I’ve posted many times before on the stereotypes male feminists (or, if one prefers, male feminist allies) encounter. Nearly a quarter-century after I first took a women’s studies class, and after more than a decade and a half of teaching the subject, I still regularly encounter the following assumptions:
1. I’m gay
2. I’m straight and sexually predatory, a “wolf in sheep’s clothing”, using the class to “pick up chicks”.
3. I’m filled with masculine self-loathing, desperately using feminism to get validation from women.
Most male feminist allies encounter at least one, if not all three, of these fairly often. In this post, I’d like to tackle the first stereotype.
The assumption that men who teach women’s studies (or merely express a strong interest in gender work and activism) are gay is a deeply held and pervasive one. Of course, it’s a different stereotype from the other two on the list. There’s something wrong with a man feigning feminism in order to get access to women; there’s something unhealthy about adopting feminism as a strategy for winning approval. There isn’t anything inherently wrong with being gay, and by constructing this list, I don’t intend to suggest that there is. (There’s an analogous stereotype about female feminists, that they are lesbians and man-haters, but that’s another topic.)
I don’t mind if folks question my sexual identity. I make it clear that I’m married to a woman and that we have a child together, but I don’t go any further to establish heterosexual bona-fides. I call myself Eira-sexual, and explain why here and here. But there is something about the assumption of homosexuality that troubles me deeply, and that’s the implication that men who are sexually drawn to women are incapable of seeing them as true equals.
The notion that gay men and hetero women are natural allies is deeply held — and reinforced by countless films and television shows. These friendships are indeed often very precious and enduring. But the problem with our discourse about these friendships is that they reinforce a number of assumptions, chief among the the idea that sexism is rooted in heterosexual desire. As many women know well, gay men are perfectly capable of the same degree of sexism as their straight brothers. The problem of misogyny is rooted in something that runs deeper than desire. We can, it turns out, despise what we aren’t attracted to as much as what we are. And while I certainly don’t think my gay brothers are especially sexist, I reject the notion that their queerness gives them any particular insight into or empathy with women’s experience. Those who are acculturated as males will have to overcome a hell of a lot of sexist programming, almost entirely irrespective of the direction of their libidos.
I think it’s important to challenge the idea that men who are attracted to women are incapable of seeing them as human beings. This is part and parcel of the myth of male weakness, reinforced by the culture. In this post about a workshop I did at Brown, I wrote:
Timothy Beneke’s “Men on Rape” is now out of print, but one of the many memorable lines within that invaluable text is this: “I’m not aware of any common English phrases that allow one to express sexual desire in a way that acknowledges both lust and humanity.” Beneke captured a truth about our idiom, but he also captured a truth about the way in which we see male sexuality in our culture. For a host of excellent reasons, rooted in countless painful anecdotes and our own collective witness, many of us — perhaps most of us — have a difficult time believing that heterosexual desire doesn’t invariably compromise a man’s capacity for empathy. We men can’t want sex, our culture tells us, while still seeing the people we want to have sex with as they really are. “A hard dick has no conscience”, we say with resignation or cynical bravado. But as is so often the case, our language in this instance doesn’t so much reflect an immutable reality as it creates and maintains a distorted understanding of our nature and our potential.
Though we often undersell women’s capacity for arousal, we expect women to be both horny and compassionate. We don’t have a cultural discourse that suggests that a swollen clitoris has no conscience! We know that women have access to the full range of human emotions and experience, and we expect women to take on different roles. Though our expectations for women are often unreasonable, one expectation that is eminently reasonable is that women can and should reconcile desire and empathy. It is a myth that women never experience intense arousal; it is equally a myth that the intense arousal we expect men to feel inevitably vitiates their capacity to care.
I love and honor my gay brothers, many of whom have been dear friends and allies in the struggle for gender justice. But I also think it’s important that we have men who are clearly attracted to women — heterosexual, if you must — living out their feminist commitments publicly. My male students, regardless of their sexual identity, need the reassurance that it is possible to reconcile a strong sexual attraction to women with genuine empathy for the same. The blood that rushes to an erect penis deprives neither the brain nor the heart; circulation isn’t a zero-sum game.
Straight male allies have a vital role to play in the feminist movement — not as leaders, but as exemplars of what is possible. They don’t need cookies, and the good ones won’t ask for them. But they can witness, witness to men and women alike, of some basic truths. Straight male feminist allies need not be perfect — no one is. It doesn’t require perfection to reconcile lust and empathy, and it’s not unreasonable to expect men to avoid the twin pitfalls of exploitative objectification and an intimidated passive-aggressiveness.
To put it vulgarly, feminist men can fuck (and be fucked by) women and still be feminists. And while many of us find that passion tends to inhibit our reason, it need not inhibit our empathy. We can want — and respect — at the same time. To say otherwise is to woefully misread our nature, our potential, and our humanity.
Hugo:
“Straight male allies have a vital role to play in the feminist movement — not as leaders, but as exemplars of what is possible. They don’t need cookies, and the good ones won’t ask for them. But they can witness, witness to men and women alike, of some basic truths. Straight male feminist allies need not be perfect — no one is. It doesn’t require perfection to reconcile lust and empathy, and it’s not unreasonable to expect men to avoid the twin pitfalls of exploitative objectification and an intimidated passive-aggressiveness.
To put it vulgarly, feminist men can fuck and still be feminists. And while many of us find that passion tends to inhibit our reason, it need not inhibit our empathy. We can want — and respect — at the same time. To say otherwise is to woefully misread our nature, our potential, and our humanity.”
Well said, a step in the right direction of vitiating some of the myth of intractable male aggressiveness and predatory need. A myth that all too many men, as well as women, believe in.
Really appreciate posts like this, Hugo. This is one of the few places on the Internetz that I’ve found where some of the difficulties of being male-identified and feminist-identified are examined at any length, without falling into whataboutthemenz!1!!1! territory. So thank you.
I’d also point out that tropes about traditional masculinity tend to indicate that masculinity is incompatible with empathy no matter what gender or sexual orientations we’re talking about. Thus the existence of stereotypes like the stone butch lesbian (lots o’masculinity, not much empathy) and the effeminate gay man (not much masculinity, lots of empathy!). So, while I don’t disagree with you, I’d like to emphasize that this has a lot to do with how traditional masculinity is thought about–maybe moreso than how sexual preference is thought about (although, of course, traditional masculinity and sexual preference have all sorts of conceptual relationships).
Jeff, indeed. What Michael Kimmel calls the “sturdy oak” model of Western masculinity is toxic, regardless of the sex of the person who tries to embody it.
Hugo,
I think its time to come out already. Dude you have had four wives and are so obviously gay man you just need to come out with it and start pounding butt for a living.
Just kidding but are you sure you are not gay bro? Search your feelings Luke Skywalker, COME OUT OF THE CLOSET BRO!
Without belaboring a bunch of points on an old reprint, I’d suggest that perhaps there are times when one might be wearing the “male feminist ally” hat and times when one might be wearing the “pick up chicks” hat and that there are circumstances in which these will not always be compatible. I’ll offer as evidence this recent interview that has gotten some attention:
http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2010/03/26/fucking-while-feminist-with-jaclyn-friedman/
Selected excerpts (from a little over halfway in):
Interesting topic and a great post – not sure I agree fully though.
Hugo, have you read this book: http://www.predictablyirrational.com/? There’s an intriguing chapter about a test the author set up for young men to see if they would respond differently to questions that measure their moral judgment when aroused compared to a “cool” state. If not, I’ll still spoil it for you: they did – their moral standards were significantly lower in an aroused state.
Also, I remember reading a news article in the local paper about some study of the brain showing that when shown pictures of naked ladies, the male brain starts showing signs of activity in the parts of brain that are normally linked to using tools and equipment. For some men, looking at these pictures also completely shut down activity in areas related to empathy. (I tried to find the article, but no luck).
I would think most women have seen this happen irl, I sure have. It’s hard to describe, but pretty easy to pick up. Some women seem to be turned on by it, for me it’s scary. Being quite sensitive about my interactions with people in general, I feel shaken for a long time every time I see it happen. Even when I’m not involved and just happen to witness it.
As a conclusion – looking at the studies it sounds to me that at least for some men it may not be completely about how they want or decide to act. There’s one guy like this that I consider a “friend”, and have thought about bringing it up but haven’t. I’ve gone through the discussion in my head a few times, and I just don’t see how he could ever get my point.
I’ve learned to simply avoid spending time with guys who I’ve seen fall into that unempathetic state, even this “friend” I mentioned. It’s not always possible, but seems like the only thing I can do. There are triggers everywhere, outside my control.
Found it – the article (from Feb 2009) points to an article originally from The Guardian. I couldn’t find that one. The piece of copy news only mentions the study was made in Princeton, nothing more.
What circumstances are those?
Hugo is an electronic pimp, who has a feminism fetish, who attributes religious and mystical qualities to some pretty kinky shit. He gets off on being a “feminist” and hides his homoeroticism behind a litany of pedantic and sophisticated words that betray his ultimate desire for castration and gender change. Time to go to Marcie Bowers and get a gender change Hugo!
Wow, Bud. Castration anxiety much?
Pingback: Unsexed by Eirasexuality at Hugo Schwyzer