TBF: Feminism (Part 1)

...04/12/07

[Taken from Echoes: Gun Politics:

"I HEARBY ISSUSE AN OPEN CHALLENGE.. OF SORTS.

I'M LOOKING FOR A WOMAN, ANY WOMAN WHO CAN WRITE ABOUT FEMINISM AND REALLY GIVE IT THE JUSTICE IT NEEDS.

THIS IS OPEN TO ANYONE (EVEN YOU MARIE) ALL I ASK IS THAT YOU GIVE IT YOUR BEST. I AM BASICALLY SAYING I WANT YOU TO WRITE FOR THE BRIAN FACTOR. THE POSTING DATE DEADLINE I AM AIMING FOR IS JUNE 15TH."]


...June 11th, 2007

A few names both new and familiar to TBF showed interest, but in the end there are simply two...


...June 13, 2007

Two choices.. Two voices.. Two ideas.. Two beliefs..

So who do I choose?

Both are strong, even, well researched and offer great visions of Feminism.

Also just to add more fuel to this fire.. One voice belongs to a woman and the other.. a man.

So before me are representatives for both genders... That's a tricky one.

Originally I had envisioned a woman, but a pure voice that speaks nothing but truth has no real identity except for truth. it isn't about Men vs. Women it is simply the truth.. nothing more.

Yet I couldn't pick one, so this week keeping in tradition of the controversy we so love to give here at TBF, we are hereby proud to present:

Jacob "Cerebral Cortex"

and

Harlean Carpenter

IN

"He Said/ She Said"

As they team up to tackle this week on The Brian Factor: Feminism


HE SAID:

Let me start by saying that I'm not a misogynist. I love women, and I support women's equality. Let me also say that I wasn't going to write anything originally, but that Curtis (The "Pancake King", Sorry Marie) encouraged me to do so, and so, here I am. Blame him. ;)

That said, feminism is a touchy subject. In theory, I would like to support it. After all, what kind of guy wouldn't support women? They can be fun to talk to, and they have those lovely breasts that they carry around that we can look at and squeeze. (I'm being somewhat humorous here, folks, so please try to keep up and keep your panties out of a knot... ha, ha, ha.) But nevertheless, I find myself unwilling to call myself a feminist. Why? The reasons for this essentially boil down to a few major issues, which I'll try to address concisely below (I've written at great length on all of this on my blog, so just go there if you want to read something longer):

1. A lack of consistent meaning for the term.
2. A lack of self-policing, especially with respect to unchecked "backlash."
3. Hypocrisy.

One: What exactly does "feminism" mean? If you look it up in the dictionary, search Google, or ask around, you will hear myriad differing answers. Some people will answer you by saying that "feminism is the belief that women are people too." (Of course, such an answer is absurdly simplified, and exists less to explicate the term than to cast aspersions of, "Wat? Yuo dont supprot Fuminism? Wimon haetar!") Someone else might tell you that it refers to a socio- political system designed to lever women into positions of social power. Still someone else might tell you that it's a frame of mind designed to change the way that people think and eliminate the plague of violent masculine thinking. Someone else could say that it's a concept designed to create equal freedoms for women and men both. Another person might answer that it's an organization that exists to eliminate men and create a utopia by making a society of only women.

With so many extremely different ideas and no consensus as to what feminism is (a fact that some people, interestingly, cite as a strength), I feel extremely uncomfortable saying that I support it. I'm a member of the ACLU, but if it had no clear mission statement, I wouldn't be. I call myself a Democrat, and I know what that means. I identify myself as Jewish, and I know precisely what Judaism is. I can call myself a blogger, a man, an American, a liberal, a student, a mathematician, an environmentalist -- and I know exactly what each and every one of these things means, because they all have clear definitions. But I won't stick a label on myself if I can't tell you what it means. Feminism, if it ever had a clear meaning or purpose, has become a gargantuan all-encompassing term for a number of sub- concepts, which realistically should be broken into their own discrete, differently-named groups. (Hell, feminism is large enough that if you pick two feminists at random, they likely won't agree with each other on at least one issue that is claimed as a tenet of some part of feminism. For a famous instance of this, look into the "sex-positive feminists" versus the "anti-pornography feminists" (the "feminist sex wars"); the former believe that pornographic sex can be positive for women as well as men, while the latter believe that pornography is a large cause of rape and other violence.)

Two: Feminism doesn't police itself. If you're among a group of guys, and one of them makes a misogynistic comment, the others will usually admonish him. Similarly, in the media, if someone makes a comment that is sexist towards women, he or she is usually called on it, forced to apologize, and punished. However, feminism heartily embraces a number of things which, if put in reverse, would be immediately chastised. For example, while in a liberal store a couple weeks ago, I saw a bumper sticker that read, "If you feel attacked by feminism, it's probably a counter-attack." Apparently the appropriate
response to violence is more violence, then. A famous quote that many have no doubt heard is, "A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle." While the base meaning is obviously true (a woman does not specifically need a man per-se, just as the converse is true (a man does not specifically need a woman), and, similarly, a dog does not specifically need an owner, a bird does not specifically need a tree, you do not specifically need good-tasting food, etc.), most women (even lesbians) would probably agree that life wouldn't be as enjoyable without men. And for straight women, why not make it okay to "need" a man? I don't need a woman to survive, but I don't need electricity, nice clothing, a degree in mathematics, a car, a nice mattress, a group of good friends, or any of the other things that make my life pleasant either. In that vein, then, I do need a woman. Without women, my life would lack a critical piece -- that of a female counterpart to myself, someone to provide me with love, affection, sexual pleasure, companionship, intelligent conversation, and a different perspective. So, similarly for women, why can't they need men in the same way? It's not a weakness to say you need other people; conversely, however, it is a weakness to insist that you don't need someone else and insist upon living alone. We call such persons "sociopaths," because they cannot function within the normal constructs of society.

Aside from the aforementioned, there are many other and better examples of a lack of policing that I could cite as well. "SCUM" (the "Society for Cutting Up Men") is hailed as an interesting historical work instead of the insane, pathological writings of a murderer. Feminist writings still abound with references to "the patriarchy" (often capitalized, to humorous effect), with the inference being that it's bad because it's masculine. When discussing sexuality, male sexuality is often demonized, with men's sexual urges described as "violent" or "animal-like," and pornography described (by some) as something that makes rape acceptable or even appealing. Some have written on "the male gaze" -- the tendency that many men have to notice and observe attractive women -- and claimed that it is evidence of "enculturated sexual objectification of women," while still others have described men's sexual interests as infantile (by claiming, e.g., that many men's love of breasts can be directly correlated to experiences while nursing, and so, men have never outgrown their infant stage). The book, Are Men Necessary? is displayed in bookstores across the country -- and not as an example of pathology, but of great writing. Such are just a few examples of a lack of self-policing.

Three: Despite being lauded by many as a movement that aims to help men as well as women, feminism often turns a blind eye when men are adversely affected but women are not. I have never heard a feminist complain that the draft is unequal, despite the fact that men are required to register with Selective Service on their eighteenth birthday, and women are not only not required, but legally not able to do the same. Simply put, the message seems to be that since it's not their balls on the line, it doesn't matter. Feminists will often cite college enrollments as a victory for women instead of a problem -- despite the fact that men make up the vast minority of college applicants and students, the number of men graduating from and applying to college is falling, and the grades of boys in high school and below are consistently lower than their female counterparts -- and also falling. Last time I checked, inequality isn't equal... but apparently it is, as long as it's not unequal for you. The media are rife with images of violence towards men -- often with a laugh-track attached. One need only see a television commercial or show on a station of one's choice, or even just a movie trailer, to see men slapped in the face, anally raped in jail, or kicked in the testicles (all of which would no doubt be cast as "funny"). Try filming and then playing a scene with a woman who is hit, raped, or sexually assaulted, and I think knee-slapping laughter is the last response with which you'll be met. Yet such violence is not only accepted without thought, or treated as funny, it's often lauded as being good for women. "Yeah!," the message seems to be, "You go girl! Girl power!" And when they're not being assaulted, men in television are often stupid. Turn to the sitcom of your choice to see a bumbling father whose wife barely tolerates his endless stupidity.

Meanwhile, there is money to be made off of inequality elsewhere as well. Many Hallmark cards -- geared mainly towards women -- refer to men as stupid, lazy, or inept. It has become so commonplace to refer to men as animals that some men will preempt women, and call themselves "pigs" or "dogs" -- but, of course, it's not okay to call a woman a "bitch." Despite the almost universal hatred of men who treat women like "pieces of meat," and the disgust with men who judge women based on their breast size, if a man pays for the "evaluatress" service, a woman will come out, strip the man naked, and then grade him based on his physical appearance -- including whether or not his penis is large enough (for a similar train of thought, watch the hit show "Sex in the City"). In a similar vein, one woman has written a series of books on ways to abuse ex-boyfriends when breaking up with them without breaking the law, while another has created a website where ex-girlfriends can post pictures and contact info of their ex's, along with embarrassing information, in order to "get back" at them. Legally, men are at a severe disadvantage, with most marriage courts requiring men to pay alimony to their wives
regardless of whether or not the wives are more financially secure, and women often being given custody of children by default regardless of whether or not they should be. A woman need only claim that she was raped or molested to have a man brought to court, even if there is no evidence against him, and convicted or forced to give DNA samples that are kept permanently on file, even if he is found innocent. California just passed a bond measure approving the creation of shelters for domestic violence victims -- as long as they are women or children, and despite the fact that research shows that men and women commit domestic violence equally, but men are far less likely to report it when they are victims. The FBI does not record the number of rapes committed against men per year, because rape is defined as forcible sex with a female. Although many women suffer from depression and eating disorders, men commit suicide at a rate far higher than that of women, and anorexia and bulimia among men is a growing disorder, fueled, no doubt, by the growing trend of highly unrealistic male bodies in advertising -- something that is rarely, if ever, discussed. Although the data indicate that women are paid less than men on average, what is not often mentioned is the methodology by which the data are gathered -- simply taking the mean of all incomes, regardless of work time, experience, etc. -- and that when men and women with equal experience and work amounts are compared, their pay is virtually identical, with women paid even more than men in some fields. What does all of this have to do with feminism? Thusly: feminism, the system that exists to make men and women equal, does not discuss any of these things, nor try to correct them. It is apparently a system of one-sided equality.

The above is an executive summary of my main reasons for refusing to call myself a feminist. Instead, I call myself an egalitarian. I believe that people should be treated equally, and given equal freedoms, regardless of their sex, skin color, etc. However, I refuse to identify myself as a feminist, for the reasons outlined above, among others. It is simply a system with too many downsides.

And that's that. Peace out.

[Brian: Thank You, great job Jacob]