasons I can respond as calmly as I did is because I am a man and so my experience is partially removed from the situation. That said, I'm still frustrated as hell and consider this particular thread dead to me.
Take the above as a trigger warning and read on with caution.
At the same time, I want to acknowledge that as a man working on feminist projects, with a history of involvement in anti-oppression work and education, I owe a lot of what I said in what follows to the women who have come before me. Part of the reasons I can respond as calmly as I did is because I am a man and so my experience is partially removed from the situation. That said, I'm still frustrated as hell and consider this particular thread dead to me.
Take the above as a trigger warning and read on with caution.
acelessthan3:
Skipping right to the conclusion, I wanted to point out this bit:
Ultimately, the existence of MRAs might make women more afraid of speaking out. I cannot emphasise how crucial this is. A lot of women are afraid of rocking the boat when it comes down to sexism, close their eyes to it or resign themselves to the fact that it’s just the way things are. The hateful messages of MRA movements only add a new layer of pressure to that. To men who are concerned with gender equality and who want to address issues with masculinity, MRAs have poisoned the debate.Whether or not you’re well-meaning, the final effect of a movement that is a reaction to a group already reacting to the status quo is to reinforce the status quo. It often sets up an unnecessary binary that polarizes the issue.
As a man, it’s important to remember that patriarchy =/= men. Taking down the patriarchy is changing or eliminating ways of thinking that unreasonably favor men while either suppressing or ignoring women. Men might get hit with recoil because of socioeconomic status, race, or a variety of other factors, but most of the time when you zoom out and look at the bigger picture, there’s the same root cause hurting people from different angles.
mr-cappadocia:
Work on those causes from different perspectives, but let’s not make them competing works. And imagine, for a moment, you’re a person that doesn’t believe in the existence of the patriarchy… and suddenly *you* look like the person trying to maintain power via the status quo.
Because how it looks to me is that no matter what I do, unless I agree with *you* I’m wrong. That’s a fair point and a logical flaw that undermines the part where I talked about unnecessary binaries. I will acknowledge that.
acelessthan3:
However, trying to deny the existence of patriarchal mindsets is like trying to deny the existence of racist thought or homophobia or classicism. You’re technically correct that it doesn’t exist. It isn’t a thing that you can locate, but you are wrong if you think it doesn’t exist.
It is an intangible (and all too common) way of thinking that causes substantive inequality through personal behaviors, public policy and media representation. It’s rooted in the same kind of mindset that tells children “You can’t do that because you’re a boy/girl.” By denying its existence you are effectively maintaining a harmful status quo by denying the fact that most areas of the world believe in the inherent superiority of men either explicitly or implicitly.
If you can’t/won’t accept that such a belief exists as a basic fact supported by the experience of millions (if not billions) of people the world over, then we will never be able to agree because anything I say or do will always come back to that point that this inequality exists on multiple conscious and subconscious levels. If you’d like me to provide “proof” with a myriad of charts and statistics and articles, I can attempt to do so, but I’d rather not waste any more of either of our time trying to convince you.
Thank you for being civil and respectful.
mr-cappadocia:
Billions of people have also believed in the existence of Satan, or a similar font of evil. Historically speaking, based on your measure, there’s more proof of the Devil than there is of Patriarchy.
Patriarchy, on its best day is used as an answer in the same vein “God did it” is.
Even assuming there *is* a patriarchy… even if I completely agreed with you on that point the existence of a “patriarchy” raises questions itself in the same way that the existence of a deity does.
Notice how the argument/discussions always stop at “The Patriarchy” did it?
Is the patriarchy a way of thinking? is it a group of men? is it a style of living? I’ve heard it’s all three and none of the above. That’s way way WAY too open for me to accept.
The Patriarchy is whatever the asker wants it to be.
acelessthan3:
When you make the comparison to Satan, I think you misinterpret the point that I made (that billions of people experience inequality based on gender in their lives and this supports the existence of a [wrong] belief in the inherent superiority of men) as "billions of people believe in Patriarchy." This is not the same thing, I apologize if I was unclear.
And if the asker is competent, they will define for you how they use a term so you know exactly what it means when they say it. I have done so repeatedly, so to apply other definitions in the context of this discussion is counterproductive, confusing for readers and off topic (or derailing to use the language popular in anti-oppression work).
The discussion doesn't have to stop at "the patriarchy did it" if you provide concrete solutions to the problem. If (as I have done) you define patriarchy as system of thought, the solution is to change the way people think about situations. Take, for example my earlier point about the patriarchal thought processes being the same root cause of statements like "You can't do that because you're a boy/girl."
Both arise from an expectation of gendered behavior, that boys and girls behave differently and are not allowed to cross those boundaries because implicitly to do so would invalidate their gender. This is limiting to all parties involved and arises from a long history of gender stereotypes that boys are tough/strong and girls are weak/pretty or whatever. If we challenge these ideas, we are "challenging the patriarchy" because (as I have described it) patriarchy is the system of thought which reinforces those ideas. You can still do that without believing in a patriarchy, and I hope you would because it would mean you're treating the next generation as whole people who can experience a range of activities and without being limited by outdated stereotypes.
I would also like to point out that I've been very hesitant to use the term "patriarchy" because I think it's an unnecessarily broad term that doesn't completely encapsulate the actual problems at play, thus my repeated use of "patriarchal thinking" to emphasize that it is the ways of thinking that are problematic. Sometimes that thinking is on a larger cultural scale rather than an individual's thoughts (cultural narratives to borrow a term from theory) and to say that this kind of thinking doesn't exist is to say that there aren't people or systems who are sexist (i.e. causing or supporting inequality), which is fundamentally wrong, because again, you can find sexism everywhere.
To summarize my entire argument:
Gender based inequality exists. That inequality exists does not defacto prove that it primarily benefits males. “Changing ways of thinking” often feels rather sinister to me. Presenting ones case is a far cry from “Changing how people think”. You mentioned overly broad terms… and that one sticks in my craw, yo.
I’m not saying inequality doesn’t exist, to the contrary. I take issue with the concept of patriarchy because it very intentionally narrows the discussion.
For example… people say “Patriarchy” and point to the majority of congress being male… and then conveniently and quietly forget that the majority of the voters are female (and have been for decades). Yet people will still describe this as a “Patriarchy”.
acelessthan3:
1. Fair point that the existence of inequality does not de facto imply a bias towards men, I should have backed that up better.
2. While in summarizing my argument I said “change how people think” which is a broad, general statement and you have every right to be uncomfortable with it because of that (normally I would be too); however, throughout this conversation I have repeatedly given concrete examples of very specific ways to change people’s way of thinking to address specific problems (don’t deny the existence of inequality because doing so perpetuates it; don’t reinforce and/or believe in stereotypes because they are harmful; don’t blindly accept an ideology that implicitly favors men because it’s sexist). Anyone who reads this entire exchange and still finds my final summary “sinister” has clearly missed the point.
3. With your congress example:
I’ll address but one point… and I’d like you to think about it and the vast and far reaching implications of it.
If there is a field of ten men… and only men… the one that caters to a disproportionate number of females, even as he takes a proportional slice of the male vote… will win.
In other words it doesn’t *matter* what the gender of the person being elected is because that person knows who put them in office. In fact it’s incredibly bizarre to think that a man in office would automatically work in the interests of other men when history has proven universally that men in power almost never do that. Men in power help men in power.
And if the best way to stay in power is to vote for endless special benefits, programs, provisos and the like for women… that’s precisely what they’ll do. And that’s precisely what they *have* done.
Work on those causes from different perspectives, but let’s not make them competing works. And imagine, for a moment, you’re a person that doesn’t believe in the existence of the patriarchy… and suddenly *you* look like the person trying to maintain power via the status quo.
Because how it looks to me is that no matter what I do, unless I agree with *you* I’m wrong. That’s a fair point and a logical flaw that undermines the part where I talked about unnecessary binaries. I will acknowledge that.
acelessthan3:
However, trying to deny the existence of patriarchal mindsets is like trying to deny the existence of racist thought or homophobia or classicism. You’re technically correct that it doesn’t exist. It isn’t a thing that you can locate, but you are wrong if you think it doesn’t exist.
It is an intangible (and all too common) way of thinking that causes substantive inequality through personal behaviors, public policy and media representation. It’s rooted in the same kind of mindset that tells children “You can’t do that because you’re a boy/girl.” By denying its existence you are effectively maintaining a harmful status quo by denying the fact that most areas of the world believe in the inherent superiority of men either explicitly or implicitly.
If you can’t/won’t accept that such a belief exists as a basic fact supported by the experience of millions (if not billions) of people the world over, then we will never be able to agree because anything I say or do will always come back to that point that this inequality exists on multiple conscious and subconscious levels. If you’d like me to provide “proof” with a myriad of charts and statistics and articles, I can attempt to do so, but I’d rather not waste any more of either of our time trying to convince you.
Thank you for being civil and respectful.
mr-cappadocia:
Billions of people have also believed in the existence of Satan, or a similar font of evil. Historically speaking, based on your measure, there’s more proof of the Devil than there is of Patriarchy.
Patriarchy, on its best day is used as an answer in the same vein “God did it” is.
Even assuming there *is* a patriarchy… even if I completely agreed with you on that point the existence of a “patriarchy” raises questions itself in the same way that the existence of a deity does.
Notice how the argument/discussions always stop at “The Patriarchy” did it?
Is the patriarchy a way of thinking? is it a group of men? is it a style of living? I’ve heard it’s all three and none of the above. That’s way way WAY too open for me to accept.
The Patriarchy is whatever the asker wants it to be.
acelessthan3:
When you make the comparison to Satan, I think you misinterpret the point that I made (that billions of people experience inequality based on gender in their lives and this supports the existence of a [wrong] belief in the inherent superiority of men) as "billions of people believe in Patriarchy." This is not the same thing, I apologize if I was unclear.
And if the asker is competent, they will define for you how they use a term so you know exactly what it means when they say it. I have done so repeatedly, so to apply other definitions in the context of this discussion is counterproductive, confusing for readers and off topic (or derailing to use the language popular in anti-oppression work).
The discussion doesn't have to stop at "the patriarchy did it" if you provide concrete solutions to the problem. If (as I have done) you define patriarchy as system of thought, the solution is to change the way people think about situations. Take, for example my earlier point about the patriarchal thought processes being the same root cause of statements like "You can't do that because you're a boy/girl."
Both arise from an expectation of gendered behavior, that boys and girls behave differently and are not allowed to cross those boundaries because implicitly to do so would invalidate their gender. This is limiting to all parties involved and arises from a long history of gender stereotypes that boys are tough/strong and girls are weak/pretty or whatever. If we challenge these ideas, we are "challenging the patriarchy" because (as I have described it) patriarchy is the system of thought which reinforces those ideas. You can still do that without believing in a patriarchy, and I hope you would because it would mean you're treating the next generation as whole people who can experience a range of activities and without being limited by outdated stereotypes.
I would also like to point out that I've been very hesitant to use the term "patriarchy" because I think it's an unnecessarily broad term that doesn't completely encapsulate the actual problems at play, thus my repeated use of "patriarchal thinking" to emphasize that it is the ways of thinking that are problematic. Sometimes that thinking is on a larger cultural scale rather than an individual's thoughts (cultural narratives to borrow a term from theory) and to say that this kind of thinking doesn't exist is to say that there aren't people or systems who are sexist (i.e. causing or supporting inequality), which is fundamentally wrong, because again, you can find sexism everywhere.
To summarize my entire argument:
- gender-based inequality exists, [and the experience of gender-based inequality is overwhelmingly one of sexism against women]
- the fact that such inequality exists proves the existence of a way of thinking that (most often) favors men
- by changing these ways of thinking and the institutional (legal/governmental/other regulatory bodies) structures (laws/norms/rules/representations) that support/reinforce them we can reduce inequality
Gender based inequality exists. That inequality exists does not defacto prove that it primarily benefits males. “Changing ways of thinking” often feels rather sinister to me. Presenting ones case is a far cry from “Changing how people think”. You mentioned overly broad terms… and that one sticks in my craw, yo.
I’m not saying inequality doesn’t exist, to the contrary. I take issue with the concept of patriarchy because it very intentionally narrows the discussion.
For example… people say “Patriarchy” and point to the majority of congress being male… and then conveniently and quietly forget that the majority of the voters are female (and have been for decades). Yet people will still describe this as a “Patriarchy”.
acelessthan3:
1. Fair point that the existence of inequality does not de facto imply a bias towards men, I should have backed that up better.
2. While in summarizing my argument I said “change how people think” which is a broad, general statement and you have every right to be uncomfortable with it because of that (normally I would be too); however, throughout this conversation I have repeatedly given concrete examples of very specific ways to change people’s way of thinking to address specific problems (don’t deny the existence of inequality because doing so perpetuates it; don’t reinforce and/or believe in stereotypes because they are harmful; don’t blindly accept an ideology that implicitly favors men because it’s sexist). Anyone who reads this entire exchange and still finds my final summary “sinister” has clearly missed the point.
3. With your congress example:
- the implications of having an established man-dominated institution on the access to said institution by women is one of deterrence (it’s a lot harder to join a men’s only club when you aren’t a man even if it’s no longer a men’s only club).
- When women voters are only presented with men to vote for, they can only vote for men, so who the voting demographic is means next to nothing (we can change this by encouraging women to join politics through multiple avenues like providing strong role models)
- This example ignores the socialization of women to not be strong leaders in the political sense (as evidenced by characterizations of people like Hilary Clinton as cold, power-mad bitches, a demonization that can deter other women from wanting to pursue this as a career avenue)
- Many women in power are not taken seriously unless they “act like men” because women are seen as weaker/incapable.
- The previous two points can be addressed by thinking of women as complex human beings who are able to act in leadership capacities (something that many men seem unable or unwilling to accept because of, you guessed it, sexist, patriarchal ways of thinking that reinforce inequality against women)
- The use of patriarchy here completely ignores my point about using conflicting definitions and thus is a complete derailment of the discussion at hand (especially since it is used very vaguely as simply “the patriarchy”). When it is not given specific meanings the way I have, patriarchy is an overly broad (vague) concept that can and has been abused in some feminist logic. I have worked very hard to not make that same mistake and would appreciate if you would stop insulting my intelligence by continuing to gloss over that fact. Yes, people make those kinds of arguments without offering concrete solutions the way I have above. Yes, that’s poor argumentation that delegitimizes the concept of patriarchal systems. Yes, you have every right to be skeptical of arguments that use partriarchy as the focal point because of that. No, that is not being done here, so please stop bringing it up because it isn’t adding anything new to the conversation.
I’ll address but one point… and I’d like you to think about it and the vast and far reaching implications of it.
If there is a field of ten men… and only men… the one that caters to a disproportionate number of females, even as he takes a proportional slice of the male vote… will win.
In other words it doesn’t *matter* what the gender of the person being elected is because that person knows who put them in office. In fact it’s incredibly bizarre to think that a man in office would automatically work in the interests of other men when history has proven universally that men in power almost never do that. Men in power help men in power.
And if the best way to stay in power is to vote for endless special benefits, programs, provisos and the like for women… that’s precisely what they’ll do. And that’s precisely what they *have* done.
acelessthan3: (this part didn't make it onto tumblr because I'd already publically stated I was done with this conversation on tumblr)
Your bolded statement is self-contradictory. If (as I understand it) you mean that a man in power would provide for his constituents (i.e. the women who voted him into office), I think the entire Texas State legislature's decisions on reproductive healthcare stand as a GLARING example to the contrary.
If by "special benefits, programs, provisos and the like for women" you mean things like welfare, reproductive rights, etc. As I understand it, most of those were never voted on, were instituted by men because they view women as weaker/incapable, and are currently being attacked across the country.
I don't see how any of this supports an argument against the existence of patriarchal thinking or even addresses it.
-----------------------------------------
To all who made it this far. Thank you for bearing with me. I hope I did the conversation justice. Please don't take out any anger or frustration on Mr-cappadocia and instead find healthy outlets to vent them.
2 comments:
This was a fascinating exchange, thanks for sharing it. If I could be charitable to mr-cappadocia's final point:
Remove the gendered language and it becomes "elites help elites." This is a broadly true historical fact, and it's informed my own thinking on this patriarchy business. (It's a shame that too many people use "the Patriarchy!" as a thought-stopper but really, that tactic's not unique to feminists...)
There's a hypothesis that racism (of the white-against-nonwhite variety) didn't really get going until white elites needed to divide up the working class. I'm not sure if the Marxist angle is completely accurate but as a purely self-preserving tactic it's completely understandable.
Winners want to cheat. They would rather not compete again. So elites would rather justify their inherited (or stolen!) wealth by some nice narrative.
"Of course I'm your lord! I'm white!"
"I'm Christian!"
"I'm male!"
etc.
The entire kyriarchical structure falls out of this assumption.
Anyway, that's my own rough lens.
One clarifying question: in your own definition of patriarchal thinking, is it more than gender norms? Because I think that concept is readily understood by MRA types and does a lot of work.
Sorry it's taken me a few days to respond. I kind of wanted a breather before jumping all over this.
And looking back, I made some pretty poor argumentation, especially in that first bit of commentary that started this. Made some assumptions about my reader's understanding of what I was talking about that I shouldn't have.
As far as how I define/use patriarchal thinking, I guess, yeah, I would say I think it covers more than just gender norms, but mostly as a way to include how for the most part those norms can be (or are) synthesized to woman=weak man=strong (or woman=other man=self depending on how theoretical you want to be about it), which automatically positions men in power so long as most structure/institutions/beliefs can be found to have an origin in those norms.
Thanks for the comment and I hope I answered your question.
Post a Comment