Man and/but/or Feminist
Miraploy’s comment on orkinson’s vm post ticked me off from the get go. To be honest I have an extreme dislike of most men that call themselves feminist (what about me? self-hatred?), or rather if that is the first thing out of their mouth before saying something misogynistic or sexist (ah, a qualifier. I don’t hate myself!).That said Miraploy made it easy for me to explain something I’ve been thinking about– Those man-but-feminist-types (it’ll be clear in a bit). So I found the easiest way to detail what I meant, was to do a close reading of Miraploy’s comment.
I’m a man, and I came upon this post by accident, so maybe that disqualifies me from commenting.
Obviously it didn’t. See, the man-but-feminist first humbles himself, pretending to be, or actually is, aware of his privilege. This statement should never be made. Why would you comment (either on the internet or the material world) saying you might not be able to comment, or shouldn’t comment. It is a sure sign that a big, ol’ BUT is about to pop up.
But I consider myself a feminist and I think your post is ignorant and lacks context.
What!? Why is it a BUT? As if man and feminist are incompatible in some way. As if there is if there is some essential quality in men that prevents them from caring about women, or women’s equality/liberation/rights/desires/(etc etc etc etc). Also the man-but-feminist will attempt multiple times to exert his feminist-iness on you until you understand. And quickly a switch to attacking the post (or in the real world discourse a person used). Who the hell, gets to say whether someone’s opinion is ignorant! But even more how does a person of privilege call someoneelse’s position ignorant.
Traditional feminism, second wave, or whatever you want to call it before it imploded, was all about rebelling against the historical patriarchy and establishing women as equal to men, putting them on the same playing field and giving equal importance to their needs, or conditions, or whatnot. So on this basis, I think your critiques are horrible.
Thanks for the context. Thanks for throwing your knowledge, and thanks for not critically engaging in what was written, but instead using facts, your knowledge of textbook feminism (which looks pretty lacking anyway, btw’s), etc to disprove a real, live woman’s experience.
I had written a bunch of shit addressing every single point in your post, but it got deleted when my browser crashed.
The man-but-feminist always has a lot of facts to back up points. This is what he thinks about when he isn’t listening, and then tells you you are wrong.
So I’ll just address where I think you’re most wrong, and that’s on sexuality. Female sexuality is defined in terms of what men want. That’s how biology works. It’s OK if you don’t want to have sex with men, but the human race is built for males and females to have sex together and reproduce. And that’s not necessarily (though it can be…) oppressive or patriartical.
The man-but-feminist always knows. He won’t even admit that this knowledge comes from something he read, or heard, but rather is pure objective fact. Often with calls to science and rationalism to back him up, the feminist-but-man knows more about you than you. Oh also! A good dose of biological determinism (in this case) or poorly understood social constructionism (for the more hip man-but-feminist) come in here.
Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah
The man-but-feminist never quickly gets to his point– he can’t just prove you wrong, but provide enough bulk for you to have a lot to respond to. I may have made up this quote, but I skipped a similarly sized passage. This was just more entertaining than those long, droll sentences.
But last word on that topic. In this culture, female sexuality has historically been ignored, vm is in the tradition of trying to oppose that. Has it gone too far? Next paragraph… But this type of message is still needed. There are places in the country, much less around the world, where female sexuality being under lock and key is the norm. This message is the symbol of western feminism and is worth promoting as part of a multi-front battle against sexism.
Hazaah! Suddenly his points of knowing more about you than you have a purpose. Our glorious knight-but-feminist will liberate all of the worlds women from their primitive captors. In this case he saves them so they can enjoy sex (hopefully with him, perhaps). The man-but-feminist isn’t an ally towards a feminist vision, but feminism’s golden messiah who will deliver women to safety on his celestial, anti-sexist penis.
Has it gone too far? I don’t think so. Does it reduce females to their genitals? Yes. Is that bad? No. There are plenty of media that reduces men to just their genitals. If you don’t think so, you’re not watching enough mainstream media. But you raise this point in #9.
“Stop bitchin!,” exclaims the man-but-feminist. Men have it bad too, it sucks for all of us. This point always comes up, rarely with any acknowledgement of differences of levels of privilege and oppression.
You might be tempted to say, well it’s bad for both men and women, nobody should be reduced to just their genitals. I disagree. Art exaggerates, art caricatures, art reflects both our cultural fears, cultural sins, and amplifies them. I don’t know where you’re coming from, and so arguing this point here might be pointless, hence I’m not going to bother. But my view on this is, ridiculing or insulting people is ok, so long as it is in the name of art.
Translation: Don’t be a feminazi! Art is cool. It makes me think, but mostly makes me laugh. I don’t care how uncomfortable/oppressed/angry/sad/(insert emotion here) it makes you don’t critique!
I can also give a 2 hour long lecture on the biological and sociological history of this type of ‘reductionism’, but suffice it to say that this type of thinking has always been part of us, and always will be. It is integral to how we think as human beings, and when used by educated people will not be taken as more important than it actually is. That is, people do not actually think women are just vaginas despite what vm says.
” I know science!” “I also know a lot!” This point never grows old. It will be repeated until you tire of reading the comment, and then a new comment will pop up.
Though you seem to be the perfect fit for me. I’m OK with having sex with just your clitoris if you’re ok with my micropenis.
“I want to have sex with you,” says the man-but-feminist. Man-but-feminists can’t help bringing this up when sex is the topic. The proposition is always given with a bit too much sarcasm to be sarcastic if you know what I mean.
Also! The powers of the inevitable, and holy vaginal-orgasm-you-gotta-have-this-phallus argument are ever so persuasive.
#7: I agree, materialism has nothing to do with vaginas. I don’t know why vm has so much of that shit.
The man-but-feminist has to agree on something, or else he can’t prove he is a “man, but a feminist.” Conceding on the one point, that he managed to desex, degender, and/or depoliticize, he can agree whole heartedly: “I too dislike consumerist materialism. Now back to how much you are wrong, and I am awesome.”
#9: You’re a huge hypocrite aren’t you.
Gotcha! The man-but-feminist will try to find someway to just straight-up call you wrong, but not with detailed (but please lord concise) arguments, but with a name. Appealing to your sense of guilt about some privilege you posess is easiest. Hypocrisy is such a loaded word, that is really hard to throw around. Responding with an insult is the easiest way to avoid making a solid argument. (Oh and the argument’s have been so solid so far, haven’t they, or at least excessively long).
“Dark hordes,” to use the words of Bq. Homogenization.”
Uh huh.
“Now you can have whatever you want, men, because women are in cahoots with you because of this stupid play.”
“Uh huh” “Uh huh” Dismissed! Even better than the one word insult, is the complete dismissal of what has been said, with a “uh huh,” or something of the like.
All this is not to claim that I think I am some perfect feminist. I am a man AND a feminist. Or at least I try to be. I read. I listen. I’m down with women’s liberation and equality. I am generally sucessful in treating women like human beings. Not to say I don’t have, and haven’t had, my man-but-feminist moments (hours, days, weeks, years). But to say that I try. I think the biggest differences between the man-BUT-feminist, and the man-AND-feminist is that the man-AND-feminist remembers that he is an ally for women seeking equality/egalitarianism/autonomy/liberation, that being an ally is about recognizing privilege, and that the most important tool at an ally’s disposal when talking to women (or who ever you are an ally for) is to SHUT THE FUCK UP & LISTEN. STFU&L is important before ever making a comment, that will hopefully keep the man-AND-feminist from becoming a man-BUT-feminist.
*Check out the male privilege checklist if you aren’t sure what sort of privileges you have.
**A helpful guide to privilege.
***Also note: Almost sorry, Miraploy, to use you as an example. Your comments just embodied everything that I had been thinking about lately. And I mean, the words did come directly from you (minus some blahs! but they were just filler for blahtastc stuff) I don’t have any worries really though. I’m sure (after your attempt at criticism) you can take some constructive criticism, you’re a big boy.
Gender Agenda 
ROYCE! I APPLAUD YOUR POST! thank you for your critical, detailed, comprehensive, well-written thoughts. i was going to write back to miraploy some day, but now i dont need to, thank goodness…not to say that i thought of everything that you thought of, i didnt. i didnt even know where to begin. but i agree with everything that you said.
This post summed up a lot of my fears about my self, which isn’t to say that I think I *am* one of these people, just that I used to be, and I’m terrified that I might still be, or that I might lapse.
Also, the helpful guide to privelege you linked to was extremely helpful in clarifying things for me; although many of these things I already knew/had been told, it was eye opening to see it all laid out clearly, so I highly highly highly recommend any other man on this board read:
http://blog.shrub.com/archives/tekanji/2006-03-08_146
Royce Drake-
I’m curious to know if you coined the terms “man-but-feminist” and “man-and-feminist.” If so that’s awesome.
I have only two criticisms of your criticisms of Miraploy’s criticisms of orkinson’s criticisms….and here they are:
“Hazaah! Suddenly his points of knowing more about you than you have a purpose. Our glorious knight-but-feminist will liberate all of the worlds women from their primitive captors.”
To me, the quote in question does not reflect this attitude. The guy’s defending a play and a message that he thinks would be useful in a variety of cultures including his own. Not that I think the vagina monologues would go over very well in Afghanistan, but he didn’t call anyone primitive and I don’t think he implied it. All he implied was that female sexuality goes unrepresented in a lot of cultures, and he’s right. It’s a little “no shit, sherlock,” and it doesn’t address ork’s specific problems with the play, but I don’t think he’s self-promoting. In fact, in his own way, I think he expressed the basic feminist argument for The Vagina Monologues.
“The man-but-feminist has to agree on something, or else he can’t prove he is a “man, but a feminist.””
You know maybe you are right about Miraploy’s intentions here, but there’s really no way to prove it. This strikes me as a very unwise way to criticize someone’s point. “well, you’re saying it, but you don’t really mean it.” How do you substantiate that? And why can’t someone agree on one point and disagree on another (as I’m doing right now, actually)?
That’s all. Otherwise, great post (though I’m sorry if you now doubt my sincerity.)
@ bejai, I often worry I’m one of those feminist-but-men, part of me hopes that that worry, that constant knowledge of my male privilege, will help me to avoid alot of those mistakes. I also have to be aware that I will say/do fucked up shit, and I need to listen when people call me out on it.
@lucie, I did coin those terms. I’m sure there are other similar terms in use, but I figured work with what was given me.
I accept your criticisms, and I realize that I could have been more explicit with how I got to my points, but I felt it would ruin the level of humor I was going for. I will attempt to clarify (because one of the points you mentioned was very important to me).
I’d argue that the knight-but-feminist does want to liberate women from their primitive captors. By saying that in THIS female sexuality has historically been ignored Miraploy posits that sort of thinking in some nebulous past that we(he/you/y’all) have *progressed* from. He then separates *this* culture from “other parts of the country and *much less* around the world”– That is these places that haven’t progressed as far as us(him/you/y’all)– “where female sexuality being under lock and key is the norm.” If these people haven’t progressed from where we(he/you/y’all) were back in our history, then they are behind, primitive, even unenlightened. Of course then he goes on to reduce *Western feminism* to the liberation of female sexuality (by making it the singular symbol of *Western feminism*). I’d argue many women who Western, imperialistic, (neo)liberal feminists seek to liberate sexually, have other issues that are important to their feminism.
wow that was longer than I wanted it to be.
As for the second criticism you offered. I admit it may be unfair to assume– I just went with the fact that suddenly his extensive knowledge failed, this was by far the shortest statement which was surprising, and he didn’t really acknowledge half the points orkinson made in her point. I’m not saying he couldn’t agree on some points and not other, but that the comment seemed a bit off, but his comment proved a way for me to talk about the feminist-but-men as a whole and the ways I have often seen them argue.
That said I’m crushin’ big time on Barthes these days. And I read Miraploy’s comment as a text, devoid of some Author’s intent. My reading/writing has very little to do with Miraploy as a person.
Ah! And I do not doubt your sincerity. Criticism is good.
I’m a man but I don’t consider myself a feminist. I think that the word is loaded, and constantly portrays women as the victim. There doesn’t even exist a term (at least that I’m aware of), for gender-bias against men. Gender bias happens, but it happens both ways.
What really gets me is that most literature for feminism is based purely on straw-man arguments against a perceived notion of the ‘average person’, and how they behave.
There’s a lot of economic disparity among men and women (which is definitely not cool) however I think that a lot of it is caused by differing goals in life. I know far more women artists then men. I know far more nerdy men. I know more women who work for non-profits, and more men that become business majors. That’s all because of choice, not privilege.
What gets me even more than that is all of the fucking hate. Being all about equality is awesome. but being filled with as much hate as you are, that’s pretty awful.
Also, I noticed you write “The man-but-feminist never quickly gets to his point– he can’t just prove you wrong, but provide enough bulk for you to have a lot to respond to.”, yet your post was quite lengthy. A bit of a hypocrite are we??
“Of course then he goes on to reduce *Western feminism* to the liberation of female sexuality (by making it the singular symbol of *Western feminism*).”
Wow, I think you may have just opened my mind to sex negativism a little bit. This makes so much sense. So many people do this. I do it a lot too, I think. I think it’s just so easy to get men on your side when you’re focusing on sexual liberation, because men, generally speaking, already enjoy sex. But it’s like pulling teeth to get them to recognize other types of misogyny. I feel so bad because orkinson and I had such a long conversation about this and I just couldn’t understand the perspective, but yeah…nice sentence.
“I’d argue many women who Western, imperialistic, (neo)liberal feminists seek to liberate sexually, have other issues that are important to their feminism.”
This one too.
Thanks Royce, you’re response really clarified things. I’d also like to emphasize again how much I enjoyed reading this. It really pinpointed the reasons for my frustration with many of my male friends.
@Anon,
Gender bias might happen both ways. But systematic oppression doesn’t.
You dislike arguments about the average person, but then sort of homogenize women and men.
I never said I wasn’t a hypocrite. That said I was doing a close reading of something– if I removed all the quotations, my post would be half the size. An economizing words is what’s important, not throwing in lots of fluff.
Also I don’t know who that you is directed towards, but I personally am not full of hate. (Though I don’t see any problem with being full of hate towards a system that continues to oppress people).
“There doesn’t even exist a term (at least that I’m aware of), for gender-bias against men. Gender bias happens, but it happens both ways.”
Anon, I agree with you that there are gender biases directed at men. However, I think that most (maybe all) gender biases directed at men are somehow rooted in misogyny. Take for example the expectation that men have to have big muscles and big penises to please women. this is just comes from the idea that women need to be protected (and dominated) by their male partners. Take another example. Men as breadwinners. Well the women need to stay home and pop out babies right? That means it’s your job to buy the pampers.
Anon, some of the worst insults you can throw at a man are “pussy” “girl” and “bitch”. To tag onto Lucie’s comment, the gender bias towards men is based in the oppression of women–that to be female is to be inferior.
I’m interested to know what feminist “literature” you speak of because it honestly sounds like you haven’t read any.
If you had, you’d probably know by now that men and women’s “differing goals in life” and pay discrepancies are rooted in the fact that our society constantly tells us from the day we’re born that men’s jobs are always the most important and most valuable to society. Men are paid more, and often for the same jobs women are doing. Even if a man decides he wants to stay at home and raise children, he is applauded, whereas it’s just expected for a woman. Just look at Royce’s checklist http://www.amptoons.com/blog/the-male-privilege-checklist/
Do some fucking research, and maybe you’ll comprehend why we’re so angry.