Feeling conflicted about (childless) man's feminist views on mothering

[NomNomNom]

Hi,

I think this is one of my first forays into the feminist section, although I've been lurking. I was hoping to get your balanced and reasonable views on this.

Basically, I don't know what to think about this - my personal pissed-offness is clashing with my political views, I think.

I have this colleague who is in his mid-20s (I'm slightly older), childless, very well-educated, very right-on, yet he seems inexperienced in real-life matters. I don't like him for various reasons that are not really relevant. Mostly that he expresses vaguely political views when it helps him impress people in positions of power at work, but doesn't really know a lot about the actual issues and seems to put it on a bit.

Today he posted a video on Facebook of a kind of spoken-word performance by a young female poet/stand-up that was all about the physical changes motherhood brings and how women are great, strong etc for what they go through during pregnancy, birth and breastfeeding. It was a great poem, I really like it, and it expresses many things I think as well.

But somehow I'm really pissed off that this guy has posted it. He has nothing to do with children. He'll never go through those experiences himself. I often think he jumps on political bandwagons, so I don't know if my discomfort is to do with that.

I think if a dad had posted the video, I would have thought how lucky his partner is.

But somehow, a childless (privileged) guy doing it makes me angry. I've always been a feminist, but only found feminist approaches to mothering and the whole mothering/motherhood distinction a little while after my daughter was born. Reading blogs about feminist mothering, Adrienne Rich etc. really helped me to make sense of my situation and feelings, some of it was so eye-opening and just amazing. I really like how other mothers seem to experience the same issues as me and then write about it in a thoughtful and concise way, taking apart the challenges - it seems like a kind of almost intimate community of mothers (that sounds completely wanky and essentialist, I know!). I don't know how to explain it. So somehow, I just get the sense that this guy I know is 'doing' feminism in an almost consumerist way, putting it on - because feminist views on mothering have nothing to do with his life, so why is he posting about that?

I have to admit that I occasionally feel slightly conflicted about aspects of my feminism - e.g. the whole question of whether men can be feminists (though I read a great explanation regarding how one can perceive feminism as either shared political aims or shared experience). I'm still on the fence when it comes to those 2 views, but I suppose for me feminist approaches to motherhood are rooted in shared experience, and this guy does not share it, so he should butt out.

But on the other hand, more men should admire women for the strength involved in making a person and nurturing them, so… I just don't know!!

[ArtetasSwollenAnkle]

Right. I read the last 5 pages over again. I only read the Op's post, because their is an awful lot of bollocks and bias (as in inclination or prejudice for or against one person or group, especially in a way considered to be unfair. ) because that is what a lot of this is. Not philosophical musings about male views of motherhood.

On page 2 is the OP's one reference as to what twatty-face posted alongside the video - 'Here's abc talking about motherhood and xyz'. And that is the only reference I can find from the OP as to what he actually wrote. Have I missed something? Because that, friends, was identified as mansplaining. I'd like someone to explain that to me.

[NomNomNom]

My feelings on the matter are not necessarily logical. At the same time, I don't have to justify them to you. I'm explaining them because I hope that other people's perspectives will help me to understand them.

I saw it as slightly mansplainy because the video wasn't about motherhood per se. There was nothing about daily life etc (and others mentioned above). But also the aspect of a man making people aware of a woman's specific perspective annoyed me, as if other people/women might not be feminist enough to come across the video in their own. Plus that he has a tendency to want to outdo people, and feminist approaches to pregnancy/birth/motherhood are a bit 'out there' for a bloke in his situation.

[ArtetasSwollenAnkle]

'Here's abc talking about motherhood and xyz'. That is what he said.

He is not commenting on her body. Where did he do that?

[ArtetasSwollenAnkle]

I am totally perplexed by this thread, Buffy. I have no problem with the OP having feelings about the original incident, because we all have people we don't like. But I find the subsequent piling in by the usual suspects, tossing around 'mansplaining', appropriation and other tropes to be ridiculous. All based up on a supposed wonderful video and the following quote;

'Here's abc talking about motherhood and xyz'.

And this is a comment on women's bodies - really?

People post so much shit on FB, from banal rubbish to hateful vitriol. It has been a vehicle for appalling sexism, misogyny and bullying, often with tragic consequences. I don't like FB. But every once in a while, someone does something nice. And he still gets torn to shit. I wish there was a head-scratching smiley.

[NomNomNom]

I find the point regarding privilege and letting the members of the less privileged group do the talking absolutely spot on.

Of course everyone can have an opinion on everything, but does that mean we have to say it out loud/post it on Facebook all the time? Definitely agree with the co-opting argument.

[ArtetasSwollenAnkle]

Similar. Someone starts with a viewpoint that really doesn't stand up to scrutiny. They are called out on it, but lots of people with a similar viewpoint join in with spurious excuses, to show solidarity with the OP. And all the while, the OP's original viewpoint is validated, when really the OP would benefit from a few home truths.

[ArtetasSwollenAnkle]

Okay, but you said "Do you think that's similar or different to what happened in the OP?" I did assume it was a direct question to me, rather than open to all, so I thought it obvious it was my viewpoint. If it wasn't, apologies - the above post is my opinion.

And one left over, for later

[ArtetasSwollenAnkle]

Firstly, I have no doubt you broke their collective will. It didn't need asking

Your example vs the OP - I see arse-commenting man and the OP here as broadly similar - both viewpoints that don't stand up to scrutiny. You calling him out on it was the voice of sanity. His friends piling in are like some feminists in here, diving in with cliches and claims that do not stand up to scrutiny either. And in the same way, I think that if those people backing arse-admiring man thought about their position with any clarity, they might see a problem with their position. But they are so entrenched in their views - phwoar etc. - that they react like a Pavlovian dog to a tight buttock. And that is where I think all the mansplaining, commenting on women's bodies etc. assertions come from. They are reactions rather than considered opinions, goaded on by safety in numbers.

In my opinion

Jeez, I hope that is what you asked....

[DuskAndShiver]

Artetas, that is rubbish. You are confusing two kinds of discourse and completely missing the point.

Your words:

"claims that do not stand up to scrutiny either"
"reactions rather than considered opinions"

OP's words:

"really pissed off"
"somehow angry"

She is talking about her feelings. They can't not stand up to scrutiny. They just are.

I am interested in her feelings and can share some stuff about why she might be feeling that way.

but you can't argue them away.

this isn't about fairness either. If she wrote "I don't want to give that jumped up smarmy arse-licker a job because he posted a poem about women" then I think that would be a bit unfair (although of course people do make decisions like this every day, and most of the ones about the most powerful and influential and well rewarded positions are made by men who go by "their gut" as much as anyone). But she didn't say that. She said she was pissed off, she was angry, and she appealed to people who might have something illuminating to say about that.

Your deep attachment to a very simplistic view of "equality" and an equally simplistic over-investment in "rationality" is actually making you confused.

This is a situation where you can say "I don't know, he sounds like my kind of guy" but you can't say "you are wrong. your feelings are wrong".
If you were to say that - often - in a relationship - you would be controlling and EA of course. Not that i am saying you are or that your behaviour here is, but an over-investment in being "rational" and "right" is actually not just a stupid way to carry out relationships and conversations, and but also unkind

[ArtetasSwollenAnkle]

Dusk, did you see my post at 20:39?

I have no problem with the OP having feelings about the original incident, because we all have people we don't like.

As I have said subsequently, it's other people piling in with accusations that there is no evidence for is what I was highlighting to Buffy. In that respect, there is a place for right and wrong. If the bloke writes 'here is abc talking about xyz' and someone says that is mansplaining, I think I am entitled to ask why. That wasn't the OP, it was someone else.

[HomeHelpMeGawd]

So this statement is the heart of what I just don't get: "the aspect of a man making people aware of a woman's specific perspective annoyed me, as if other people/women might not be feminist enough to come across the video in their own."

Facebook is an accepted medium for posting articles that you find of interest or importance. Sometimes I see a link from a FB friend that I've seen before because it's an area of interest to me. It doesn't make me feel that they've been presumptuous!

[DuskAndShiver]

Artetas, do you think the term "mansplaining " has a legitimate use / meaning ever? and if you do, why do you think it is being misused here?

[DuskAndShiver]

I am going to go to sleep in a minute, so:

the reason why I asked that question is because if you think there are structural inequalities with respect to controlling discourse, then you may find "mansplain" a useful shorthand for the way some men think they have a right to talk about anything all the time as if they are the only ones who know anything about it. If you don't buy that, then you might think that "mansplain" is just a silly expression used to attack a man unfairly when he decides to explain something, which has no equivalent when women explain things.

Posting stuff on your fb account, or re-tweeting it or whatever, is like an electronic way of reporting a big quote to your friends. you are saying "someone else said this but I like it so much I am going to say it all again, in inverted commas". It is a form of taking a kind of possession of the argument or article or image. It is performative.

In this case "mansplain" is arguably technically slightly misused because he didn't attempt to actively explain anything in his own words. but it is in the spirit of the expression, because he took possession of something he could have no experience of in order to (as he perceives it) bump up his social capital (we think - the OP has seen cues that suggest that he is inclined to behave in this way)

Now you either get that this structural inequality - which gave rise to the word "mansplain", made it useful and made it popular - exists, or you don't. If you don't, the OP is pissed off about nothing. If you do get it, you are more likely to go "oh right, one of them" and some of us have attempted to unpick what "one of them" is, and why they make us feel how they make us feel.

I don't think you get it and I don't think you want to get it and I think you are deeply invested in there being no problem.

And I am going to sleep.

[scallopsrgreat]

Artetas, I actually said it was like mansplaining, as in 'similar to', as in although he didn't actually explain motherhood in words of no more than one syllable, the implication was there by quoting the woman (as Dusk more eloquently explains).

However I think Beach's use of the word appropriation is far more articulate and nails it tbh. Appropriation could be seen as a form of mansplaining though.

But as Dusk says "I don't think you get it and I don't think you want to get it and I think you are deeply invested in there being no problem." I disagree with Buffy that you are an enigma. I think your posts plainly state your position.

[Freyalright]

OP, you sound annoyed in the same way when a band, that seems only you like, makes it big and suddenly everyone is a fan. I think if feminism is to grow you need to be more sharing.
I don't think you take ownership of something if you share it on social media. I'm white, I share blues songs/performances for my friends to see. I don't own that music. I'm not trying to silence it's message. I'm not trying to show off to my black friends.

[freyasnow]

The advice generally given to 'allies' is that they shouldn't attempt to speak 'for' other people but should instead link to those people speaking for themselves. Quite apart from the fact this only works on the Internet and in an offline conversation you are going to have to use your own words, this man has linked to a woman speaking, but he's still being criticised for doing so. So what are 'allies' now expected to do?

1. Only link if they are able to represent the vast number of different experiences that different women (or other group) feel about a topic. As a woman, I couldn't do this, so would feel I would be holding men to a standard I could not reach myself.
   

1. Only link to a campaign and not to individual women's self expression, in which case the lived experiences of women become sidelined which makes the whole thing seem impersonal and lacking in humanity.
   

1. Only talk about their experiences, in which case the most powerful people's experiences become over-represented. And if women on here do it, we would then be promoting 'Western' or 'White' feminism over other groups.
   

There are certainly issues with particular perspectives being promoted over others, because it can created a very skewed form of activism. That is then an issue of pointing out general patterns rather than an individual act being wrong when seem in isolation. I don't think the answer to that is for 'allies' to stop linking to different kinds of posts. I am going to keep on reblogging a range of posts about slavery, issues in other countries and so on, even though it is beyond my own experience. I think people need to focus on what 'allies' should do, because at the moment there seems to be nothing they can do that isn't seen as being wrong.

[WidowWadman]

Freyalright hit the nail on the head.