Whose feminism is it anyway?

In the aftermath of Emma Watson’s UN speech, Sally Rooney examines the soundbites about “man-hating”.

emmawatson

comment1

At the launch of the UN gender equality campaign “HeForShe,” Goodwill Ambassador Emma Watson gave a speech about the necessity of a women’s rights movement. The quote that made the majority of headlines about the event, in one way or another, was the following: “fighting for women’s rights has too often become synonymous with man-hating. If there is one thing I know for certain, it is that this has to stop.”

Later in the same speech, Watson spoke about existing obstacles to women’s liberation: economic and educational deprivation, sexual objectification and coercion, reproductive restrictions, and so on. But if there is one thing, just one, that she knows for certain, it’s that the struggle for women’s rights should not involve hating men. In fact, Watson also expresses fears that currently, men are not “invited” or don’t “feel welcome” to participate in feminist activism.

But men are not simply a neutral collection of individuals, left out in the cold by exclusionary feminism. Men are a class of people who occupy the upper tier of a cultural gender hierarchy, and, like it or not, benefit from the subjugation of those below them. The definition of “men” is not a biological fact – not all men are assigned male gender at birth. It is a cultural fact. Men are men because they occupy a superior cultural position to women and people with alternate gender identities; that’s what they have in common. If power disparity between the genders did not exist, the categories “men” and “women” as we now understand them would be irrelevant.

The maintenance of this hierarchy is hard work. Women have to be prevented, continually, from claiming their equality – whether by use of violence, the threat of violence, or other forms of reprisal. As Watson mentions in her speech at the UN, feminists are often mocked as “unattractive,” and that’s not a coincidence. The social process at work behind that stereotype is also a kind of threat: you can choose either to try and dismantle oppressive structures or else be worthy of human affection. You can’t have both.

But beyond broad social norms, how does this hierarchy manifest itself in the personal lives of women? Why would any one woman hate all men? Maybe because her experience tells her to. According to statistics gathered in 2010, about one in five women in the US have been victims of rape. In the UK, two women a week are murdered by a parter or ex-partner. Worldwide, 30% of women who have been in a relationship have experienced intimate partner violence . These women do not spring from the earth, pre-victimised. The overwhelming majority of the people who hurt them are men. If two of every ten women in the US have experienced rape, how many men of every ten have committed it? How many men would it need to be, before distrust, or even hatred, would be legitimate?

Let’s get one final objection out of the way: hating men is not akin to misogyny or racism. It’s the difference between saying you hate the government and saying you hate the homeless. To hate a privileged class is not remotely morally equivalent to hatred of a suppressed and marginalised group, and men are structurally and individually prioritised, at every economic and cultural level. Men dominate tiny interpersonal interactions at parties and in classrooms, and they dominate national and international corporate and governmental power.

I don’t believe feminists must hate men, or should hate men. I don’t even personally hate men, most of the time. But feminists should certainly make room for women whose life experiences have taught them that men are not to be trusted. We should not expect every survivor of male brutality to welcome men with open arms into the one space they haven’t yet colonised; and we shouldn’t expect any one of us to feel comfortable with a movement that sets its agenda around making a dominant group feel at home.

Lots of men are undoubtedly good, conscientious people; I doubt those individuals are worried about being “invited” into feminism. They have a whole world to “feel welcome” in. At its best, feminism is a threat to men, and it should be. When resources are unfairly divided, justice always threatens those with more than a fair share. Many men understand and accept the necessity of change and sacrifice; they’re not the ones complaining about misandry. The people the feminist movement most needs to welcome are not the men who want to feel included: they are the women who have nowhere else to go.

Illustration: Naoise Dolan

  • Cassie Huck

    Hmmm… While this is definitely a good read. I have to say that I disagree with this opinion on the speech. I think it was intended to change the conversation about feminism (from one of “man-hating” “over aggressive” etc. to a more educated and effective one), so that more drastic changes can be made going forward. There are many different parts to every movement. Feminism already does an amazing job welcoming and taking care of their mistreated people and believers, we are a great community in that sense.

    My main goal as a Feminist in the past year has been specifically educating the people around me; giving them the facts involved with an issue along with my experiences, why this actually is important, so hopefully over time this education will change their attitude on the subject… And it’s worked for the most part and as a result we have more supporters and people trying to make a difference. Something like HeForShe and Emma’s speech serve a different job in the Feminist movement (bringing attention to gender equality in a different light), and what makes it’s viral status so great is that it’s doing its job.

    • Sally Rooney

      Hi Cassie, thanks for the response. I didn’t mean this article to be a hit piece on Watson or on the HeForShe campaign, and I appreciate your concerns there. I think it’s important that as feminists we shouldn’t focus on shedding the “image” of man-hating before questioning why it is that we might have that image, and whose voices it might exclude for us to try to shut that out of our movement. But I agree feminism is a diverse movement, and there’s plenty of room for male involvement. I just think we need to be careful about how we frame that involvement, too.

  • Sam

    The definition of men certainly comes in part from genetic, biological and neurological influences as well as the social environment in which he is placed. A man is not merely a social construct, and exceptions do not contradict the dominant rule of gender assignment. Equality is not equivalent to homogeneity and like it or not, hating all men is equivalent to prejudice and thus comparable with racism or homophobia. Your piece is an exact example of the form of feminist ideology that is now acting as a barrier to the comprehensive understanding of gender identity and the construction of new informal and formal ideals that will enable us to progress as a species. If future generations are to transcend all the regressive expectations of gender roles that exist today, it would help if men who seek to influence other men and women positively despite potential alienation, could do so without feeling as though they are only chiseling away at what is ultimately a large rock of original sin.

  • Shane

    Interesting stuff. I haven’t actually watched the EW-UN speech but I gather the general point is that feminist movement needs to consciously reach out to men a bit more, for whatever reason. Your reasoning is that you can’t expect all women to do just that since so many have suffered so much at the hands of men, you summed it up concisely in the 2nd last paragraph, and I’d agree with that.

    HOWEVER (you knew that was coming, right?) I would say that there is a strong case to be made for more male inclusion and its simple: progress. If you want more men changing their behaviour then you need more men calling other men out on chauvinist acts. Most chauvinist arseholes aren’t going to change their ways because a women told them to. Its not about men’s right to feel comfortable within the whole debate, its about getting as many people as possible behind the right message. Your analogy: “It’s the difference between saying you hate the government and saying you hate the homeless” is not quite apt. Its more the difference between saying you hate White People/Straight People and saying you hate the homeless. The overall group is/was responsible for the oppression but its members are born into it without choice BUT many want the oppression to go away AND, being part of group that contains the problem, they can help tackle it in ways perhaps complimentary to the ways in which women fight for feminism.

    I guess its a case of feminism having 2 briefs: 1) to support those who suffer and 2) to push for social change. The inclusion of men sympathetic to the cause can only help the latter. I’m glad you included the stats to remind us just how bad the problem still is.

  • Sohail

    Whether or not feminists are justified in hating “Men” as a dominant cultural category is, I think, missing the point. I would never deny at any level the violence perpetrated on women because of this cultural dominance, nor do I expect women who have experienced this violence to “forgive” Men. However, I do not think it is possible to fight constructs of femininity without simultaneously engaging with constructs of masculinity. Assuming that Men perform gender in a particular way in order to reap benefits of gender hierarchy is a drastic oversimplification of the issue. The idea that a feminist isn’t an attractive women, for instance, is a position that gains its legitimacy not only from men, but equally from several women who are trapped in the cultural constructs of gender and thus echo this opinion. Men are socialised into gender as much as women. In dealing with hierarchy it isn’t enough to look at the relationship of one element of the hierarchical system with another. It is the relation of these elements to the whole, that which encompasses these elements, that ought to be looked at.

    The construction of the “Ideal Man” necessarily implies an “Ideal Woman”. For me, gender equality lies in dealing with precisely this binary. As long as masculinity exists, women will be bound to their femininity and thus bound by gendered norms. It is as important for the movement therefore to ask men to abandon the strict cultural frameworks of manliness as it is to ask of women to step out of patriarchal norms. I think this is possible only with an active engagement with Men.

  • John

    “Let’s get one final objection out of the way: hating men is not akin to misogyny or racism. It’s the difference between saying you hate the government and saying you hate the homeless.”
    Sincerely scared of this argument.

  • disqus_4prjDZMxSx

    Its ok to hate men but not ok to hate women? i disagree with your excusing and supporting blanket misandry views, i dont think that its ok to hate an entire group of people because of the actions of a few, such hate should be discouraged

  • towhichofthewitches

    “Please inform yourself on what gender is.”

    Sally Rooney. This poster is accusing Sally f’ing Rooney of not understanding what gender is.

    LOL

Contact

House 6,
Trinity College,
Dublin 2,
Ireland

Phone: 01-8962335
Email: editor@trinitynews.ie

Editors





Niamh Lynch
news@trinitynews.ie
Kelly McGlynn
features@trinitynews.ie
Michael Foley
comment@trinitynews.ie
Katarzyna Siewierska
scitech@trinitynews.ie
Clare McCarthy
sport@trinitynews.ie

Illustration

Aisling Crabbe
Natalia Duda
Sarah Morel
Mike Dolan
John Tierney
Naoise Dolan
Sarah Larragy
Mubbashir Ali Sultan
Nadia Bertaud
Daniel Tatlow

Photography

Kevin O'Rourke
Ines Niarchos
Huda Awan