next_to_normal | Male Feminists?

Current Mood: curious

Entry tags:

fun with feminism

Male Feminists?

So, the other day,

gabrielleabelle made a post questioning the labeling of Angel as a feminist icon. The general consensus, not surprisingly, is that Angel is NOT the feminist icon we are looking for. But it did make me wonder - are there ANY male feminist icons in popular culture? I can't think of any.

Okay. "Icon" is a pretty high bar. How about just a portrayal of a male feminist character? Any medium. How many can you think of?

I'm also including

gingerwall's list of criteria from the same post, just for reference. Your criteria may be different (I expect the third one is particularly difficult to find in pop culture, which might eliminate everybody, lol), but I thought it might be helpful for people who want guidelines.

Here would be my qualifications for the Best Male Feminist Role Model in All of Everything Ever:
- Let the women in his life be autonomous agents and make their own decisions.
- Listen to and carefully consider what women have to say about issues that affect both of them.
- Be aware of how organizations that he is a part of contribute to the oppression of the women in his life and work to change or protest those cultures, all the while getting feedback from those women to make sure he is accurately reflecting their lived experience.
- Encourage the women in his life to defy traditional gender roles and take on powerful positions, even at the expense of his own control and power.

Threaded | Top-Level Comments Only

I don't see how that's relevant as I never said anything about this being the proper course of action in all cases.

In this case, though...

In S7, after the point where Giles has given up parental control of his own volition ostensibly to help Buffy's independence. In S7, after the atmosphere of war is established and Buffy takes the general role. Giles, a subordinate, takes issue with one of Buffy's decisions. He voices those concerns. Buffy disregards his concerns and continues on. Well, it sucks to be Giles, but she's the leader. She's the leader as a direct result of six previous years of feminist development. You can't just backstep because you think she's doing something stupid. That's like giving women the vote, but then casting aside their ballots when you think they're voting for the wrong person.

And, besides, I don't think it needs to be pointed out that Buffy was right about Spike. He didn't become a threat to the Potentials and he was integral in the final fight with the First.. So, yeah, Giles should have deferred to her.

I never said anything about this being the proper course of action in all cases

But how else do I interpret "Well, it sucks to be Giles but she's the leader"? Honestly, your argument here seems dangerously close to saying, "Any man who disagrees with a woman or challenges her authority is, by definition, being sexist" - which seems more like the parody of feminism put about by its opponents than anything I recognise.

Sure, that begs the question of how do you tell if a man's disagreeing with a woman because he assumes that being male, he's automatically right and has to have the last word, as opposed to because he's considered the situation carefully and decided that in this particular instance she's just wrong. What would the two differnet scenarios look like on screen? I suggest, though, that all the factors you list yourselfabout Giles previously buiding up Buffy suggest that in this case, it's the second.

I don't think it needs to be pointed out that Buffy was right about Spike.

Yes, but that's not relevant to the point. Giles doesn't know that the show is called Buffy the Vampire Slayer rather than Giles the Watcher; he's making decisions based on his understanding of the situation rather than his meta-knowledge that the writers will give Buffy protagonist privilege. It's not like she's never made mistakes in the past.

Honestly, your argument here seems dangerously close to saying, "Any man who disagrees with a woman or challenges her authority is, by definition, being sexist"

Nope. Only if they go behind her back and try to kill someone despite her express orders to the contrary. Disobeying a female authority figure because one feels that their judgment is impaired (by a man, no less) is sexist.

Giles disagreeing with Buffy =/= LMPTM.

Edited 2010-08-01 23:11 (UTC)

Disobeying a female authority figure because one feels that their judgment is impaired (by a man, no less) is sexist.

I think this is a really important point. It's not just that Giles disagreed with her. It's not just that he took away her authority when he didn't like her decisions.

It's that he's decided Buffy's judgment was impaired because she's a silly girl who can't think straight when she likes a guy. She can't possibly have feelings for Spike AND have her priorities straight at the same time. So Giles, who is much more clear-headed and not at all biased in his dislike of Spike, takes it upon himself to make the decisions for her. That's pretty sexist if you ask me.

Yep. Word.

I always need you around to translate Gabs-speak.

he's decided Buffy's judgment was impaired because she's a silly girl who can't think straight when she likes a guy.

Is there any evidence that he believes that Buffy is, in general, a silly girl who can't think straight when she like a guy? Does he have a history of making such assumptions? Because if so yes, that would be sexist. But if he just believes that in this specific case she's wrong, then no it isn't.

Or to put it another way: no, disobeying a female authority figure because one feels that their judgment is impaired is NOT sexist. It would only be sexist if you assumed their judgement is impaired because they're a woman, surely?

Nope, sorry. You're ignoring the societal context and acting as though sexism is something that happens only in specific situations that meet a list of criteria. "Women are irrational and blinded by their emotions" is a prominent sexist stereotype. I'm just going to quote Gabs here, because she's all pithy and stuff:

"Girls are very strange creatures. They're driven by their feelings, first and foremost. Rational thought is beyond them, and it's near impossible for them to make logical decisions. Especially when concerning love, they're always blinded by their emotions. Thus, their decision-making capabilities simply cannot be trusted."

This is exactly what Giles is doing. I don't need to prove a history of sexist behavior to call Giles' behavior in this situation sexist. He's not acting in a vacuum. He's drawing on a sexist stereotype.

Let's try this again. Disobeying a female authority figure because one feels that her judgment is impaired IS sexist. It's especially sexist when one is assuming her judgment is impaired by her feelings for a man. A man thinking he can do better in the situation because he is "rational" or "impartial" (even though he is clearly not) is also sexist.

Edited 2010-08-02 00:17 (UTC)

You're effectively telling me that it's impossible to prove that this is sexism to you.

Because apparently, a person cannot do a sexist act without a history of such acts. Also, a person must, what, have an explicit monologue directly attributing their actions to some sexist notion? Not going to happen.

The cultural meme of women being irrational is there. Hell, in the narrative sense, Giles acts as a stand-in for the absent Watcher's Council in that episode. Buffy closing the door on him is part of her feminist journey. It stands to reason that, yes, what Giles did was sexist. Hence his banishment from Buffy the Feminist Icon's good graces.

You're setting an impossibly high standard with which to determine sexism, dude.

Rory Williams from Doctor Who definitely fits 1, 2 and 4.

Amy running off with the Doctor is obviously upsetting to him, but when he realizes that's what she needs, he's supportive of her and accepts that although she does love him, he isn't the only thing in her world.

Man, it would be so much easier if sexism were always obvious and wildly OTT, like Caleb or something. Then we'd be able to go, "Oh, hey, that dude's sexist," and everyone would agree. Too bad it's gotta be all subtle and insidious and stuff, otherwise we'd have this whole sexism thing SOLVED.

Edited 2010-08-02 00:35 (UTC)

RORY! Aww, I hadn't thought of him. I could see that.

You're effectively telling me that it's impossible to prove that this is sexism to you

If someone (a) doesn't have a pattern of sexist behaviour in the past, and (b) doesn't make it clear that they're acting out of sexism in this particular case - then yeah, I'd say it is impossible to prove one way or the other. Unless you're telepathic. Or in the case of a fictional character, you ask the author what they intended.

I don't think it's an impossibly high standard to ask for evidence - either (a) or (b) from above would do fine. Otherwise, it's not provable either way.

Giles acts as a stand-in for the absent Watcher's Council in that episode.

Maybe part of the issue here is that I don't really see it like that. He's a stand-in for Buffy's father, not the Council, just as Spike has to deal with the memories of his mother. Both of them, by the end of the epidode, have cut themselves free of their opposite-sex parent.

I think I agree with this. He's initially over-protective of her (Vampires in Venice), but I think he learns to get over that by the end of the series (though I guess we really need to see how next season goes about that). But his basic story is that of him joining Amy's adventures, not the other way around, which is good. Plus, their story together has the message of "being married does not mean the woman having to give up her goals and adventures and settle down," which I can really get behind.

Here's a question: What about Captain Jack Harkness? He definitely respects strong women as a general rule, but I'm not sure about doing so at the expense of his own control and power. He certainly makes decision for others on Torchwood. I feel like maybe he works on Doctor Who (where he's position as having less power than The Doctor, ie. not in charge), but not on Torchwood, where his position of power and immortality angst makes him override other people's decisions more.

Likewise, The Doctor also treats strong women with respect and wants them to be their own people and take on positions of power, but his own control issues makes him problematic.

Women are irrational and blinded by their emotions" is a prominent sexist stereotype

Yes it is. But really, can't you see the difference between a sweeping generalisation like that, and an argument about a specific individual in a specific place and time? Honestly? Do you think that the only reason a man would ever think a woman was acting irrationally is because he's blinded by sexism?

Hmm, to give a verdict on Jack, I'd probably have to rewatch Torchwood, which I have no desire to do, lol. You might want to read

pocochina's analysis of Jack, which I thought was interesting.

I kind of think that Jack, the Doctor, and even Angel all suffer from the same problem - they're hundreds of years older than their peers and that makes them patronizing toward the young'uns they work with. Angel, at least, definitely discriminates against women in addition to that, but even if they don't, "patronizing to everybody" isn't exactly a sterling quality, lol.

I think you might want to check your privilege. You've done nothing but mansplain how we don't understand sexism, but you're here to show us the error of our ways. Do you not see how utterly arrogant that is? You don't get to decide what is and is not sexism. Not to mention the irony of doing it on a thread ABOUT men dismissing women's judgment.

Nothing Gabs or I say will ever be good enough for you - you've said it yourself, this is impossible to prove to you. So I'm done trying to explain it to you.

Lloyd Dobbler! That is a good one. I knew there was a reason I loved that movie :)

If someone (a) doesn't have a pattern of sexist behaviour in the past, and (b) doesn't make it clear that they're acting out of sexism in this particular case - then yeah, I'd say it is impossible to prove one way or the other.

And we're done, dude. Seriously. The basis of feminist critique is accepting that we exist in a world mired with misogyny to the point where people act out of sexist motivations often without realizing. That's a given. Feminist discussion goes one step farther in order to point out instances of such sexism because they're not as immediately noticeable as a person going on an explicit misogynistic spiel (a la Caleb). If you're not willing to accept that basic premise, though, then I don't understand how you can possibly hope to discuss anything from a feminist viewpoint.

Also, men don't get to set the bar for what qualifies as sexism. Sorry.

I think think the age issue is a really good point. Given that they are going to have that "I'm older and wiser" quality, I think the Doctor and Jack are decent in relationship to women -- but that's a pretty damn big given.

It's often, IMO, the same with father-figures, actually. Like, as mentioned above, given that he is a Watcher who also takes on a surrogate-father role to Buffy, Giles is a pretty good example, but that given comes with a number of problematic caveats. Jack Bristow (Alias) was another example that came to mind -- he basically respects women (including his daughter) and their autonomy (and ass-kicking ability, when applicable), but he also has "protective father" mode (plus the, "I'm a spy, so lots of secrets," thing), which means he ends up making decisions for Sydney and keeping her in the dark on important issues, so he doesn't really pass muster.

I think this is a really cool question, and the fact that is is so hard to think of good examples is really depressing. I've been pondering it, and the most I could come up with was a few examples where I was like "hmmm...they are generally respectful of the women around them, and I don't remember them being particularly problematic...":

--As someone mentioned above, I do think Rory Williams could fall into this category, though I want to see how he acts towards Amy now that he is officially part of team Tardis before giving a solid thumbs up. But he definitely has potential, and I do love the whole Amy/Rory "marriage doesn't have to mean the end of adventures (particularly the adventures that the woman wants)" message.

--Luke (Gilmore Gilrs): While I'm sure he must have displayed some problematic behavior at some point (I haven't watched in ages, and I was too young to have think-y thoughts when the show was on), but from what I remember, he was generally respectful of and impressed by Lorelai and Rory's independence and accomplishments, which is a major plus. Jackson (Sookie's husband) is another one -- very supportive of all the impressive females in his life.

--Marshall Eriksen (Hot I Met Your Mother), except when the writers decide to make him a jerk, instead :/

Yeah, it's one of those things where I'd say, in a perfect world where there is no systemic sexism, it'd be okay to dismiss it as "oh, well, they're just like that with everybody." But in this very imperfect world, portraying men as patronizing women is inevitably going to be problematic, regardless of the context or mitigating factors.

I kind of remember Luke having a slightly patronizing "those crazy women" attitude toward the Gilmores, but my memory of the show is fuzzy as well. I don't remember ANYTHING from the Luke/Lorelai relationship, because that was around when I was breaking up with the show.

LOL at Marshall. Someone up there somewhere mentioned Sam Seaborne (The West Wing) as another one who WOULD be feminist if the writers would stop screwing him up. I think in Marshall's case, though, it's that they'll go way OOC for the sake of a punchline, which makes for some bizarre characterizations. (This seems to happen to Robin a lot, too.)

Yep, yep! Really, context is SO important. There are a relatively large number of male characters who I think basically treat women with the same respect they treat men, but because of their position (either literal job/family position or in terms of narrative position), the way they act towards certain female characters still ends up being too problematic to count as a "feminist male character."

I keep thinking of Phillip Broyles from Fringe as another example of this. He definitely respects strong women, and if he were a real person, I wouldn't be surprised if he identified as a feminist, or at least agreed that women should be treated as equal to men. But because he is Olivia's boss, part of his function in the narrative is to sometimes reprimand her, sometimes withhold information, sometimes tell her what to do, etc. So, even though we see that he respects and even admires Olivia, I still can't call him a feminist character. As you say, if this were a perfect world, I could just say, "well, he's her boss, that's his job, but he does respect her, so it's cool." But...it's not a perfect world. So the fact that he is a male character who tells a strong female protagonist that her choices are wrong on a semi-regular basis is problematic.

Though, this makes me think: Peter Bishop? Maybe? He respects Olivia and Astrid, more or less. I watched Fringe in a big rush, so I'd have to think about this more, but he definitely has some potential, at least.

Potentially true about Luke. It's funny, I was so into Gilmore Girls back in the day, but now I can't really remember...

Yeah, I think Marshall is definitely a case where it's like, the only way he ACTUALLY makes sense as a person is, IMO, as a feminist (or, if not an active feminist, at least a male who really does treat women as equals). But as a character who can be changed at will to suit the purpose of a joke? Sometimes not so much.

Re: Luke. It's tempting to include him--because he's so grumpy and lovable--but I think the major problem with him came in Season 6 (I think), where he finds out he has a daughter and then keeps that information from Lorelai. And he does a really bad job working with the daughter's mother as well.

Also, when Rory is dating Jess, Luke gets all protective of Rory's virtue--and even asserts that Jess doesn't need to be protected but Rory does.

Plus the whole dynamic with him and Lorelai was a sort of subversion/reification of the traditional gender dynamic--he both cooked for her and did all her manly chores. There's definitely an argument that can be made for him fulfilling the traditional female role (waiting around in the kitchen for her to come by and notice him)--but, I don't know. As much as I love him--I can't quite get behind him as feminist.

Threaded | Top-Level Comments Only

Page 5 of 7

Male Feminists?

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

Here via gabrielleabelle's link

no subject

Re: Here via gabrielleabelle's link

no subject

no subject

no subject

Re: Here via gabrielleabelle's link

(Here via gabrielleabelle's link)

Re: Here via gabrielleabelle's link

Re: (Here via gabrielleabelle's link)

Re: Here via gabrielleabelle's link

Re: (Here via gabrielleabelle's link)

Re: (Here via gabrielleabelle's link)