So, some of you may remember a post of mine from a while ago about Sheriff Joe Arpaio. He's the Sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona (where Phoenix is), and he forces all inmates who enter the County prison system to wear pink underwear. He's made a lot of statements about why he does it over the years, but it all more or less boils down to "showing them who's boss." "Sheriff Joe" as he likes to call himself, has been castigated by all sorts of civil rights groups over the years for a lot of things, including the pink underwear, but mostly due to his actions on immigration. But today, let's talk about pink underwear.
There's a lot to unpack there of course, about masculinity, control, and such. Why pink underwear on these alledged criminals? Well, it emasculates them, makes them seem less like men and more like women. And women are the weaker sex, meant to be controlled. And what does a Sheriff want to do with inmates? Control them of course!
So Sheriff Joe had a huge blow against this policy, I think, in the form of an opinion from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Eric Vogel, born 1964, was a man who showed signs of some sort of mental illness. On November 12, 2001, he left his home for no apparent reason. After running in to police officers and demanding to see the President, he was put under arrest for assaulting a police officer. Upon intake into a prison run by Sheriff Joe, he completed a mental health assessment and met with a psychiatric counselor, who put a psychiatric hold on him, suggesting he needed further treatment. Upon further evaluation, he was recommended to get treatment in the psychiatric ward.
But before being transferred, he had to "dress out" or put on the pink underwear. When he refused, officers forced undressed and re-dressed him, all while Vogel was screaming that he was being raped. During this period, he allegedly spit on a police officer during the "dress out." After a week's treatment, he was released upon being bailed. On December 6, while in a minor traffic accident in his mother's car, he was informed that there was a warrant for spitting on the officer. He fled his home, beliving the police were coming, ran 4-5 miles until he died acute cardiac arrhythmia. His family sued, believing that the trauma Vogel had endured in the prison was the cause of his feeling.
The 9th Circuit Court's (the 9th Circuit hears appeals from Federal District Courts, including the District Court of Arizona) opinion, focuses mostly on excluding testimony about Eric Vogel's belief that he was being raped during the "dress out," which was why, according to his family, he fled.
A couple quotes from the opinion struck me (brackets are mine):
[Vogtel's] mind was focused on the implications of being dressed in pink. That he had been dressed in pink was not a delusion. But what was essential to the plaintiff’s case was [his mother's] testimony that the shock and humiliation of the “dress-out” in pink was preying on his mind."
When a color of such symbolic significance is selected for jail underwear, it is difficult to believe that the choice of color was random. The County offers no penalogical reason, indeed no explanation whatsoever for its jail’s odd choice. Given the cultural context, it is a fair inference that the color is chosen to symbolize a loss of masculine identity and power, to stigmatize the male prisoners as feminine.
The Court also added:
Unexplained and undefended, the dress-out in pink appears to be punishment without legal justification.
What is, of course, so striking about this opinion and this set of facts is the power that gender and its constructions have on people. Now, Eric Vogel undoubtedly had a mental illness, which clearly affected his perception of the "dress out" that was happening to him. However, the fact remains that the underlying dress out had a purpose: to humiliate and emasculate men by having them dress in women's clothing. While Vogel's tragic death is certainly the outlier, it demonstrates the power that the State can wield when it chooses to use gender norms as a tool of control.
I want to give Hugo Schwyzer a quick shout out for resigning from The Good Men Project. It's a good article and Hugo explains a lot of the problems with Tom Matlack's behavior, both in his original article and in the ensuing twitter battle afterwards.
I might be a tad late on this bandwagon, but a friend pointed this out to me (h/t to Lindsey!) and I had to write something.
So I have to disagree with Tom Matlock. Being a "dude" is not a good thing. Tom Matlock's article talks about a lot about being a dude, and being blamed for being a dude, and not liking it when women blame him for being a dude, but he never really says what a "dude" is. He claims he doesn't want to look at the "macro," but look to at the "micro" instead. He doesn't really look at either.
Well, listen here: I think we all know what a "dude" is. If Tom simply meant "dude" to mean "human who identifies as male" or "human whose sex is male," I suspect if he would have said so. But by using the term "dude" to describe men, he uses a word rich with meaning and one inextricably linked with the kyriarchy and it's very fucked up sense of gender.
Tom asks "why men are blamed for everything?" I'll give him two answers. Firstly, they're not. Plenty of things happen that are the fault of women. The world is replete with women who buy into all sorts of fucked up gender things, and willingly or not, perpetuate it. There's also plenty of women who quite knowingly advocate for policies that I think leads to all sorts of fucked up ideas about gender. So, I'm going to call shenanigans on the premise of the question. But secondly, on the other hand: let's really examine the premise of the question. Ultimately, who has had power in this nation (and in most of the world), since the beginning? Men. So if you think there's a problem in this country, chances are, a man made it. Did he make the problem because he's a man? Probably not. But a man he was, and a problem he made. I don't think "men are blamed for everything" because they're men; I think men can get blamed for a lot of things, because we made just about all the things.
Tom's theory is that men and women are "quite different," and that women want men to be more like them. Thus, men must be resigned to the fact that they are unacceptable at some level to a woman in their life.
Well, that's pretty fucked up, so let's unpack that. I, for one, don't believe men and women "are" different. I think we're socialized differently; I think we're taught very different norms and practices about what is acceptable for us to do, to think, to be; but I don't think we have profound and innate differences. Tom again eschews any sort of macro analysis that might lead to these conclusions and thus to doubt his own theory, again pointing out that men and women "think differently, [...] express emotion differently, [...] are motivated by differen things, [...] think about sex differently, and [...] use a very different vocabulary."
These are all things that are taught. The Good Men Project, and I will give them credit for it, does point out how so many of these things are socialized. There's certainly many articles about how men are taught that they can't express emotions, except base ones like rage and lust, certainly not sadness. And there's been many articles about how women and men are taught wildly different things about sex. What's puzzling is that underlying all of Tom's "theory" and his post is that whatever differences there are between men and women, and Tom does say that they are "basic instincts," women should pretty much just shut up and accept men for how they are.
And the fact is, they shouldn't. There's not a whole lot redeeming about the stereotypical way that a cis, het man is socialized. Cherishing fatherhood? Sure. Being a provider? That's okay. But oh, the challenges, the obstacles, the travesties we men heap on our sons, our brothers, our fathers, I want so little of that for myself, or my unborn sons, or my male friends. And I certainly wouldn't want to be with a woman who would accept those things in me.
So my Reverse Sexism post has gotten quite a few comments, and I thought I'd address some of their points.
1. Discrimination based on sex is not sexism
Sorry dudes, it's not. "Sexism" is a manifestation of a large, societal system that privileges men over women. Frequently it manifests itself in the form of discrimination against women. But just because it does that, it does not mean that discrimination against men is "sexist." In fact, much of the "discrimination against men" that I see bandied about is really just legal mechanisms for redressing men being privileged over women. Evening the scales, as it were. Let's look at some examples, shall we?
Spousal/child support. This is a big one, frequently cited, but it's not sexism. Yes, men more frequently pay spousal and child support, and compared to women, they often pay more. An unsubtle analysis might make it seem like men are getting the short end of the stick. No, dudes, we're not. Women who work are paid less than men who work. So frequently, because our marriage laws generally demand a division of property, that means that a man who makes more than a woman has to give up some of his income to continue to support that woman. And that's for women who work. Women also have more barriers to entering and re-entering the workforce after having been a parent/caregiver. Women who care for children of a marriage give up the opportunity to work and make money, and engage in what we might call uncompensated child care. That's a disadvantage to women, post-divorce. Looking at child support, we see a similar pattern. Women are overwhelmingly expected/forced to take care of children in an uncompensated manner, so post-divorce, society looks to the income-earning spouse, generally the man, and expects him to pay up and help support the child. Moreover, society generally expects women to continue taking care of children after a divorce, without much of a regard to whether or not the woman wants to, or the woman's ability to re-enter the workforce and earn a wage to support those children. So as far as these forms of support, they're not things that "disadvantage" men, but legal mechanisms to help redress an imbalance that overwhelmingly favors men.
Let's look at a less legal example (and a much simpler one): "ladies' nights."
Some dudes look at this and say, "This is discrimination against men, because women get free drinks, and men don't." You're wrong. This isn't discrimination, but rather, a pretty blatant attempt to get dudes to go to bars by advertising to dudes that something they want is going to be at the bar: women. What these bars are doing is pretty much offering you a service/promise of women being there. You're getting something in return for not getting free drinks. And it's all a product of the pretty effed up kyriarchy.
Another example from my comments: the "concrete basement" or the fact that men are overwhelmingly involved in more industrial accidents than women. First off: see above re: the pay gap. More men are in industrial accidents because women were not allowed to be employed in industrial jobs. Men got the huge advantage of being in jobs where there was good wages (and as the 20th century wore on, benefits) while women were routinely denied being able to work at all and those good jobs too. Yes, there were more accidents, but women never even had the opportunity to take those jobs with its attendants risks and rewards. And certainly a discussion of sex-based fatalities could not be complete without what was the historically #1 killer of women for all time: child-birth. Sorry victims of industrial accidents, but there's a crapload more deaths of women at childbirth both today around the world and everywhere historically than there are for industrial accidents. This is a pretty common tactic of anti-feminists: to take a negative byproduct (industrial accidents) of what is a huge advantage for men (having jobs for wages), and make it seem as if it is "sexist against men" because of that byproduct.
One of my commenters, "John," laid out some more examples, and I'll address them. He mentioned the draft (selective service). While again, this is sex-based discrimination, but historically, selective service was viewed as a responsibility for citizens. And who weren't citizens? If you guessed women, you're right! The draft is another example of a negative byproduct that hurts men, but a byproduct of something overwhelmingly privileged in favor of men. When the U.S. was founded, women couldn't vote, mostly couldn't own property, couldn't be elected to office, couldn't engage in most occupations, etc., etc. Citizenship, and all its attendants rights (voting, participating in elected office, holding property) and responsibilities, like the draft, was exclusively male.
John made a pretty crazy argument about circumcision that I won't adress, suffice to say that according to my understanding of how this all works mechanically, female circumcision as practiced is far worse than male circumcision. John also brought up adoption, but I think I've addressed how legal rights in favor of women have developed to redress society's privileging of men on this stuff already. He brings up a pretty crazy argument about men who rape women (in statutory rape cases) don't have a choice in whether or not to abort, give up for adoption, or keep the child. I don't think I need to cover that one much more than simply to say that after committing the crime of rape, you don't get to press any parental rights upon the victim.
2. The Kyriarchy sucks for men too
Yo dudes, believe me, I get it: the kyriarchy, patriarchy, heternormative world sucks for men too. That doesn't make it "reverse sexist" however. It makes it shitty. And we should do stuff about it, but whatever it is, "reverse sexist" is not the appropriate term to characterize it.
One comments, in responding to comments about how women are often forced to prove themselves in workplaces, often competing against other women in a cutthroat manner, made the point that men also have to compete in a cutthroat manner against other men in the workplace. I'll wholeheartedly agree, but whatever you want to call that phenomena, "reverse sexist" isn't it.
If you're a man who recognizes that society sucks for men in the way it places expectations on men to act in certain ways and be certain ways, let me point in the right direction of the enemy: it's society and how we structure our culture, not women. Sure, women can buy into how our society is structured just as much as men can, but those women, just like men, but that doesn't make all women any more than it makes all men the enemies or opponents of feminists.
I hope that covers some of the common arguments the Men Dare Do! commentariat gave me, and I look forward to whatever else you guys are going to throw at me!
So it might not shock anyone to know that I used to play a bunch of video games. Mostly lighter stuff: text based political simulations like NationStates and CyberNations, but every now and then (usually while waiting for jobs to start), I'd play a little WoW or something like that.
So a bit of background about these games, political or otherwise, is that they're role-playing games. You have to create a character and go play as it. Frequently, in the political games, people would create a person who just represented whatever their own political views are, which frankly, seems a bit boring to me. But some people would create entirely different personas, and others still might have multiple personas. And although these games are usually overwhelming populated by men, a lot of these guys woud choose to RP a female character and (perhaps unknowingly) engage in some genderplay.
A common "complaint" among other men playing these political games is that they would point to a woman who had some sort of political position, or power, or influence and say, "She only got that because she's using her femininity to take advantage of all the kids/young men in the game," or something to that effect. Whether or not most women were using some magic female tricks to lure men into giving them power, I couldn't say (protip: I could say: they weren't).
But what was most interesting was talking to people who created new character who were women, either for the purposes of spying or role-play or whatever, because they got harassed, stalked, and the cyber-equivalent of being cat-called. I always knew it happened. I wasn't one of those deniers who felt women only held power in these games because of their femininity, but it was so fascinating to watch some guys who did think that, having pointed out to all the apparent hay made of women's sexuality in these games, not realizing that so much of it was unwillingly foisted on these women. I recall a specific time one guy role-played a woman in order to spy on some other group in one of these political games, and he came back after a few weeks telling me that because he was performing as a girl, he got hit on constantly, cat-called, harassed, and that generally people just assumed that any benefit or position he'd achieved he had gotten solely by (mis)using his female sexuality. It was pretty eye-opening.
On another front, and perhaps more familiar to my readers than some niche political games is World of Warcraft. It's not hard to find lots of interesting commentary on being female in WoW. But what's interesting is how so many male players who have a female character (or "toon" as they're often called) on WoW will report being shocked at the sexism and harassment that goes on. When you go into any of the main towns in WoW, you'll find hundreds, perhaps thousands of characters. It's pretty hard to be a female toon in town and not have male characters blow kisses at you, try to hug you, flirt, or makes jokes. And I'd be remiss not to mention the gendered expectations in how well you fight, heal, or do whatever it is your character is supposed to do.
A friend of mine who had played WoW for a while remarked to me that he liked playing as female characters, but in order to avoid the harassment that would come with it, would pick a character of a race (for non-WoW people: "race" means "species") that was least human-like, and thus least attractive to our norms. That way he wouldn't get harassed or catcalled, because he wasn't playing as a "pretty" character. Similarly, since he wasn't playing as very "girly" character, the assumptions that female characters are played by women and are therefore less competent were reduced; it was assumed that women would choose the girlier of the female characters.
I bring all these things up, because I wonder, as I usually do, can these phenomena, of men experiencing a bit of femaleness by RPing a female character in the gaming world, someone be made into an educational tool? I'm always trying to wonder how we can bring an understanding or an acknowledgment of feminist issues to men who aren't on board with the movement. Has anyone else had similar experiences in the gaming world?
I'll address their arguments in two parts: firstly the substantive parts, and then the strawman dictionary argument.
But this is really beside the point. And that is, OR-sexism collapses the entire system of kyriarchy down to a single oversimplified notion: That all men always have the social leverage to enforce or exploit their prejudices, and that no women ever do. But this is simply not the case. In the kyriarchy, different groups experience power advantages in different ways, in different contexts, and at different times. There is no one Group With All The Power, and no Ultimately Victimized Group. It doesn’t work that way, and frankly, the Oppression Olympics hurt everyone and help no one.
Firstly, they clearly mistake my argument. Simply put, what we call "sexism" is a term that is used to describe the manifestations of a large system that privileges men (and certain types of men). While I certainly agree that men can be discriminated against on the basis of their gender, that's not sexism the same way the above-mentioned sexism is sexism.
And this is an important point: the discrimination against women and discrimination against men are not the same types of discrimination. Their overall cause, our cultural system, is the same, but their manifestations are starkly different, bringing the issues to light is very different, and solving the issues is different. I think it's very important within feminist circles to be very clear in the terms we use, because using the same language to describe problems that have very different approaches to solving them is confusing.
I've talked a lot about how I believe a "problem" of feminism is that it is extremely ineffective at reaching "mainstream men." As in, your white, middle class, cisgendered men. Feminism casts issues from a feminine perspective, generally, because by using shared and common experiences, you can best reach your target audience. As a male feminist, attempting to reach a male audience, I (and people in our movement) need to use our shared and common experiences, which are necessarily different in many respects than women's experiences, in order to reach men. This necessitates a fundamentally different approach.
As I said within the context of talking to men about sexual assault: "talking to an oppressor is different than talking to the oppressed." That's not to say that men are not victims of the system we live in, and that many men do feel (rightly so) as if the system disadvantages them. Our system privileges certain men who perform masculinity a certain way. All "acceptable" masculinities have limitations, and men are no less victims to this than women are. However, they are not victims of the same things in the same way.
One of the reasons I sometimes cross-post, and I enjoy reading, Manboobz, is that David Futrelle's shining of a light on the MRAs also shines a light on a lot of underlying feelings and anger that men have at the system in which we live. While I tend to think that most of their ways to address or process their anger is misguided, it's there, and it's something we, as a feminists, have to find ways to address.
A second part of their argument, which I can't simply let slip by, is their reliance on the dictionary. Doctormindbeam writes, adding a dictionary definition at the end:
To begin, a linguistic pet peeve: words mean shit. You can’t simply redefine them to suit your needs. They have meanings, and they’re there for a reason. Namely, so that we can all fucking understand each other. In particular, “sexism:”
This is a pet peeve of mine. Dictionaries are great things. If you don't know what a word means, they can give you some pretty solid general definitions of words. But they're generally pretty poor at giving exact, specific, and academic meanings to words. Quite topical that this has happened this week, as this was brought up in the legal context by Adam Liptak, the Supreme Court Correspondent for the New York Times. He wrote in the context of Supreme Court Justices using dictionary definitions as evidence of the meaning of Constitutional phrases. Jesse Sheidlower, Editor at Large of the Oxford English Dictionary is quoted in the piece as saying: "I think that it’s probably wrong, in almost all situations, to use a dictionary in the courtroom[.] Dictionary definitions are written with a lot of things in mind, but rigorously circumscribing the exact meanings and connotations of terms is not usually one of them.”
This equally applies in an academic setting or in other settings where we ascribe very specific meanings that represent complex ideas and theories to single words. If we moved out of the realm of the feminism, for instance, and sought out a definition of "communism," I'd suspect we'd find as many definitions as we have dictionaries, and more than a few people who have been willing to fight and die over those definitions. Recourse to a dictionary is a strawman argument that obscures actual differences in ideas and theories.
I'd also note, for the record, that the definition used is from wikipedia, and it has a warning at the top: "The examples and perspective in this section may not represent a worldwide view of the subject. Please improve this article and discuss the issue on the talk page. (January 2011)"
A few days ago, a man I know leveled an allegation at a woman of "reverse sexism." It was within the context of him alleged that referring to men as "guys" or "boys" was derogatory, infantilizing, and thus, "reverse sexism."
I feel like talking about sexism, and "reverse sexism" deserves a post of its own. Let me begin by saying that generally speaking, there is no such thing as "reverse sexism." There just isn't. When one uses the word "sexism," you're not just referring to say, a derogatory term for a woman (e.g. "slut"), but rather, sexism exists at a macro level. It describes a system that privileges men (and specific kinds of men) over and at the expense of women (all women generally, while privileging some women over others). A remark or action that we call "sexist" is sexist because it exists within that larger context. If you call me, a man, some slur, let's say "bastard," that's not "reverse sexism" or anything of the sort, because it's not a manifestation of a larger system that is working against me based on my sex.
And of course, as has often been noted, the worst slurs against men are ones that attack their masculinity, and thus their privilege within that system. Calling a man a woman (not a man), or gay (not a man within the traditional system) are the worst things you can usually call a man and aren't "reverse sexism."
Talking about examples probably best illustrates this: I've seen some men point out that since "the feminists" say that terms such as "gals," "ladies," "chick," because they are frequently infantilizing, dismissive and such, then similar terms "boys," and "guys," must also be similarly infantilizing and dismissive towards men. This is wrong. The terms described above for women are dismissive and infantilizing depending on their context and within the heteronormative patriarchy, which is where we after all live. The terms for men are not derogatory, and if we examine them specifically, we'll find out that they're actually privileged terms. Think of colloquialisms for each term. To be described as "one of the guys," is a good thing. It means fitting in. Men are almost automatically "one of the guys;" women are not. Same with the term "boy." (Discarding the racial use of the term for now.) I think of the phrase "boys will be boys" as a means to excuse behavior in (grown) men that would be unacceptable in women.
In fact, I can't really think of many terms for men that are derogatory and based on their sex. "Dick" comes to mind. All the others I can think of either are A) terms that reduce their masculinity by associating them with a woman (e.g. pussy), B) terms that relate them to women (e.g. motherfucker), or C) terms that are sex-neutral (e.g. asshole).
Now, I don't doubt some commenters might take issue with my description that the larger system isn't biased against men. A fairly typical MRA argument points to alimony, divorce law, custody, and things of that nature. Although addressing those points could very well be posts of their own, I would merely point out that those laws are structured in ways that "favor" women in order to redress the systemic imbalance that exists in the system. So rather than pushing a scale against men, it attempts to equalize. (Let me editorialize a bit about the scale metaphor, and just state that I strongly dislike metaphors describing women and men in some sort of "war" or having "sides.")
So next time you hear someone make an accusation of "reverse sexism," just remember, it simply doesn't exist.
“What’s Missing from the Discussion on Male Sexuality” from the Good Men Project and the Man Project
Posted up at the Good Men Project is a discussion of The Man Project, a project run by Rachel Rabbit White discussing different aspects of male sexuality. A lot of different kinds of men with different kinds of sexuality contribute to the project. It's a really cool and I'd recommend it to anyone interested in the topic.
At least one of the quotes leapt out at me:
What about male stereotypes like guys being “less in touch with their emotions”?
Eon: In a breakup, for example, I think women have a lot more coping mechanisms that society supports. Men are expected to not care and move on. I don’t know what’s going on at the Moose Lodge and I’m sure that some of those brothers are helping each other out. But in general, it’s hard to help another man emotionally. It’s a pride thing and a societal pressure not to.
If we men want to talk about building a more positive masculinity(ies), this is a place I think we have to start: being comfortable Talking About Stuff. Stuff happens in life, and we men, however much we might not want to, feel emotions, and well, Stuff. And we're not socialized to Talk About It. I think far more importantly, men have to become comfortable talking about "emotions" with other men. I think that a lot of guys end up talking about these things with women rather than men. And while I don't intend to reduce the relationships men have with women, I think a lot of the time men talk to women because women are viewed as emotionally experienced, in that women are expected to talk about their emotions with other women.
Now obviously we're socialized to talk about some emotions. Anger. Jealousy. Lust. Happiness. It's not that we dont possess the other emotions, we just don't talk about them. At the risk of sounding a bit too touchy-feely (and un-masculine!) I think any thinking and speaking human being would say, acknowledging, thinking about, and articulating your emotions is part of your development as a person. If you're not willing to do that, it's a lot harder to grow as a person.
To: Boners Everywhere
Re: You & Feminism
Hey there Boners. How you doing? I couldn't help but notice that Feministe has a blog post called "Feminism Makes Boners Sad," about an article by Doctors Ogi Ogas and Sai Gaddam in Psychology Today called "Why Feminism is the Anti-Viagra." I was concerned that you might be sad and getting misinformed by Psychology Today, so I wanted to give you a bit of straight talk:
Now, Boners, I get it: a Boner is a pretty self-centered thing. I can't say that I have a whole lot of intellectual control over my own. Sometimes it happens when I want it to; sometimes it doesn't when I do. I bring up that you're selfish to make this simple point: I understand Boners aren't intrinsically feminist. I'm pretty sure I can safely say that you don't ascribe to any ideology. So the Boner doesn't care if something that turns it on is feminist, or misogynist, or anything else. The Boner is undiscriminating. It takes all comers. It is an equal opportunity employer. I've written before about how I think feminism for men means that the sex will be better, but I've never really addressed my points to you specifically.
With that said, let us begin, Boners:
Anyone who got any semblance of sexual assault education probably knows this statistic: one in four women who attends college have been victims of sexual assault or attempted sexual assault. So, Boners, I understand you're self-centered and well, unfeeling (emotionally speaking), so I'm going to talk to your baser instincts. Having sex with people who have been victims can be very hard. People often need a lot of help and support, professional and otherwise, to be comfortable with themselves sexually again. You know who you have to thank for that? Feminism.
I'm gong to shoot straight with you Boners, a lot of people in this country get some pretty effed up sexual education, where they end up ashamed of their sexuality, afraid to engage in their own pleasure, unwilling to try anything but the most vanilla things with the most vanilla frequently, and well, Boners, that kind of sucks (and not in the good way). But there's people out there Boners who want everyone to be comfortable with their sexuality, to do what turns them on safely and consensually, and well, give dudes Boners. That's Feminism there for you.
Now Boners, I don't mean to be a downer or deflate the otherwise happy note of this conversation, but as we all know, not every Boner has a happy ending. We all know that sometimes Boners can get all sorts of diseases from all sorts of places and things, but luckily, there's way to prevent that with prophylactics that can prevent the spread of STIs and HIV. You know who's out there spreading the word, distributing contraceptives to low-income people, and pushing for more progressive policies on family planning? Feminists.
Even though we all came from a Boner some time or another, from every Boner, a child is not made. But despite our best efforts, sometimes we have unplanned pregnancies, or planned pregnancies that don't progress the way they should. And the only reason that abortion is an option for women who need them is because of, well, you know who, Feminists.
Now, I know that the average lifespan of a Boner isn't very long, but if we can stretch our minds back a bit, we can probably remember times when we couldn't even talk about sex openly, when sex education was non-existent, or even to times when people believed that sexual activity for non-procreative purposes was sinful. I mean, I didn't count back then, but I think there were a lot fewer Boners in those days. It really sounds pretty shitty (and not the kind of shitty that's sometimes the byproduct of well ... a certain former Senator from Pennsylvania).
So Boners, I hope I've been able to get my point across. Feminism has done an awful lot of awesome stuff to gives lots of dudes Boners. And If really at the end of the day, you need some good ol' Victorian misogyny to get the blood flowing, well, there's all sorts of roleplay for that, which you know, is only really acceptable due to a lot of work by, well ... you know who.
Jeff & His Boner
As a warning, this post is a bit more rambly and personal than my usual ones, so I apologize in advance.
It's not unusual on feminist blogs to see a sort of "Dating While Feminist" type post every now and then. Feministe had a great post a while ago about an interview Jacklyn Friedman did (with Amanda Hess, who's great!) on "Fucking While Feminist."
But what about dating while a feminist man? It's a question I've given a lot of thought. Generally speaking, the issue is a continuance of a common feminist problem: living as a feminist. Making the political personal. I've spoken before about how my "click" moment was when I realized that my then-professed feminist beliefs really only encompassed policy positions (e.g. equal wages, anti-discrimination, pro-choice), but that I wasn't really living out those beliefs in my personal life.
But perhaps a "problem" as it were specific to dating is that simply stated: people who self-identify as feminists are a minority, so if you're going to be out there dating and you're a self-identified feminist, chances are you might be dating a non-feminist (or even an anti-feminist!). How do you do that? Should you bring it out on the first date? Second? Not at all and just let it come organically? These questions were all pretty academic ones for me for a while, as I was in a relationship for most of my post-feminist-click, but well, one thing led to another and I'm single again, and I've been having to deal with these issues head on.
When I set up a dating profile (yes, yes, like many other twenty-somethings, I have one), I actually put that I identify as a feminist in it, and it's led to some interesting responses. Far and away the majority of responses of are, "That's awesome!" which is certainly heartening. But there's also some more ambiguous responses. In asking me what it meant that I was a feminist, one woman volunteered that chivalry was dead and she wanted men to be men and women to be women. I didn't continue on that one.
As a feminist man, when I find I'm with someone (either just socially or on a date) and a discussion of feminism comes up with a non-feminist, I frequently get something like, "You're a lot more feminist than I am!" It's a peculiar position to be in, and not one that any of my prior feminist experiences really prepared me for. After all, when you're a feminist talking in a safe space with other feminists, you usually aren't confronted with a lot of people being "more feminist" than others in the same way. Of course, you have debates within feminist communities with more radical feminists on one side and less so on the others -- there is a spectrum, but everyone in the room is still feminist. My admittedly limited prior feminist outreach and activities was often in sexual assault prevention type stuff, and well, that's obviously not dating.
While I'm not a woman, so it's a bit tricky for me to make a comparison per se, I always feel like a lot of the "You're more feminist than I am!" statements contain a bit of incredulity at the fact that it's a guy who's more feminist than them. I don't always have a good response to that, other than that I sometimes say that I suspect they're just as a feminist as I (usually I hang with pretty progressive people), but just haven't talked about it enough.
I suppose one way to look at it is just like dating someone with different politics than yours. Many people (myself included) view their politics as important at a personal level, and would not consider dating someone who couldn't respect their views.
Perhaps I'll continue with a little series of missives on my travails on dating as a feminist, but I'll wrap this one up and invite anyone who has any comments or experiences they'd like to share on this topic to chime in!