Guest post: 'HeForShe - will this actually help the feminist cause?'

[MumsnetGuestPosts]

The Onion called it first: "Man finally put in charge of struggling feminist movement." For years we've been muddling along, pretending we could start a revolution without the help of Ryan Gosling, but finally we can drop the act. After all, as Emma Watson said during her UN speech, "how can we effect change in the world when only half of it is invited or feel welcome to participate in the conversation?" (I've no idea, but obviously we should be asking the men - they've been effecting change for millennia without making us feel welcome, so I'm sure they could tell us how it's done.)

I don't wish to be overly dismissive of the HeForShe campaign, nor of its launch. Emma Watson was courageous to offer up a personal account of her route to feminism; in a culture which objectifies young women to an alarming extent, it's invaluable to hear the "object" answer back. That the response to her speech included threats (real or not) to release nude photos is testament to the degree to which people like her are supposed to be seen and not heard, reading someone else's lines but never speaking for themselves. I'm sure Watson knew this before she chose to break the rules, and she did so all the same. For that reason alone, she's a role model.

That said, I have some – well, rather a few – misgivings about the overall theme of HeForShe. To judge by the tone of both Watson’s speech and the website, you'd think that including men in feminism had never been thought of before. This isn't quite true. Feminists have thought long and hard – perhaps too long and too hard – about what our movement should mean to men. We've had to; as Simone de Beauvoir noted in The Second Sex, women do not constitute a separate group with their own physical space, history and culture. Our lives are intertwined with the lives of men; like it or not, we need to work together. But what should that mean? Does it require persuading men that gender hurts them as much as it hurts us? I'm not so sure. If that were the case, I simply don't believe progress would be so slow. If gender were some abstract force weighing down on men as much as it weighs down on women – and not a hierarchy which enables men to dominate women – we wouldn't still be asking men to do something about it.

In 1983 Andrea Dworkin gave a speech to the US National Organisation for Changing Men. In it she sought to define what equality should mean to them:

"Some vague idea about giving up power is useless.[…] Equality is a practice. It is an action. It is a way of life. It is a social practice. It is an economic practice. It is a sexual practice. […] If you love equality, if you believe in it, if it is the way you want to live […] then you have to fight for the institutions that will make it socially real."

Social media timelines clogged with pouting heart-throbs claiming solidarity - using Watson's campaign to brush up their liberal credentials and receive a pat on the back from the media - isn't enough. It's not enough to say "I am a feminist and I stand with women". If anything, it's keeping silent and listening to women because you realise that, in Dworkin’s words, "women are human to precisely the degree and quality that you are", that really makes a difference.

Another feminist who has sought to include men in feminism is bell hooks. In Feminism is for Everybody, published in 2000, she stresses that feminism is anti-sexism:

"A male who has divested of male privilege, who has embraced feminist politics, is a worthy comrade in struggle, in no way a threat to feminism, whereas a female who remains wedded to sexist thinking and behaviour infiltrating feminist movement is a dangerous threat."

Note, however, the 'ifs'; inclusion in the feminist movement does not simply mean a denial of male privilege, a self-serving "yes, I hate patriarchy too!" It's about men recognising that not everything is about them - that we don't need them to legitimise our struggle. It's challenging the perception that women are the other, men are the whole. It's reading what women have written, listening to what women are saying and looking at the world with fresh eyes. It's knowing that your reality is only half of what there is.

Watson claims that gender is a spectrum: "we don't want to talk about men being imprisoned by gender stereotypes but I can see that they are. When they are free, things will change for women as a natural consequence. If men don't have to be aggressive, women won't be compelled to be submissive. If men don't need to control, women won't have to be controlled."

I think this is idealistic and overly simplistic. It is comforting to see female oppression as a basic misapprehension, some random misjudgement in the allocation of universal stereotypes. If that's all it is, education will sort it out. Men will listen to us and then they will say “you mean to say women don't naturally prefer being treated as inferior? Well, why didn't you say so? Of course we'll change our ways!” Yet that's not what happens. Some men might talk the talk, but that’s as far as it goes. And as Dworkin says, we do not have time: "We women. We don't have forever. Some of us don't have another week or another day to take time for you to discuss whatever it is that will enable you to go out into those streets and do something."

I don't want my sons to be feminists when they grow up. I want them to be men who have the courage and humanity to challenge masculinity, right here, right now. If women need a movement to say "I'm human", they don't need men jumping on board to say "yay, I'm human, too". We know that already and men know it, too.

[BrewsterToo]

What makes a speech a good speech? That everything in it is true and correct, or that an intended message is heard and enthousiastically agreed with by many people?

IMO EW's speech aims to get more people on board and not dismiss feminism out of hand, because they think it means man-hating. The myth of the man-hating feminist has been a great obstacle into getting more people to align with feminist ideas.

I think only the literate and well-versed feminists (us, on the FWR board for example) recognise the patriarchal strategies inherent in the speech. It's inconsistent to us, but that doesn't make it a bad speech. It's a great speech in terms of how many people it has reached and how it has been received.

It is ironic that the reason why this speech has been successful is possibly because its strategy is patriarchy-affirming (man-pandering if you like).

[BrewsterToo]

In answer to the OP, will it actually help the feminist cause? Yes, because it is being successful in challenging the man-hating feminist myth.

Its flaws don't take that away.

[vesuvia]

HaroldsBishop wrote - "Behavioural genetics isn't "pseudoscience"".

Who said it was?

I don't think I even described the entire science of evolutionary psychology as a pseudoscience. In case you got that impression, to hopefully clarify:

The entire science of behaviourial genetics is not the same as the entire science of evolutionary psychology which is not the same as evolutionary psychology's pseudoscientific theory of "lady brain".

[HaroldsBishop]

Ok I've tried googling the difference between BG and EP, and although it's clear there is one I'm not fully understanding it.

Here's a quote I found:

"In the stone age, women stayed in the cave or sought out tasty roots, and mashed things together to create flavorful food, while men went hunting and flung spears at things. Therefore, skill at chemistry is encoded in women’s brains, while ballistics is a natural male talent. Stone age men went on long walks to hunt game, so they’re better suited now to do field work in ecology, while women sat and did intricate weaving, therefore their brains are adapted to do data analysis."

So I'm guessing the bits in bold are the EP bits? If so then I reckon I agree with you, it sounds a bit bollocks. Or at the very least untestable, and therefore poor science.

So males are more aggressive because it's in their genes = BG = ok

but, males are more aggressive because they used to be the hunters and therefore are have inbuilt, purely mental, skills that make better at using weapons = EP = bollocks?

Every day is a school day!

[TheSameBoat]

But you see I even think the bits in non-bold are pretty misleading. It's not just the interpretation of the facts, but the facts themselves, the facts we've based our narrative of history and gender roles are inaccurate.

[fishdishwish]

As a man who's been supportive of feminist causes for 20 years now, I have a few reservations about this as well.

Decent, open-minded blokes have always been alive to feminism, and also to the damage that macho stereotypes do, but have always appreciated that patriarchy oppresses women far more than it does men, and that there's an awful lot of shit women and girls have to endure than men and boys never do.

I think the key thing for me has always been about being supportive where I can without wearing a 'badge of honour', and respecting the need for female-only spaces.

[JeanneDeMontbaston]

I liked this post.

On the subject of science - I think the problem is that 'same' is a very vague term. No individual has the 'same' brain as any other individual. No individual's brain has been shaped to be exactly the same as any other individual's brain. Both nature and nurture produce variations.

However, radical feminists (if I understand rightly) don't think that human brains are innately differentiated along gender lines. Many scientists seem to agree with this point, although it is hard to know, because pretty much any brain we can study will have undergone changes in response to nurture, and because we can't be certain how brain architecture relates to the mind and its processes.

So, I can believe if more women worked in science, science would be different - simply because we might have contributions from people nurtured in particular ways. It could well be that some of these differences would result in a radical change in the way we understand science. Such changes have happened before (not prompted by gender issues).

That wouldn't mean that men and women have different brains. It just means that the state of human knowledge isn't perfect, and its imperfections tend to reflect the biases in human culture.

Total derail, I know. But relevant, because we need to be very precise abut what feminism is, and sometimes that involves more than saying 'yes, men and women are just the same, yay!'.

[YonicScrewdriver]

Museumum, as a small example, the experienced Russian space engineer who has spent eight years training as a cosmonaut is not being asked to talk about the experiments or repairs she is planning on the space station; she is missing the chance to add to public understanding of her subject and improve her own skill in addressing questions from laypeople... because the press want to know about her hair and her mothering.

[LuisCarol]

But how is that going to happen if women dont want to do most of the jobs that men have to do

Unpacking all the assumptions and biases and prejudices you've managed to cram in this one little sentence fragment will blow your mind.

[YonicScrewdriver]

I could make a list of majority-female professions whereby men depend on primarily women to do various things - a lot of which does involve dirty hands of course, such as nursery work, care work, cleaning etc. But I see you've registered purely to post this and something equally ridiculous on the Freshers thread, so I won't bother.

[ChunkyPickle]

Good god parentsnotjustmums - women do want to do these jobs, and increasing numbers are! It's disingenuous to say that women want to do these jobs when it's more often that female applicants are dismissed out of hand (rather like the front line argument - female forces members have had to fight very hard to be allowed into combat, and it was men preventing them)

And exactly how dirty do you think female-dominated careers like caring for elderly/young, cleaning, nursing etc. are - how many toilets have you cleaned, how many children have you lugged around etc.

[TerrariaMum]

I will bother, Yoni by listing what I have done in the past 2 days for the lurkers like me because frankly, I find the idea that women don't want to dirty their hands incredibly insulting.

I have changed numerous pooey nappies and if anyone thinks that is not getting one's hands dirty, they have never changed a nappy, wiped up accidents from potty training DD, changed all the bins (incidentally, the rubbish collectors on our street include at least one woman), set up DD1 to paint, the result of which can be seen on my fingers and fingernails, removed horrible woodchip wallpaper from our walls, and begun sanding some walls in preparation for painting.

And I am a mere SAHM.

[TerrariaMum]

Sort of x-post Chunky.

[PuffinsAreFicticious]

Just a thought.

Who is it that decides that women aren't up to these 'getting their hands dirty' jobs?

Who stopped women going down mines?
Who prevents women from being in the frontline of battles?
Who tells women that they can't be plumbers/builders/joiners?
Who tells women that they are weaker and just can't manage to do these jobs?

because, if I remember correctly, it wasn't women, and it certainly wasn't feminists. No, it's men who say these things. And then whine about it when discussions like this happen.

[jessanne123]

Her speech may not have been perfect but it's definitely getting a conversation started. I was really impressed with this video made by college students showing guys stand up for feminism! Really refreshing!

[Huppopapa]

Um... It's not enough for me just to listen. I have two daughters. My duty to them (and to myself and to society) is to live a life that is gender neutral, pick up on and address casual bias that they stumble across and inadvertently embrace and from time to time, push back with them or on their behalf.
In the second category might be the fact that the excellent and sincere but ultimately fairly uncontroversial Watson speech was followed by a far more urgent and excoriating one about violence against women. It was delivered by a black woman, older, less slim and whose pictures were less likely to shift copy.
That sort of thing makes my piss boil yet it happens in the reporting of the Watson speech itself.
People: equality begins with you, me, our children and those we encounter. I don't see that ones gender either qualifies or disqualifies one from participation. Indeed, logically, morally and intellectually it cannot.
HP

[JeanneDeMontbaston]

'People: equality begins with you, me, our children and those we encounter. I don't see that ones gender either qualifies or disqualifies one from participation. Indeed, logically, morally and intellectually it cannot.'

Darn.

We were doing feminism wrong again, weren't we?

Look, I know I'm being sarcastic, but can you not see the irony in your post? If equality truly began with you, you'd just quietly get on with it, I think.

[Huppopapa]

I am doing so thanks Jeanne. But who have I accused of doing feminism wrong? I have not commented on what anyone else has done. I have merely said what I must do and, as we are all the same, I assume everyone else. Who, in particular, is the 'we' in your response? I genuinely don't know as I was not criticising anyone.

Equality is about unity and mutual respect. I am surprised that by saying all of us are the same and all involved in problems that concern only some of us, i should have occasioned a divisive response.

[JeanneDeMontbaston]

'as we are all the same, I assume everyone else.'

We are not all the same.

Women, as a class, are oppressed. Men, as a class and by virtue of their gender, are not.

If you cannot grasp this basic point, and the fact that ignoring it turns your argument into undermining of the ways women do feminism, then you need to go back to square one.

[Huppopapa]

indeed I do BuffyBotRebooted! I said nothing of the sort though. I cannot possibly understand something I have not experienced except in the most fuzzy and inadequate way. Only women's experience of sexism is truly authentic and has to be listened to.
But I can identify things that anyone can see are wrong (the under-reporting of the second UN speech; the hue-and-cry about FGM whilst almost nothing is actually being done; the durability of domestic violence) and give a damn about them.
I actually said "It is not enough for me just to listen." I must listen, but I must also do my bit.
Is that wrong? If so, I really don't know what I should do!

[YonicScrewdriver]

"is to live a life that is gender neutral"

One sex (not gender) can carry children. One cannot. This is the root of most sexism and cannot be neutralised for your DDs or yourself/your DW.

[Huppopapa]

Forgive me Jeanne but I don't agree. Women as a class are oppressed as men are not. That is not because of their gender. It is based on their gender. This is fundamental to the wording of the Equality Act. Because we are all equal it is illegal to treat someone in an unequal way.
Gender does not make a woman less likely to succeed in business. Addle-headed and offensive assumptions about her gender do. All social revolutions require thinking to precede action. If everyone thinks equality they will (eventually) do equality.