Men's movement archetypes: Artist: Shakespeare, in Sydney Morning Herald, November 7, 1997.
CONTENTS
PART I: Feminism and the men's movement
1. Why is feminism of interest to men
2. Trying to define feminism
3. Fraying of the unity of positive feminism
4. The best form of feminism is attack
5. Provisional conclusion
6. What can men learn from feminism
7. Is anti feminism the way to go
SEXUAL POWER MANIFESTO
PART I: Feminism in the men's movement
This page provides a political analysis of the dominance of feminism in society and the strategic issues facing men and the men's movement. It is an introduction to the politics of modern sexual power, revealing the centrality of feminism in the characterisation of sexual issues today.
As the study shows, the men's movement is not necessarily a force exposing the flaws in feminist concepts of power. It remains necessary to know when to support women's opinions on sexual justice and when to oppose them.
The essay is undergoing periodic development. This version amended February 2007.
If anybody wants to add some ideas on this subject send an email to Thinkbomb.
Why is feminism of interest to men
One of the biggest topics on the internet is sex. Most of this is pornography, which is designed to give satisfaction to sexual desire. When it comes to sexual politics and the discussion or inquiry into sexual power there is a different kind of agenda that is entertained on the internet, and in the whole of western society. The agenda is the desire for sexual rights and power. In this regard discussion is usually divided along very distinct lines. You either overtly hold a feminist perspective or you are opposed to feminist perspectives, or you pretend neutrality. In fact any discussion of sexual power and rights seems to get filtered through feminism. Even when the subject is male sexuality, the subject of feminism inevitably comes up. It is a reference point that both men and women constantly feel compelled to dance around.
The men's movement deals very heavily with feminist issues. Even men and women opposed to feminism focus on what feminism has to say. Though they may criticise feminism or question its view of men, they nevertheless put a great part of their energy into the analysis of this ideology, or simply fighting its demons.
There is something odd about this activity of trying to define feminism. Firstly why are men of an intellectual persuassion apparently so obsessive about the subject, especially when in many cases they are part of a movement dealing with male issues? If their interest is in men's role and power then why focus on feminism? Well, the answer to this question is instructive and it is one that must be explored. The exploration of the definition of feminism helps us to measure our view of ourselves. It is the starting point for any profound future comprehension of the way to make progress on sexual issues.
Feminism is a perspective on both men and women. It is in fact the dominant perspective on sexual relations and sexual power of sex today. And as I always say "you've got to go through it to get to it." We cannot understand the social power and goals of men and women until we understand the feminist perspective.
The argument and discussion of the subject reveals that the men's movement and even individual men see themselves either from a feminist perspective or have a feminist monkey on their back. Any attempt to develop a program of collective action or individual action must confront feminism. Once we can identify the true meaning of the word 'feminism' then we gain insight into its purpose and its relevance to our own collective and individual struggle. In other words, know thine enemy. But this is a complex task because on the surface it has such diverse schools of thought and its analysis of men and women seems very varied. First I want to allow a number of other people to give their interpretation.
The following quotes are cited to give some indication of the limited understanding of feminism and attempts by a number of authors to come to terms with its influence. According to Peter Vogel, publisher of Certified Male magazine:
"Equity Feminists believe in women's equality with men; that women deserve to have equal opportunity in all spheres of life. This is the basic position that most people, nowadays agree with and support. This is the track Naomi Wolf believes feminists should focus on. She uses the more hip term Power feminism which acknowledges that women have potential power that they are not using.Traditional [feminism] is the term used by Beatrice Faust to describe women who ignore their subordinate social position and do their best to succeed in spite of the obstacles. Assimilationist feminists believe that women have to make a choice between being a wife and mother or joining the men's world of business and politics. Domestic feminists, according to Faust, believe that a woman's place is in the home and actively oppose other women's ambitions for equal rights.
Reformist feminists believe that equal rights can be achieved by working within the existing establishment, changing it bit by bit. Feminist politicians or feminist bureaucrats (femocrats) work this way.
Revolutionary feminists (Faust's term) or gender feminists (Christina Hoff Sommer's term) believe that the very nature of men and women are so irreconcilable that reform is impossible. The only alternative is to overthrow the enemy (usually identified in vague terms such as "the patriarchy"). Some revolutionary feminists don't even think this is worthwhile, and choose to be feminist separatists. Separatists believe that the only way to escape the patriarchy is to have as little as possible to do with men.
In today's world, neither revolution nor separatism stand much chance of success. Faced with obvious defeat and nowhere else to go, this branch of feminism has turned to what Naomi Wolf calls victim feminism, or as Beatrice Faust rather less politely says, wimp feminism."
We can see already that there appear to be a variety of definitions for a variety of feminist political agendas and strategic orientations. Some of these you will have never heard of before and they are frequently contradictory. Let's see what John Mack of the South-East Queensland Men's Issues Page says:
"Warren Farrell broadly divides feminism into two schools of thought: Adolescent Feminism, which blames men for all the evils of the world and assumes that all men are rapists, child molesters, and active conspirators in the "patriarchy"; and Adult Feminism, which believes that both men and women are oppressed by traditional gender roles, and that men are willing and able to make changes complementary to those made by women through the womens' movement."
There are many other definitions. Tom Graves, formerly of People's Equity Network, suggested that true feminism is about women experiencing self discovery. This is in contrast to the dominant radical feminism which has supposedly appropriated true feminism and vilifies men.
It is beginning to be clear that we see a good and evil definition which pits a bigotted feminism against a purer earlier feminism. Many men support feminism because they support the earlier or lost version. The same may be said of many women and a look at my reader forum on the website will confirm this attitude.
Here is an excerpt from Brian Carnell's anti-feminist site guestbook in which a reader makes the typical defence of a mythical TRUE feminism:
"Why not characterize your site as a critique of "one school of feminism" or "a wing of feminism" or even "female chauvinism", rather than a critique of feminism. I found your site seaching for information on Cathy Young, and I consider her a feminist, not a counter-feminist. I consider Dworkin and MacKinnon the counter-feminists."
It becomes clear on reading all the above opinionated definitions that feminism can mean anything to anybody. This is completely inaccurate, naive and misleading. There is only one feminism today.
Fraying the unity of positive feminism
Over the last decades many men and women have chosen to view feminism in a positive portrayal as a fight for equality and liberation. Sounds good to me. As a man I am quite sympathetic to that and so I want to be feminist too. But the longer we look into it the more dubious the ideology looks.
There are firstly the feminists who say that all men are (potential) rapists. There is our first setback. Some men now say, yes all men are virtual rapists, but I'm not, please pat me on the head. This seems to be closely related to the SNAG male orientation (sensitive new age guy). They see their own sex as irredeemably sexist and they wish they had been born women too. They are men who feel profound shame for their own gender and will do anything to compensate for being male.
There are other men and women who stand more in the middle and say "I am not for that particular strand of feminism". They can then either stay comfortably feminist, but in a supposedly different version, or they can try to maintain peace and avoid any confrontation with the offended ladies. But this position never succeeds, because the feminist leadership always makes a point of attacking anybody who suggests that the reality of sexual power does not involve absolute male power. (Those who do not support us are against us.) To suggest that not all women are oppressed and some men also have a hard time in this world is to meet immediate wrath.
There is another active cause for dissent against the positive view of feminism. Many men who either never took any interest in feminism or who were initially sympathetic to feminism get married and three years later their wife leaves them and takes the kids. Suddenly they realise that the court system seems to treat them very unfairly on the basis of their male sex. They feel it in their hip pocket nerve. It is no longer possible for such men to ignore the feminist campaign in the media and in every avenue of society declaring that it is women who need more rights. These men know that if there is a patriarchy, they're not part of it.
A limited number of people from different walks of life realise that women are by no means treated unfairly and perhaps never have been. Looked at broadly, women seen to be improving their representation in politics, education, employment, arts, etc. Women's power collectively is increasing, alongside their confidence, while that of men, at least collectively, is subject to some crisis. The suicide rate for men has quadrupled over the last thirty years while that of women has remained stable. Men die 7 years younger than women. Far more women initiate divorce against husbands than the other way around. And when a woman divorces a man she takes better than half his worldly wealth.
So that is really the 'pathological' position men in particular have reached about the subject of feminism. They can't get a handle on this complex web of theory which portrays men as evil or dominant, when many men actually often feel weak, insecure and vulnerable. The first intellectual reaction of men when confronted by either their own suffering or this irreconcilable logic is to say, "If I live in a patriarchy, then how come I feel like shit?" The second reaction may well be "I am no longer a feminist" or "I don't like the feminist perspective on men." And then a close female friend will inevitably say, "that's not true feminism you're thinking of!"
In many ways this is the starting point of men's political organisation in attempts to begin to develop a cogent theory of sexual power. However the movement is also stuck at this point, a dialogue with feminism. The main intellectual part of their fight is engaged in refuting feminist claims that men are evil, oppressive and violent while women are virtuous long suffering victims, deserving special consideration for their various ills and disadvantages. As feminism is absolutely dominant in the media, the movement to represent men more fairly has had an uphill battle. Any attempt to fight for men's rights must be done at the same time as a negative image of the male soul is perpetrated through official channels.
And so, where sexual politics is concerned, men are still publicly characterised relentlessly in a negative way in sexual disputes and women in a virtuous victim way. In fact even the men's movement has a negative perception of general male identity. The movement treats men as a sex in crisis at the very least and at worst, a sex whose gender characteristics should be eliminated.
The best form of feminism is attack
Questioning of feminism is rarely viable in public and is never treated sympathetically at all. I have never met a male or female feminist who took any significant questioning of feminism in a considered and reasoned way. Anyone who takes issue with any of its ideology is automatically part of the backlash... a thoughtcriminal... a woman-hater. The more coherent your argument, the more pathological their attempt to brand you becomes. This is because feminists have so much at stake in having women as the victims of society and themselves as defenders of the victims.
But we can't shy away from trying to characterise feminism and to be put off by men and women who constantly shift the goal posts. There is a serious need to reassess the feminist perspective and come up with cogent answers about sexual power.
What ordinary feminists always say when you start to question their alliances is that there are a thousand different types of feminism. You must maintain your sympathy for the nice version of feminism, which is also the true version. This version espouses personal growth, equality and justice for women, who are under the iron heel of patriarchy.
And so men are always confused and in limbo. We are always trying to shed off the stereotyped bigotted view of ourselves, while not treading on the toes of the nice "true" feminism. Yet men keep getting lambasted. Feminists take pot shots at men with impunity, hiding behind the skirts of women who have adopted the feminist mantle in good faith.
Let's address the nice feminism in more detail. It comes under a bizarre variety of names. Such as equity feminism or true feminism. The first thing that equity feminism pretends to be is nothing more than a demand for fair treatment for women. But I have never met a man who disagreed with this principle. It is part of the deeply ingrained sense of justice and fairness that pervades Christian, Moslem and other religions and socialism. It is a deely ingrained part of Australian culture such as the "fair go" and in the US with Equal Rights Amendments. I have never met a man who said women should earn less for the same work or even that women should be banned from working if they wanted to. So the rational reply must be that you don't need to be a feminist to believe in equity or even to support a struggle for it. It just muddies the waters. (A side comment to make is that I have been on pro-abortion marches and was always keen in the past to support women's issues of equality, even as a man. But men were often banned from these activities, more or less. That way it has come to look like men don't support women's rights. But this is not true.)
The fact remains, men and women don't have much reason to define themselves as equity feminists. But here is another enigma. Christina Hoff Sommers is one of the darlings of the men's movement because she has criticised "extreme" feminism. The title of her book "Who Stole Feminism" is instructive because nobody ever stole it. The theory was born with original sin and the feminists of the 1950s had exactly the same attitude as the so-called extremists of today. Again, she is muddying the water. There was never a significant nice feminism!
Putting nice feminism aside, lets look at the real deal. Let me just say anecdotaly that every ordinary feminist woman (and some men) I know has several books on her shelf which religiously include Naomi Wolf's, The Beauty Myth, Susan Faludi's, The Backlash, and Germaine Greer's, The Female Eunuch. Quite often they also have Anne Summer's, Damned Whores and God's Police and others written by Andrea Dworkin, or Susan Brownmiller... and a variety of more contemporary authors.
I have many of these books, but I suspect the "equity" feminists have not read them or they have not looked at them critically. In every single case these famous authors claim that we live in a patriarchy that is oppressive, unjust and cruel. Women are sex slaves, second class citizens, relentlessly violated and exploited. The nuclear family is an instrument for paedophilia...etc. Even though not all these authors say that all women are raped, some of them do make this claim and the others never refute such a position. So the net effect is that this is close to the default belief. Contrary to silly revisionism, Naomi Wolf is also such a feminist. She is not merely a believer in equity and this becomes very clear when you read her first book, The Beauty Myth. Incidentally these women are merely the best sellers and a huge number of other books support the same positions, mostly limited to academia.
Let's just call these published women the disciples of feminism. They collectively have written the bible of feminism, although its parts are dispersed in a number of separate tracts.
Now, when I reveal to the average on-the-street feminist that any woman who marries a man is by feminist definition a prostitute and sex slave, she will reply that this is just an extreme position. Wrong! It is the orthodoxy. It seems extreme because it is extreme, but it is still feminist "intellectual" orthodoxy. But your average on-the-street feminist simply hasn't read the book that is on her or his own bookshelf. Only by reading all of these books end to end and collecting their essential shared opinions do you finally realise how systematically constructed this viewpoint is.
The extreme feminists are in fact all the most famous ones. This includes Gloria Steinem, Germaine Greer, Naomi Wolf, Susan Faludi, Kate Millett, Katherine Mackinnon, Susan Brownmiller and countless recent others.
Funnily enough, when someone like Helen Garner (Australia) or Susan Hoff Sommers (America) comes along to refute "extremism" she is savaged by a pack of these feminists who decry that she is anti-feminist. The disciples don't accept her as one of their own. Nice feminists die young.
Germaine Greer, one of the world's premier feminists, launched another book several years ago, The Whole Woman. It was widely publicised in all the major papers in Australia and Britain. In interviews she said what she has said for decades:
"I have always thought that women are bloody amazing. I am always delighted and astonished by them"
What does she think of men?:
"I am here to tell men that the thing between their legs is not the thing they think it is. It is not even good for giving people pleasure, except for perhaps themselves. I think that is an important feminist point..."Review of book The Whole Woman, In Sydney Morning Herald, Monday February 22, 1999.
I repeatedly talk to men and women who agree that Germaine Greer is extreme. (Although there are others who agree with her.) They say that TRUE feminism is about equality and personal development and liberation. But somehow it is Germaine Greer who gets front page billing to advocate the castration of men. And surely personal liberation is about the personal. It has nothing to do with feminism, a system of thought which at its most benign must see women as oppressed by men.
The conclusion that is inevitable is that these femo-pussies, especially the men, are really just apologists for the 'extreme' ideologies used to abuse men. They are desperately trying to give feminism a good name, to put a nice spin on its offences. It's like trying to define a nice version of fascism, a completely hopeless and misleading project. The irony is that these men and women therefore help to perpetuate the espousal of stereotypes about men and women that may be destructive.
It becomes clear that the male feminists in particular simply have some kind of pathetic desire to be accepted by dominant women. To put it chronologically, they have initially entered the realm of sexual politisation. They have then read some books about sex, which are invariably feminist. And they now want a pat on the head (and maybe a root) from the women who espouse a revulsion at men in general.
Feminism is about seeing women as victims in society. Of this there is absolutely no doubt. No matter what branch of feminism it is, this is a basic tenet. Some espouse this ideology more fiercely and fanatically than others. When one feminist (disciple) says that almost all men are rapists another never disagrees publicly and so this still becomes a principle of feminism. This is true even if the unread on-the-street feminist doesn't realise it.
When a Helen Garner (or Rene Denfield or Katie Roiphe) comes along and asks a teensy little question about the orthodox portrayal of men as sexual abusers and women as victims, in some real world example, she is crucified publicly. In the case of Helen Garner's book, The First Stone, it became the biggest controversy in Australian literature for 2 years (1996-97). However the irony is that she only engaged in a liturgical question.
Feminists (and I am talking about the leaders here) have always had a strategic problem with the promotion of their ideology. The problem for the disciples of feminist religion is that their rigid and unified worldview may appear implausible to the "audience" of potential feminists in the public. Feminism is always looking for recruits or converts and is alway disappointed that the majority of women and girls still see feminists as man-hating, hairy legged lesbians. (Thank God for the ignorant masses.) So the self-appointed role of "true" feminists is to shift the palatability of the doctrine. You may note the similarity to Christian infighting about the resurrection, and its plausibility. Therefore in Christian infighting among clerics we see an argument about whether Christ only symbolically rose from the dead or whether he really did defy reality etc. Equally feminist matriarchs want to maintain the credibility of their propaganda in the eyes of the public, but only to retain the essential doctrine that women are the sole victims of society and suffer unrelenting discrimination.
Another feminist recently said that she visits schools to teach feminist ideas and she makes sure to put on some lipstick, to ensure the students don't get the wrong impression. So even if it takes a bit of lipstick, its good to get the message across that you should never play up to men by making yourself look attractive?!?
What has been discussed so far has merely been the most tame and harmless element of the ideology and then only in general terms. Let's move on for the moment.
What can men learn from feminism
Having given some initial indications of the broad ideology of feminism it is important to ask what redeeming lessons that feminism provides in the search for progress on sexual conflict and the characterisation of the true relations of power between men and women. The simple answer is very little. In fact, the most important lesson is a negative one. It is certainly important to know the enemy, but to submit to its ideology is to negate one's own rights and credibility as a human being. There are several strands to this. For example, feminism isn't about liberation as it has always been portrayed. It is about viewing women as victims of men and of patriarchy, no matter what the facts actually are. This is already disturbing. However women in fact are very often not the victims of sexism and male power. There are plenty of instances in which we might see women to be the dominant and privileged sex. In some relationships "she wears the pants." In some relationships women are violent toward their meek husbands or their children. In some legal cases, especially in the family court, she gets viewed with greater sympathy. Spending on women's medical conditions is far higher than that for men. Women are dominant now in universities and colleges and are getting better results than many men. When employers are confronted by a male and female applicant they must choose the woman to ensure equity. So for any person to still insist on seeing women as victims, is to continue to give women extra rights, political leeway and first bite of the cherry, even if it is not warranted. In cases where a dispute over child custody is at issue men often discover too late that they are the underprivileged party, discriminated against by a pro-female sexist judiciary.
The same point is true in regard to the men's movement perception that men need to be liberated. It is a common assumption that feminism was an important force that liberated women and therefore we need a men's movement that follows in its footsteps. This could be a disasterious project leading to two main outcomes. Firstly, men could start to see themselves as victims of patriarchy too, and start conforming to feminist assumptions of male patheticness. Or men could see themselves as victims of feminism and feel the need to have a backlash that would be essentially anti-woman.
It is doubtful whether we will ever have a society where men will be allowed to view themselves as victims as women are allowed to do. Nor is this necessarily a bad thing. Men's traditional social role has been to be strong and stoic. It is worth thinking carefully before abandoning this as yet another pathetic characteristic of men.
Liberation may not be men's most pressing need. For men facing custody disputes over children the most important need is simply to receive fair treatment. This is not to say that many men could not do with a big dose of personal development. But feminism will provide no clue to this. Virtually all feminist texts are a rampant, contemptuous vilification of men. There is nothing in them to do with personal development or growth or improving the relationship between men and women.
More on male personal development later.
Is anti feminism the way to go
By now you will believe that the position adopted here is anti-feminist. It is a troubling label to adopt because most thinking men and women immediately think I am a pig. Indeed, I would have also condemned myself outright a few years ago. The anti-feminist label leaves you wide open to the assumption that you are associated with anti-females, macho idiots and sentimentalists. This includes conservatives who think that there was a sexual utopia in the 1950s when women knew their place and men were still supposedly confident. There is a small number of anti-feminist men who think women should be driven out of the workforce alltogether in order to reestablish men's credibility in society.
My response to such a criticism is this: firstly I am broadly a liberal and equalitarian. I believe women should have equality before the law and equal pay for equal work and all the rest of it. In fact treatment of women, to make them advantaged or gain special privileges, doesn't necessarily bother me all that much either. More on this some other time. Next, I think anti-feminism is an uncomfortable title. I can't possibly advocate anti-feminism as a viable long term position, as the basis of a progressive movement, especially one benefiting male rights and development. It is certainly one of the reasons many men (and women) in the men's movement have been reluctant to associate themselves with this title. It doesn't look good to be anti-feminist and it suggests that you are into opposing women, rather than building something constructive, especially for men. But the fact remains that there is a battle of the sexes. There is a war being waged by feminists and many of those men most capable of fighting for men's rights are refusing to engage the enemy. Is this a noble and effective strategy, such as adopted by Gandhi, or does it slow men's gains down to a trickle?
We have many men working against us. On top of that we have men who have no espoused position on feminism. They are neutral. But in adopting this position they are often not even aware what agenda feminism has. Nor, in many cases, do they understand the true character of male and female sexuality, because they have been afraid to question stereotyped perceptions. It allows such men to more easily accept the idea that men are in crisis. Men are fucked up because we have had power so long and have repressed everyone, including ourselves. But this is altogether not true. It results in seeing men through feminist glasses and drawing the wrong conclusion about problems, strategies and remedies.
The solution to this issue is again ambiguous. In many cases it is best not to engage in the feminist war because it is petty. It might be very useful to solidify the struggle for men's rights by making the refutation of feminism an understood element. In other words, a counterassault in the ideological war against men is useful to give the movement more breathing space.
Got something to say!? Contact Thinkbomb and leave a message. I no longer post messages but I do reply.
Don't forget, there is also a wealth of material on the page links below. Includes facts, opinions, satire, news and references.
Go to top
