Male Feminists?

[next_to_normal]

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.

Comments

[stormwreath.livejournal.com]

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...

[gabrielleabelle.livejournal.com]

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.

[stormwreath.livejournal.com]

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.

[gabrielleabelle.livejournal.com]

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.

[next_to_normal]

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.

[gabrielleabelle.livejournal.com]

Yep. Word.

I always need you around to translate Gabs-speak.

[stormwreath.livejournal.com]

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?

[next_to_normal]

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.

[stormwreath.livejournal.com]

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?

[next_to_normal]

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.

[stormwreath.livejournal.com]

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?

[next_to_normal]

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.

[stormwreath.livejournal.com]

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.

[gabrielleabelle.livejournal.com]

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.

[stormwreath.livejournal.com]

You know what? You're not arguing with me. You're arguing with a straw man you've built up in your head of what you think I'm saying.

I'm not defining anything. I'm not saying "this behaviour is sexist and this isn't." I'm not denying the existence of sexism. I don't disagree with pretty much all of everything you just wrote in your post there. I'm even not saying that Giles's behaviour doesn't match the stereotype in many ways - I said so in one of my posts further up there.

What I am denying, which is what you seem not to accept, is just because something could be X, then it therefore must be X. And now you're trying to end the discussion by making an appeal to authority, saying "It must be X because I say so, and you don't get to argue because you're Y, so shut up."

Yes, if something happens to you a lot, you'll start to recognise patterns that people who aren't in your situation won't notice. That's obvious. The danger comes when you start interpreting every experience you have through that same lens. When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. And if that sounds like the viewpoint of a privileged person who has the emotional detachment to stand back and not get involved on a personal level - well yes, I'm sure it is. But I don't think it's an incorrect viewpoint. Nor do I think it's incompatible with feminism, or anti-racism, or gay rights activism, or anything else. Once you start applying general principles to specific individual situations, you risk blinding yourself to what's really happening, and ending up making exactly the sort of decisions based on stereotyping that you're supposed to be opposed to.

[next_to_normal]

Dude, you really don't know when to quit, do you?

The danger comes when you start interpreting every experience you have through that same lens. When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

Once again, you are tripping all over your privilege. Because this is what women are told ALL THE FUCKING TIME. "You're just imagining sexism." "You think everything is sexist." It's another way of dismissing female points of view and claiming that men are seeing things more clearly because they're ~*~objective~*~. Believe me when I tell you you are not going to get ANYWHERE with that argument.

In other words: You're in a fucking hole. STOP DIGGING.

[gabrielleabelle.livejournal.com]

"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. "

This is you setting the standards for sexism in this conversation.

This is me saying your standards are insufficient and coming from a place of privilege. Also, not in line with feminism.

What I am denying, which is what you seem not to accept, is just because something could be X, then it therefore must be X.

What you're telling me is that unless we have explicit proof that Giles' actions are directly linked to sexist ideals, I can't call that sexism? Do you realize how limiting that is? How dangerous that is? That's how men have weaseled out of shit for centuries.

If that's the case, then I should hang my feminist hat up. I can't prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the 'Game for Boys' I saw in the museum gift shop is sexist. It could be. But hey, I don't know. They could have completely pure and gender-blind motivations, right?

Hell, Warren could have been completely egalitarian when he told Katrina "Because you deserved it, bitch" in Villains. He might well have said that even if she were a man. I can't prove that he's a misogynist because he never explicitly said, "I hate and resent women."

And, hey, Mel Gibson has never explicitly said that he hates women, either. So when he tells his ex-girlfriend that she should just smile and blow him, I can't really leap to the conclusion that he's sexist. I mean, he could, certainly. But I can't say for certain, so let's just not discuss it.

Congrats, you've rendered feminist critique completely ineffective. Nothing's sexist anymore. Yay.

[next_to_normal]

Heh, I'm not sure I need to say anything more than what Gabs has already said, but I think it's important to pull out one thing from your "definition": Intent doesn't matter. Sexism is deeply ingrained in our society, and people can subconsciously act in sexist ways without realizing they're being sexist or deliberately intending to be sexist. This is Feminism 101. I SHOULD NOT need to explain it to you.

Maybe if we lived in a perfect world where sexism hadn't permeated every aspect of our culture and didn't affect people in subconscious ways, we could attribute things solely to individual motivation and not have to suspect that sexism is involved.

Unfortunately, we live in THIS world, where we're all swimming in a sea of misogyny, and even the most feminist among us can't escape its pervasiveness.

You want to start with the assumption that an action is NOT sexism, and then require us to prove that it IS. That's not a valid assumption, and it's pretty damn arrogant of you, as a member of the dominant group to require us to PROVE oppression to you. This is not "innocent until proven guilty." Sexism is far too pervasive for it NOT to be considered an influence, and it's often far too subtle to be proven definitively. That doesn't mean it's not there. And if you don't understand or accept that premise, I don't know what else to tell you, because that's what feminism IS.

[stormwreath.livejournal.com]

Sexism is far too pervasive for it NOT to be considered an influence

Which is something I've never denied once in this conversation. Nor have I asked you to prove it's not there, because I know that's impossible. I've been talking about evidence and the balance of probabilities, while now you seem to be saying that because Giles is a man and we live in a sexist society, his treatment of Buffy MUST be because of his presumed sexism. And if I disagree with the 'must' in that sentence, now I'm apparently challenging the existence of sexism at all, and you're both explaining to me things I already know perfectly well.

What about if I say this:

"Giles's behaviour in LMPTM reflects sexist stereotypes about women being made irrational by their emotions, and by playing off them the storyline may unfortunately reinforce such ideas. On the other hand, by the end of the episode Giles was shown to be wrong in his beliefs while Buffy's faith in Spike was fully vindicated and therefore shown to be not irrational at all.

"However, in the past Giles has shown full confidence in Buffy's judgement, including for the most part her choice of romantic partners*. While it's not impossible that sexism lies behind his lapse in support for her, it seems likely that the near-panicky desperation he felt in the face of The First, and his fear that none of the Scoobies were taking the situation seriously enough**, were more important motivations. It could also be that, having mentored her since she was 16, he also has a tendency to still see her as a child and believe he should override her wishes in her own "best interests". It wouldn't be the first time he's done that, either***, but note that it's a pattern of behaviour he doesn't demonstrate with other women such as Willow**** or Faith***** whom he's never had a quasi-paternal role with."

Is that an acceptable compromise?


* Early season 3 is an exception to that: Giles was perfectly accepting of Buffy's choice to have a relationship with a vampire in S1, but had second thoughts after Angel murdered Jenny and tortured him. He still seemed to come around to grudging acceptance again eventually, though.
** 'First Date'
*** 'The Gift'
**** He has, in fact, been severely criticised for letting Willow get on with her dabbling in magic without attempting to intervene and supervise her more closely.
***** 'Empty Places'

[gabrielleabelle.livejournal.com]

And because I'm fucking generous and you seem to not at all be grasping the argument about Giles' actions in LMPTM, let me sum that all up for you.

Giles: Spike be dangerous. Especially now he doesn't have his chip.

Buffy: Whatevs, Giles, I got it covered. No worries, k?

Robin: Dude, she's off the wall. I think we should kill Spike for her.

Giles: Fab idea, chap. I'll provide a diversion while you do the dirty deed.

Robin: We're gonna fight now.

Spike: Bollocks.

Giles: Hai, Buffy. Let me give you 20 questions about leadership.

(Break for actual lines from the show:

BUFFY
Hi, Rich. (punches the vampire again, knocking him down) Giles, we had this conversation when I told you that I wouldn't sacrifice Dawn to stop Glory from destroying the world.

GILES
Ah, yes, but things are different, aren't they? After what you've been through, faced with the same choice now, (paces) you'd let her die.

BUFFY
If I had to...to save the world. Yes.

The vampire gets up and attacks Buffy from behind. They continue to fight.

BUFFY
(the vampire tries to strangle her; to Giles) Can I kill this guy yet?

GILES
No. (Buffy and the vampire continue to fight) So, you really do understand the difficult decisions you'll have to make? That anyone of us is expendable in this war?

BUFFY
Have you heard my speeches?

GILES
That we cannot allow any threat that would jeopardize our chances at winning?

BUFFY
Yes, I get it.

GILES
And yet there is Spike.)

Giles: Obviously, you don't understand how to fight.

Buffy: Wat? Dude, I'd totes sacrifice Dawn now. I got my head on straight. No probs.

Giles: But there's a man that appears to be muddling your mind up.

Buffy: Hamnoo?

(GILES
You want Spike here even after what he's done to you in the past?

BUFFY
It's different now. He has a soul.

GILES
And the First is exploiting that to his advantage.

BUFFY
Oh, my God. (stakes the vampire) You're stalling me. You're keeping me away—

GILES
It's time to stop playing the role of general, and start being one. (Buffy runs off; Giles calls after her) This is the way wars are won.)

Giles: Obviously, you're all wrong and you're not thinking straight. I am, though. So I've taken the decision away from you since your brain is so addled.

Buffy: Hold on. This be a diversion, you prick!

*

It's pretty basic, dude. Giles doesn't trust Buffy's judgment. He doesn't trust her judgment specifically about Spike because he doesn't think she can think clearly where he's concerned. That's pretty damn well canon.

So, a man thinks a woman's can't think rationally because of her feelings for a man...this is text. This is pretty explicitly text. And it's further explicitly text that Giles believes he is more rational and unbiased than she is (otherwise he wouldn't go to the drastic length of helping to kill Spike). Not only does Giles believe he is more rational, he goes along with Wood who is decidedly not rational about Spike. But Men Bias > Women's Bias, apparently.

That's my Official Proposal of Sexism. It gets a pass from me. I don't give a fuck if it gets a pass from you anymore. In fact, the best thing for you to do is stop fucking commenting on this whole thing.

[gabrielleabelle.livejournal.com]

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.

[next_to_normal]

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.

[stormwreath.livejournal.com]

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.

[gabrielleabelle.livejournal.com]

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.

[stormwreath.livejournal.com]

If you're not willing to accept that basic premise

Of course i'm willing to accept it. My problem all along in this discussion is that you've been moving away from "People can act from sexist motivations, often without realising it" to assuming that sexism must be the reason, and any other possible motivation must be dismissed automatically.

A male character who has a long history of respecting a female character's judgment, but suddenly disagrees with her over something? Clearly he's been taken over by a sudden attack of sexism, rather than just, you know, disagreeing with her.