next_to_normal (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
next_to_normal) wrote2010-07-31 07:23 pm
next_to_normal) wrote2010-07-31 07:23 pm
Entry tags:
Male Feminists?
So, the other day, ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
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 includinggingerwall'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.
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.
no subject
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?
no subject
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.
no subject
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?
no subject
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.
no subject
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.
no subject
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
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.
no subject
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.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
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.
no subject
I'm quite happy with saying that it's typically sexist behaviour, or that it reflects sexist stereotypes. You could even criticise the writers for putting together an episode that reinforces hostile sexual typecasting, although the fact that Buffy turns out to be vindicated in the final act works against that. My hesitation is over saying that sexism MUST be the reason in an individual case, when there are other possible explanations.
Also, for the record, I'm not telling you what you can call anything. I'm saying I will disagree with your opinion if you call it X. Big difference. :-)
Do you realize how limiting that is? How dangerous that is? That's how men have weaseled out of shit for centuries.
Yes, but nowadays, "Oh, those women blame everything on sexism. Men just can't win with them, so why bother even discussing it?" is how modern men weasel out of confronting sexism. That's a big reason why I've been pursuing this discussion instead of just letting it drop, because deep in my heart I don't want that to be true, and it's felt uncomfortably like that that IS what the two of you are arguing.
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?
It seems unlikely. The act of putting "...for Boys" on the box doesn't sound like a gender-blind action to me. The most you can say in their defence is that their decision might be purely commercial, if market research found that targeting the product specifically at boys brought in more sales than making it gender-neutral. That still mean they're perpetuating sexist stereotypes even if it's not out of personally-held beliefs; they've just decided that pleasing their shareholders is more important than making a better society.
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.
No, but you can bring forward numerous other examples of him treating women badly or making derogatory comments about them. Eventually the evidence becomes overwhelming. My point with Giles was that unlike with Warren, you can't bring forward a matching number of episodes where he belittles Buffy or deliberately undermines her, to suggest that it's a pattern with him caused by his underlying personality traits rather then being the product of specific circumstances.
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.
Do you not see a distinction between questioning a woman's judgement as a leader in a particular crisis situation, and thinking that her only purpose in life is to shut up and give men blowjobs?
Congrats, you've rendered feminist critique completely ineffective. Nothing's sexist anymore. Yay.
I hope my reply has convinced you I don't believe that. :-) Thanks for the thoughtful post.
no subject
And my issue is that this is exactly the type of problem feminism faces every damn time it tries to point out sexism.
Also, for the record, I'm not telling you what you can call anything. I'm saying I will disagree with your opinion if you call it X. Big difference.
Sexism isn't a matter of opinion.
Yes, but nowadays, "Oh, those women blame everything on sexism. Men just can't win with them, so why bother even discussing it?" is how modern men weasel out of confronting sexism. That's a big reason why I've been pursuing this discussion instead of just letting it drop, because deep in my heart I don't want that to be true, and it's felt uncomfortably like that that IS what the two of you are arguing.
So you're using what you confess to be a weaseling tactic to engage in a dialogue and you're, what, surprised that it's pissing a couple feminists off?
Do you not see a distinction between questioning a woman's judgement as a leader in a particular crisis situation, and thinking that her only purpose in life is to shut up and give men blowjobs?
Do you not see that that's not the point of the example?
Dude, you've been around feminist discourse long enough to know this shit. No event happens in a vacuum. Giles explicitly countermanding Buffy's authority, allying with a horribly biased man in order to carry out what he thinks is the right thing to do, all after six years of building up Buffy's independence as a Slayer and as a woman...
I don't care that there may be a chance that Giles' motives were absolutely pure. It doesn't matter. It's a sexist act because it falls in line with so many sexist tropes. Intent doesn't matter. Giles fucked up in a sexist way. To have you come in here and advocate for him ad nauseum, lecturing us to just give him the benefit of the doubt is fucked up.
It's a feminist discussion. We're looking at things from a feminist lens. A lens that recognizes that we live in a patriarchy and that most people are going to act in sexist ways at some point or another. When one person's actions appear to be sexist? We're gonna call it sexist. To do otherwise is to start ignoring actions that have sexist repercussions that eventually harm women just because the person doing the action doesn't have a history with that or is an otherwise egalitarian guy. No.
When Giles does something that undercuts Buffy's hard-earned authority - a very feminist role for her to be in - he's hurting women as a class. When he does so because he doesn't trust her judgment in regards to a man - a very old and harmful cultural meme - he's hurting women as a class. When he prioritizes the rationale of the man with a grudge over the woman who has consistently made the right calls, he's hurting women. Whether he sat down and thought, "Huh. Buffy's a silly girl who can't think straight. I think I shall undermine her." doesn't matter. What matters are that his actions play into explicit sexist cultural tropes and they have the ultimate effect of harming women as a class.
no subject
no subject
Yes, I've been following this discussion from the sidelines.
no subject
no subject
no subject
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.
no subject
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'
no subject
Don't make me freeze this thread.
no subject
no subject
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.