Swamped with work today, so offering some links instead of an original post.
At American Prospect, Lindsay Beyerstein on James O’Keefe and Journalistic Malpractice
At Good Men Project, Thaddeus Blanchette suggests my analysis of masculinity employs “a bastardized Marxist model of social conflict and power.”
Sarah Seltzer writes about the new Red Riding Hood movie and feminist interpretations of fairy tales. I always think of Anne Sexton when that subject comes up, especially this poem.
And the indispensable Figleaf on The Two Rules of Desire and “Girls Suck at Math”
Hugo, I’m interested to hear what you think about Thadeus Blanchette’s piece.
It seems to me that he is guilty of over-generalizing both MRA-ism and feminism, situating them as mirror images of one another and accusing both movements of having the fatal flaw of overlookig kyriarchy. With MRA-ism (at least the internet form) being less academic and a more recent phenomenon than feminism, I’m not sure it’s intellectually accurate or fair to present feminism and MRA-ism as Two Sides of the Same Coin, so to speak.
fannie, I think it’s a classic case of false equivalence, as if MRAs and feminists are both equally right and wrong. It’s like saying the Klan and the NAACP have two different views on race relations. It adds respectability to the indefensible. That’s not to say, as I always point out, that MRA anger and pain isn’t real. But it’s woefully misdirected and involves a staggering refusal to take responsibility.
And Blanchette misrepresents “kyriarchy” — Fiorenza coined it within a feminist context, because patriarchy was too simple a term. It shouldn’t be taken to mean that everyone is equally oppressed in some way. Blanchette is like a referee at the “suffering Olympics” declaring that all must have prizes and all have one the equal right to feel aggrieved.
But it’s woefully misdirected and involves a staggering refusal to take responsibility.
Nah. In fact the opposite is true- MRAs have better things to do than indulge feminists who spend all their time whining about pop culture.
Thanks, Hugo. I also noticed that about his reference to Fiorenza. Even on the internet, I see many feminists incorporate kyriarchy into their analyses.
Dear Hugo,
I’ll happily dialogue with you on this point. What in my use of “kyriarchy” presumes that “everyone is equally oppressed”, exactly?
What I am saying is that the one-dimensional, two-sided class dynamic that you and a lot of MRAs and feminists use is too simplistic to take in the actual functioning of power.
That`s a far cry from saying everyone is equally oppressed. What it is saying is that one axis of differentiation alone – in this case gender – is not enough for you to adequately predict or describe where a given individual`s position is on the kyriarchic pyramid.
Seriously, friend: this isn’t a hard point to grasp. I’d be very interested in how that somehow got transformed into “everyone is equally oppressed” in your mind.
And it’s quite true: the Klan and the NAACP do indeed have two different views of race relations. To say that is not to enoble the Klan, or to equate the NAACP with them.
But I’m curious, Hugo: you seriously think the MRAs – all of them – are the moral equivalent of the Klan? How so? I mean, isn`t one of the points brought up by most feminists the idea that the MRAs don`t acctually DO anything? The Klan certainly did. They had a hell of alot of power back in the 1920s.
Thaddeus, I don’t employ a one-sided dynamic that says “men bad” and “women good”. That’s a straw person. The problem isn’t rooted in individuals, it’s rooted in hegemonic masculinity with its rigid and inflexible rules for our behavior. And that hegemonic masculinity is, I think, the core oppression — and the other aspects of what Fiorenza calls the “kyriarchy” all link back to it. (And if you read Fiorenza, that’s actually more or less what she says!)
No, not all MRAs are like the Klan. Then again, I’ve yet to encounter an MRA who won’t call me (either at his own site or at mine) a “mangina” or worse. I haven’t met one authentic MRA — not one — who won’t turn to ad hominem sooner or later. They’re not worth debating when they do that. I don’t talk about “small dick gamma males in their mama’s basement festering with sexual resentment”, but I get plenty of anti-feminist invective hurled my way with the tacit complicity of every leading MRA out there. (Okay, one exception: Glenn Sacks, who is often denounced by other MRAs for being too moderate and too civil.)
Those who argue (as Zeta and others do) that feminism is a system of oppression are indeed akin to those Klan types who argued that the end of Jim Crow was a kind of anti-white racism. I think the analogy stands.
Your article clearly situates men as the oppressors, women as the oppressed, does it not? After all, you argue that men make the rules because they are the dominant group.
Is that a fair description of what you’re saying?
That’s not “good/bad”, but it is still a one dimentional, two-sided reductionist view of social conflict.
But maybe I’m not getting what your saying. Perhaps you’d like to explain that “men are dominant and dominant groups make the rules” in a way that isn’t hopelessly reductionist and simplistic?
As for “hegemonic masculinity” what, exactly is it? Let me quote M. Donaldson on that concept:
“More than fifty books have appeared in the English language in the last decade or so on men and masculinity. What is hegemonic masculinity as it is presented in this growing literature? Hegemonic masculinity… involves a specific strategy for the subordination of women… A culturally idealized form, it is both a personal and a collective project, and is the common sense about breadwinning and manhood. It is exclusive, anxiety-provoking, internally and hierarchically differentiated, brutal, and violent. It is pseudo-natural, tough, contradictory, crisis-prone, rich, and socially sustained. While centrally connected with the institutions of male dominance, not all men practice it, though most benefit from it. Although cross-class, it often excludes working class and black men. It is a lived experience and an economic and cultural force and dependent on social arrangements. It is constructed through difficult negotiation over a life-time. Fragile it may be, but it constructs the most dangerous things we live with. Resilient, it incorporates its own critiques, but it is, nonetheless, ‘unravelling.’
“What can men do with it? According to the authors… hegemonic masculinity can be analyzed, distanced from, appropriated, negated, challenged, reproduced, separated from, renounced, given up, chosen, constructed with difficulty, confirmed, imposed, departed from, and modernized. (But not, apparently, enjoyed.) What can it do to men? It can fascinate, undermine, appropriate some men’s bodies, organize, impose, pass itself off as natural, deform, harm, and deny. (But not, seemingly, enrich and satisfy.) [Donaldson, 1993: 'What Is Hegemonic Masculinity?', Theory and Society, Special Issue: Masculinities, 22(5), 643-657.]”
I submit to you that any concept that poorly and widely defined and fractious isn’t a building block off of which you can create a determinist theory of gender behavior, as you apparently wish to do.
But hey, I’m not the masculinities scholar: you are. So perhaps you’d like to take a crack at making a better definition of “hegemonic masculinity” than Donaldson? I mean, presuming that you’ve actually thought this concept out and aren’t just using it as a hot buzzword, as so many people do these days.
Then again, I’ve yet to encounter an MRA who won’t call me (either at his own site or at mine) a “mangina” or worse.
So MRAs are the moral equivalent of the Klan because the ones you’ve met have questioned your masculinity and insulted you, is that it? Because whether or not they are assholes and regardless of what they call you, Hugo, that doesn’t necessarily make the the shock troops of the patriarchy.
Those who argue (as Zeta and others do) that feminism is a system of oppression are indeed akin to those Klan types who argued that the end of Jim Crow was a kind of anti-white racism. I think the analogy stands.
And I think you need to do a bit more reading in the history of American race and racism before you try to recruit the Klan and the NAACP as metaphors for your particular ideological positions regarding the MRAs, Hugo.
Most black American activists I met would call you worse than “mangina” for that sort of move, friend.
Pingback: I know you are, but what am I? « Toy Soldiers
Hugo,
did you notice how figleaf is making my wanted vs. needed (particular with respect to sexuality) point, except that he calls it “worthiness trap”
I’m quoting this mainly to help you understand my point better, and what I was referring to last week (in your post about “if you’re not opposed by some, you’re not doing your job right”) when I said helping men feel more wanted (sexually) would help a lot with respect to a lot of other matters, that some people may deem more important as such.
Hugo,
I’m soooo looking forward to your reply to Thaddeus. (if you have one)