On Support For Feminism
The article: Don't Be That Guy
First of all I have to say that this piece was well written, especially in that it harasses a guy reading it very little. There have been few times I've been pointed towards this kind of material without being assaulted with "men are evil", "how can you live with yourself", etc. This can only hurt the cause these people are championing. To those men whom their words will not change or cause to reconsider, the statements will be brushed of as silly hysteria or used to bolster the guy's already stilted view. However, for men who dislike the parts of their identity under attack, but still must identify as men, they will feel attacked when their sex in general is slandered. And so the result and my experience with other guys is that they are frustrated over being sympathetic, but being unable to approach an issue often framed with hostility towards them. The exception are men so shamed by their sex that they feel being punished is acceptable, but these men will not be good allies against That Guy.
What I appreciated about this writing was that the actions and perceptions were vilified, not men in general. There were moments where this slipped, but when the piece as a whole was written about the actions, these moments could be seen as impersonal and seeing the frustration leek out gave more weight to the issue.
Interestingly for me, I had come smack across the "patronization" aspect of That Guy a couple weeks ago so I had a chance to examine an event fresh in my mind. In our astronomy class I was in a group that consisted of three guys and a single girl. It so happened that she had been struggling with some of the concepts as we were working, but through the work and help she figured it out and towards the end caught the rest of us in our error. The whole precess of our group was vigorous defense and assault of ideas when inconsistencies showed. Those in error valiantly championed their opinion until were clearly in the wrong and thus had to change their mind. Which is exactly what happened when she challenged us (unfortunately in this case the guys ended up as one mind on the issue) except for one important point that upset me. They did not defer to her correct explanation, at the moment of being clearly wrong one of them rephrased the idea and it was immediately received by the others, myself included. Before I could feel ashamed or irritated with the other guys I had simply followed. A few moments later I realized that her moment had been crushed--there she had been, after struggling to understand, at the top able to dole out wisdom lacking in the others around her and it was robbed. At the time I still hadn't really understood the final consensus after we had finished the problem set and so my weak gesture was to ask her to explain it to me. It didn't feel like enough, but at the time I had other things pressing on my mind.
That gesture felt so weak afterwards and I didn't like how I felt. Reading "Don't Be That Guy" was helpful in that it condensed these kinds of issues from a female perspective and I could see even the small things I can change to help the situation.
It would have been easy in the moment to call the guy on his theft of knowledge because it's not fair no matter who it is done to. Afterwards though it becomes exponentially more difficult to call out the foul. Which is what I perceive as the meaning behind the talk of having "allies": guys who are willing to stand against injustices even after it has become difficult. And I think that expressions of the situation like "Don't Be That Guy" do well in pointing out some of the small unconscious ways That Guy manifests in a way that can rally, not drive away those sympathetic to the issue.
I see one flaw in the presentation towards potential allies. The current motivating force is one of guilt, those sensitive enough to the injustice to be compelled to expunge it. Which is why feminist messages filled with men hating fail, because they incite guilt and only once you can feel guilty does the hate hurt personally; it feels like a trap and guys respond as such. I can conceptualize where this is coming from. After feeling trapped, marginalized, and hurt, there is the desire to lash out and the feeling that there are buckets and buckets enough of guilt to drown and shame every man into seeing the light. But I think there is a better way to get allies; make them allies.
I understand that I am about to run headlong into "Co-opting the argument," but I hope that I will be heard out and I welcome any criticism so I can hopefully better explain or change my theory.
Wah, Wah, poor Mr. Privileged, he must have it *so* bad. And I'd like to point out briefly that if you need to play who has it worse then I will certainly defend that women do. But my point is, what better way to obtain allies than understand where the men are coming from who are hurt by our society's patriarchy as well. Yes, men have it easier overall and yes a shouldering of guilt will always be a part of becoming an ally, but there are many men who also wish the status quo would change.
On a whim I picked up "Self-made Man" by Norah Vincent and while the book was not especially well written and the tone overall was decidedly "poor men," her perception of failures of the male identity and difficulties men have were very spot-on in my experience. I will make a separate entry about the issues in this book next.
It is not that I refuse to help or that my help is conditional to my gender's issues being resolved, but even just lending an ear or trying to understand my perspective goes a long way towards having a true ally. Alliances are mutually beneficial and "Don't Be That Guy" comments on this problem, but only gives be a decent person as a solution:
You will be tempted to stick your head in the sand and never come back out again. You will be tempted to say "fuck, man, I tried, and I got back rage, and I guess they don't want me to participate after all." This kind of awareness is hard. Assuming a basic level of decency, it makes you really fucking uncomfortable to realize that you are hurting other people, and that will provoke guilt, and you will be tempted to say "well, I can never make things totally better, and it's uncomfortable and hard to be aware of all the ways in which I'm failing, and that makes me guilty, so I'll just leave it alone and let someone else do it."
And for some people that is enough. But even for those whom being decent is a good enough reason, having understanding go both ways makes it easier to deal with sticking a hand out to be burned.
I'm not entirely sure the writer understands just how much is being asked for in some of the suggestions she gives for ways to help instruct That Guy where his fail was. Especially this one:
And if you see a man and a woman having an interaction and the woman's displaying those signs -- backing up, pulling away, looking away, her mouth smiling politely but her eyes nowhere near the person she's talking with -- the way to gracefully stage a rescue is to step in from a distance (not in her space, not within touching distance of her) and distract the guy by striking up a conversation with him, not with her. That gives her the chance to slip away if she feels the need, with less of a chance of making her feel more threatened. (Not no chance, sadly. But less of one.)
Then say to the guy, once she's gone: "Hey, I think you were making her feel really awkward. Back off a little next time, hey?"
If a guy were to actually follow through with this it would be an open invitation to a fight--plainly and simply "thems fighting words." In the guy world the ally has just crossed the personal space barrier and ruined what was That Guy's perception of courting. On top of that the ally has the *audacity* to tell That Guy how to behave; personal criticism is only unchallenged from those of higher authority. Between strangers this gives two perfectly good reasons(from a patriarchal standpoint) for an altercation: his *conquest* was purposely ruined and he must now determine who has the higher authority. Depending on the setting this could range from a bar room brawl to a professional attack, either way the ally has gained an enemy. And you hope that your ally is successful because losing will only justify That Guy's actions. I will concede that some people are either imposing enough in their own right or sly enough to talk around the issue to avoid the fight and win authority, but for the average person this will not be the case. In the face of such a decision is it surprising that most people (regardless of gender) would rather infringe on their sense of justice than face violence towards themselves? Now lets change the situation a bit. Say the ally truly feels like an ally because he has women friends who understand how frustrated he is with the above requirement of altercation to preserve male image. It is no longer a decision between intangible ideals and personal endangerment, but protecting an ally plain and simple. Protecting others is high on most people's list of ideals and your ally is more likely to jump on a grenade for you.
Obviously some people will become true allies just from the traditional guilt argument, but I think that it would be good to consider a sharing of grievances. One last time, my intent is not to steal the flame, I agree that overall women are worse off. I don't look over my shoulder on dimly lit streets, I don't fear my next drink might have a mickey, I don't feel I have to do twice as well just to get notice. Can we not ally around grievances and choose to work with feminism first?
First of all I have to say that this piece was well written, especially in that it harasses a guy reading it very little. There have been few times I've been pointed towards this kind of material without being assaulted with "men are evil", "how can you live with yourself", etc. This can only hurt the cause these people are championing. To those men whom their words will not change or cause to reconsider, the statements will be brushed of as silly hysteria or used to bolster the guy's already stilted view. However, for men who dislike the parts of their identity under attack, but still must identify as men, they will feel attacked when their sex in general is slandered. And so the result and my experience with other guys is that they are frustrated over being sympathetic, but being unable to approach an issue often framed with hostility towards them. The exception are men so shamed by their sex that they feel being punished is acceptable, but these men will not be good allies against That Guy.
What I appreciated about this writing was that the actions and perceptions were vilified, not men in general. There were moments where this slipped, but when the piece as a whole was written about the actions, these moments could be seen as impersonal and seeing the frustration leek out gave more weight to the issue.
Interestingly for me, I had come smack across the "patronization" aspect of That Guy a couple weeks ago so I had a chance to examine an event fresh in my mind. In our astronomy class I was in a group that consisted of three guys and a single girl. It so happened that she had been struggling with some of the concepts as we were working, but through the work and help she figured it out and towards the end caught the rest of us in our error. The whole precess of our group was vigorous defense and assault of ideas when inconsistencies showed. Those in error valiantly championed their opinion until were clearly in the wrong and thus had to change their mind. Which is exactly what happened when she challenged us (unfortunately in this case the guys ended up as one mind on the issue) except for one important point that upset me. They did not defer to her correct explanation, at the moment of being clearly wrong one of them rephrased the idea and it was immediately received by the others, myself included. Before I could feel ashamed or irritated with the other guys I had simply followed. A few moments later I realized that her moment had been crushed--there she had been, after struggling to understand, at the top able to dole out wisdom lacking in the others around her and it was robbed. At the time I still hadn't really understood the final consensus after we had finished the problem set and so my weak gesture was to ask her to explain it to me. It didn't feel like enough, but at the time I had other things pressing on my mind.
That gesture felt so weak afterwards and I didn't like how I felt. Reading "Don't Be That Guy" was helpful in that it condensed these kinds of issues from a female perspective and I could see even the small things I can change to help the situation.
It would have been easy in the moment to call the guy on his theft of knowledge because it's not fair no matter who it is done to. Afterwards though it becomes exponentially more difficult to call out the foul. Which is what I perceive as the meaning behind the talk of having "allies": guys who are willing to stand against injustices even after it has become difficult. And I think that expressions of the situation like "Don't Be That Guy" do well in pointing out some of the small unconscious ways That Guy manifests in a way that can rally, not drive away those sympathetic to the issue.
I see one flaw in the presentation towards potential allies. The current motivating force is one of guilt, those sensitive enough to the injustice to be compelled to expunge it. Which is why feminist messages filled with men hating fail, because they incite guilt and only once you can feel guilty does the hate hurt personally; it feels like a trap and guys respond as such. I can conceptualize where this is coming from. After feeling trapped, marginalized, and hurt, there is the desire to lash out and the feeling that there are buckets and buckets enough of guilt to drown and shame every man into seeing the light. But I think there is a better way to get allies; make them allies.
I understand that I am about to run headlong into "Co-opting the argument," but I hope that I will be heard out and I welcome any criticism so I can hopefully better explain or change my theory.
Wah, Wah, poor Mr. Privileged, he must have it *so* bad. And I'd like to point out briefly that if you need to play who has it worse then I will certainly defend that women do. But my point is, what better way to obtain allies than understand where the men are coming from who are hurt by our society's patriarchy as well. Yes, men have it easier overall and yes a shouldering of guilt will always be a part of becoming an ally, but there are many men who also wish the status quo would change.
On a whim I picked up "Self-made Man" by Norah Vincent and while the book was not especially well written and the tone overall was decidedly "poor men," her perception of failures of the male identity and difficulties men have were very spot-on in my experience. I will make a separate entry about the issues in this book next.
It is not that I refuse to help or that my help is conditional to my gender's issues being resolved, but even just lending an ear or trying to understand my perspective goes a long way towards having a true ally. Alliances are mutually beneficial and "Don't Be That Guy" comments on this problem, but only gives be a decent person as a solution:
You will be tempted to stick your head in the sand and never come back out again. You will be tempted to say "fuck, man, I tried, and I got back rage, and I guess they don't want me to participate after all." This kind of awareness is hard. Assuming a basic level of decency, it makes you really fucking uncomfortable to realize that you are hurting other people, and that will provoke guilt, and you will be tempted to say "well, I can never make things totally better, and it's uncomfortable and hard to be aware of all the ways in which I'm failing, and that makes me guilty, so I'll just leave it alone and let someone else do it."
And for some people that is enough. But even for those whom being decent is a good enough reason, having understanding go both ways makes it easier to deal with sticking a hand out to be burned.
I'm not entirely sure the writer understands just how much is being asked for in some of the suggestions she gives for ways to help instruct That Guy where his fail was. Especially this one:
And if you see a man and a woman having an interaction and the woman's displaying those signs -- backing up, pulling away, looking away, her mouth smiling politely but her eyes nowhere near the person she's talking with -- the way to gracefully stage a rescue is to step in from a distance (not in her space, not within touching distance of her) and distract the guy by striking up a conversation with him, not with her. That gives her the chance to slip away if she feels the need, with less of a chance of making her feel more threatened. (Not no chance, sadly. But less of one.)
Then say to the guy, once she's gone: "Hey, I think you were making her feel really awkward. Back off a little next time, hey?"
If a guy were to actually follow through with this it would be an open invitation to a fight--plainly and simply "thems fighting words." In the guy world the ally has just crossed the personal space barrier and ruined what was That Guy's perception of courting. On top of that the ally has the *audacity* to tell That Guy how to behave; personal criticism is only unchallenged from those of higher authority. Between strangers this gives two perfectly good reasons(from a patriarchal standpoint) for an altercation: his *conquest* was purposely ruined and he must now determine who has the higher authority. Depending on the setting this could range from a bar room brawl to a professional attack, either way the ally has gained an enemy. And you hope that your ally is successful because losing will only justify That Guy's actions. I will concede that some people are either imposing enough in their own right or sly enough to talk around the issue to avoid the fight and win authority, but for the average person this will not be the case. In the face of such a decision is it surprising that most people (regardless of gender) would rather infringe on their sense of justice than face violence towards themselves? Now lets change the situation a bit. Say the ally truly feels like an ally because he has women friends who understand how frustrated he is with the above requirement of altercation to preserve male image. It is no longer a decision between intangible ideals and personal endangerment, but protecting an ally plain and simple. Protecting others is high on most people's list of ideals and your ally is more likely to jump on a grenade for you.
Obviously some people will become true allies just from the traditional guilt argument, but I think that it would be good to consider a sharing of grievances. One last time, my intent is not to steal the flame, I agree that overall women are worse off. I don't look over my shoulder on dimly lit streets, I don't fear my next drink might have a mickey, I don't feel I have to do twice as well just to get notice. Can we not ally around grievances and choose to work with feminism first?