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.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Does Giles treat Buffy like a child in S7, though? Or does he treat her like an adult who, in his eyes, is making fatally-flawed decisions and refusing to listen to rational arguments about them? Yes, there's a difference. ;-)

I'm not defending his actions in LMPTM, by the way - I think they were outrageous and wrong - but you can't deny that he tried repeatedly, in multiple episodes, to convince Buffy she was making a mistake in trusting Spike, and only resorted to direct action as a last resort. He believed he was doing the right thing.

I won't argue that the writers choosing to write a story that involves a man questioning a woman's judgement is not a particularly feminist message to send. However, if a man thinks a woman is wrong about something, it's not necessarily a sign that he's sexist and anti-feminist. He might just think that she's wrong. :-)

I won't argue that the writers choosing to write a story that involves a man questioning a woman's judgement is not a particularly feminist message to send. However, if a man thinks a woman is wrong about something, it's not necessarily a sign that he's sexist and anti-feminist. He might just think that she's wrong. :-)

I'd say given Giles' role as The Only Watcher Left (at least for the purposes of the show), LMPTM is intentionally meant to be Giles Being Paternalistic which, yes, is sexist. A man can think a woman is wrong about something, but when he goes behind her back to try to take the decision out of her hands? I'm not gonna leap to a gender-blind defense of him.

Well, paternalistic in the sense of "like a male parent" is obvious, given the title of the episode. It's about Buffy and Spike both cutting their parental ties and moving forward.

I'm not gonna leap to a gender-blind defense of him

I wouldn't expect you to, as long as you don't entirely rule it out either. :-)

If Giles's first action had been to assume Buffy was wrong and go behind he back to undermine her, that would be one thing. But it isn't: he tries logical argument and appeals to her reason multiple times before giving up and coming up with his (murderous) plan.

I don't think it's necessarily obvious that he decides on that course of action because "Buffy's a woman and therefore irrational, and I must take charge because I'm a man" as opposed to "Buffy's under a lot of stress for entirely understandable reasons, given the upcoming apocalypse, but unfortunately it's badly affecting her judgement and she's going to get us all killed."

But sexist intent isn't necessary for sexist action. His action in LMPTM? Sexist. And when determining a character's feminist cred, it's their actions that count.

His action in LMPTM? Sexist.

If we assume that Giles honestly believes that Buffy's trust of Spike is fatally misguided and is going to get lots of innocent Potentials killed - what would be the feminist thing for him to do? (Remembering that he's already tried persuasion, logic and argument, without success.).

The feminist (and decent) thing to do is defer to the woman who he had left a year ago so that she could become independent. It sucks sometimes but subordinates have to follow their general. Giles can't take backsies on the whole Make Buffy Independent thing of S6 just because he doesn't like her decisions.

Buffy the Vampire Slayer would have been a very different show if this idea that "You should always defer to the judgement of the person in authority, even if you think they're dangerously wrong" had been followed through in all cases. Just saying...

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)

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?

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.

You don't get to decide what is and is not sexism.

That's quite an ironic thing to say, considering it's you and Gabs who've decided that Giles's actions definitely were sexism, no doubt about it, no question of any other explanation; while my argument has been that in the absence of any other evidence, it's simply not possible to tell either way.

And speaking of irony; I've been arguing that it's possible for a man to disagree with a woman on the grounds of a simple difference of opinion, not because he's being sexist. And now you've apparently come to the conclusion that the only reason I'm disagreeing with you and Gabs is because i'm 'mansplaining' and 'arrogant' and 'dismissing your judgement'. It couldn't possibly be because I simply disagree with what you've been saying?

That's not irony; it's explicitly demonstrating my point. Women, as the oppressed group, get to decide what qualifies as sexism. Gabs and I are women, and you're not. I really don't see what's so difficult to understand.

It couldn't possibly be because I simply disagree with what you've been saying?

When "simply disagreeing" means refuting everything we say because it doesn't fit YOUR criteria of what sexism is, when we've told you repeatedly that you don't get to define sexism? Yeah, that's arrogant and dismissive.

Defining sexism =/= Deciding whether a particular action meets that definition.

Straight question. Do you define sexism as "Any action a man takes which works against, contradicts or harms the interests of a woman, regardless of his motivation or justification"?

And honestly, if I felt dismissive of your opinion I'd have shrugged my shoulders and left this conversation long ago. I know you're probably wishing I had.

What the fuck???

Okay, I was about to give a thoughtful reply to your comment to me, but then I saw this and I just woke up and wow. Dude.

I feel that the dynamics of male/female dialogues when it comes to feminism are going right over your head. Cause you know what? We ain't on equal footing here. You're a member of the dominant class talking to members of the oppressed class. We're the class that formed the theories in order to educate men - like you - about the problems.

Of course men can engage in conversations about sexism. That's fantastic and wonderful. But what man can't do is insist of defining the terms of oppression. That's fucked up beyond belief. If women let men do that, we still wouldn't have the vote and men would be legally allowed to beat and rape us in marriage. Cause you know what happens when men set the standard for sexism? Yeah, we get situations like this where nothing passes muster, therefore, it's not something to worry about.

You get it with racism, too. After the civil rights movement, aversive racism became a hella lot more common because "racism" became such a loaded word. White folks wanted to avoid any sign that they might be racist. But racism still happened, just in more covert - often unconscious - ways. When PoC try to point that out, though, white people react to the "racism" word as if they were accused of killing babies. They can't be racist! They don't wear white sheets and burn crosses! In the absence of substantial proof, the white people conclude that no racism exists and the PoC keep getting fucked over.

But you know what? The PoC live with their oppression every damn day. They recognize the fucking patterns that occur. The way that those racist cultural thoughts manifest in little behaviors - white people crossing the street to avoid walking past them, people locking their car doors when entering the 'bad' (black) neighborhood. Are they supposed to present racist hate-filled journals of the white people to prove this is all due to racism? Fuck no. They're living that shit. I, a white chick, trust them to set the bar on what's racism.

Same fucking thing with women. We're live this shit everyday. Hell, I was at the museum the other day and happily going through their gift shop when I was smacked in the face with "The Game for Boys" full of magic tricks and adventure-y stuff that I would have loved as a girl. But no. It's for boys. Am I required to psychoanalyze the creators/marketers of said game to prove that it's sexism to you? Absolutely not. I know it's sexism because it's the same damn sexist thing I see all the time. Because I know the history of gender roles and I know how they still persist in society today. Because I'm a fucking chick and I live this stuff.

But you get to sit away from it all, waiting for me to submit proof of sexism before you'll deign to consider it? Fuck you.

You get to sit down and shut up and stop trying to dictate the terms of discussion. There's plenty of reading material on feminism for you to go through.

Feminism; You're doing it fucking wrong.

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject