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!!

[ChunkyPickle]

Very late to the party, but I think that perhaps the shortness of his comment doesn't help - short comments feel either dismissive, or hurried, or like you haven't read the article but were required to say something to post it - those kinds of reasons. If you really cared, then you right a little paragraph saying why (after all, this is facebook not twitter, you're supposed to be over-emoting)

In this case, given the OP's history, it probably pushes the button because he hasn't said anything himself - he could have written that comment without having watched the video at all, or having watched the video but not thought about it at all, and that's why it feels like he's points scoring and just doing it for a cookie rather than as an act of understanding and wanting to spread the word.

[CaptainGrinch]

"I would be willing to bet that she didn't intend to come across as criticising other women who don't feel strong about the physical aspects of birth and motherhood. Yet, this is what seems to have happened as a result of a group of women misinterpreting the reasons for this young man sharing it"

There, fixed that for you.....

[ArtetasSwollenAnkle]

The reasons of the sharer are only one part of the story.

Very true. But isn't it interesting how many different interpretations we few observers have managed to assign to his single sentence.

Chunky said that perhaps the shortness of his sentence works against him - seeming dismissive or hurried. So if he had written sentences or a paragraph, would he then be seen to be critiquing the work, or trying to add to it, or the dreaded mansplaining? Too short = dismissive; too long = mansplaining.

Perhaps he would be better saying nothing at all. And I say that without a hint of snippiness. I think, from the reaction here, his involvement in promoting feminism is not welcome, and that can be extrapolated to the male population as a whole - again, not snippy or sulking, but it just seems like too much of a minefield.

[DuskAndShiver]

Freya

"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."

no, I think more precisely the advice is to allow them to speak for themselves.
by linking you are making an utterance. He still can't actually bring himself to drink his cup of shut the fuck up.


Artetas is right in that callow witterings would potentially be even more annoying than a very short comment (though something interesting, sensitive and heartfelt might be quite heartwarming. Who knows)

"Perhaps he would be better saying nothing at all"

YAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

(bunting, fireworks, huge celebrations)

This guy sounds like exactly the sort of chap who, much more than he realises or would ever admit, would so often be so much better to say nothing at all.

THat is not to say he should not be involved in being a pro-feminist. He can just do something useful, while shutting up.

[ArtetasSwollenAnkle]

Dusk, could you give an example of someone doing something that would not involve some sort of statement? Do you mean a protest march, raising money, something like that?

[DuskAndShiver]

why, Artetas?
Why do you want me to tell him / you what to do?

(I have actually upthread - you are not reading properly, this is the second time I have had to point you to words that are actually on the screen already, and there are numerous other examples of you not really "listening")

[CaptainGrinch]

I have actually upthread - you are not reading properly

Well, I can't see it either.

Please repeat.

[ArtetasSwollenAnkle]

The only action - doing - I can see that you referred to was the guy you work with who leaves on time every day. And that was back several pages, so excuse me for not remembering it. Or was there something else I overlooked? Because that is not an option for the man under discussion, I was asking for practical examples. I don't know why that has annoyed you so much.

[mayorquimby]

"but I think that perhaps the shortness of his comment doesn't help - short comments feel either dismissive, or hurried, or like you haven't read the article but were required to say something to post it - those kinds of reasons. If you really cared, then you right a little paragraph saying why (after all, this is facebook not twitter, you're supposed to be over-emoting)"


And then surely he'd be doing exactly what he's already being criticised for. Taking ownership /acting as though his experience of the poem is what validates it rather than the poem being worthy in itself.

[freyasnow]

DuskandShiver, so are you saying that only people who are involved in an issue should as an oppressed group should mention any issue, because that is going beyond even what the most extreme social justice people say. So I shouldn't mention situations in other countries, issues for young woman, the elderly etc, issues for the disabled because I'm not the one they directly harm? How am I meant to even discuss my day to day life? I don't only love, care and relate to others exactly like me.

And if your point (and I'm really honestly not sure what your point is) is instead that social issues can only discussed by those that aren't the directly harmed group if you are the right kind of person, that is essentially bullying. It is excluding somebody from supporting any campaign, even if you agree with the actual point they are making, because you don't like them.

[freyasnow]

Dusk, I don't think people want you to tell them what to do. I think as you seem to have already offered the opinion that the role of an ally is to not speak at all, people are interested in your opinion of if there is any activities you think allies should be involved in.

[DuskAndShiver]

Artetas, before I continue to answer your questions dutifully, please could you answer the ones I asked you last night about "mansplain"? thanks.

[ArtetasSwollenAnkle]

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?

i. Yes, sometimes.
ii. No, not here, because he said here is abc talking about xyz. And if that is explaining in a condescending way due to his maleness and the audience's femaleness, then I'm a dutchman.

If he had said here is abc.....and I think she is.....and she means....and she feels...., then you might have a point. But he didn't, so you don't.

[DuskAndShiver]

You're a dutchman? Didn't realise you were Dutch.

I didn't use the expression "mansplain" for this by the way - although I get why some thought it was comparable - I just wanted to find out why you thought that picking up on that automatically discredited those who were annoyed-by-proxy by this person, according to the OP's description.

[freyasnow]

There are structural differences that come into play when someone from a more powerful group speaks about a less powerful group. But the same structural differences come into play when a member of a more powerful group chooses not to speak about a less powerful group. They're closing down a lot of potential discussion of an issue and will then instead talk about other issues. Talking about something is not somehow more 'problematic' than not talking about it.

And women having less power doesn't mean we can hold men to ethical standards in activism that are impossible for any human being to meet. I think that is why you won't explain what men do, because you are advocating a situation where whatever action an individual man took you could label it oppressive.

Why you are not morally obliged as a feminist to educate men, I do think you are morally obliged to explain what ethical activism you participate in about groups you do not belong to, because that is part of your responsibility as a feminist.

[ArtetasSwollenAnkle]

I found the use incorrect, because he did the absolute bare minimum to introduce the video - announcing author and subject seems sensible if you want people to watch something you put a link to. And I am sure you have noticed that others have picked up on this point.

Goedemiddag.

[DuskAndShiver]

"I do think you are morally obliged to explain"


ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

"This guy pissed me off"
"yeah I can see that, he would piss me off too"

Now I am morally obliged to account for myself in terms of what actions I take as a feminist? Seriously?

erm, no I am not.

[DuskAndShiver]

This is really interesting, this whole burden of proof / accountability angle.

I think the OP's workmate sounds like a right annoying little twerp, and when I express this, and unpack why, suddenly I am open to all sorts of questions and I get the impression that unless I can account for myself I am not allowed to find annoying little twerps annoying.

Fascinating. It's not like I have any power over him.

[freyasnow]

Of course you are allowed to find him annoying. He does sound annoying.

You don't have power over him. We have collective power over society. As such if you are advocating for a more ethical world, you surely have an ethical obligation to describe how 'allies' should behave, not just criticise them?

Whether or not he is annoying is irrelevant.

[DuskAndShiver]

To me this really relates to the other thread on here at the moment, about "the moral argument to feminism".

I feel like all this handwringing about being fair and logical with respect to this person (whom I don't know and to be honest is now just a cipher to discuss certain sorts of behaviour with respect to feminism, which I think is ok ethically in that we will never ever know who he is, God bless him) is spectacularly missing the point in ways that that thread is talking about.

If I had anal incontinence after having children, I would not want to see a male childless fit young man re-posting, like an approving authority, a poem about bodily changes after having children. Maybe someone on his feed does have anal incontinence. Maybe several have poor body image or in fact are suffering material disadvantages because their "poor" appearance has reduced the salary they can command. Or perhaps they "just" feel humiliated. Anyway it is tactless and inappropriate, and it is fine to feel it so, and it is absolutely fine to reflect upon it and express it, and every mealy mouthed approach towards the "even handed" is just discrediting these valid feelings as less important than this little squirt's "right" to take up other people's headspace

And I find it fascinating that framing all this in terms of men's association with feminism, in a way that suggests that in some contexts their "right" to express themselves should not come first, gets people so very prickly! "how do we know what he meant?" "how do we know what the video was about?" (it was in the OP.) "What are men supposed to do?" and finally "who are you, [me] what do you do, and what right do you even have by good credentials to express an opinion on this?"

this is why: he annoys me, like over-privileged young men often do. deal with it.

[freyasnow]

And it is disingenuous to now make out that this is all about some random guy. You have widened that out to discuss structural inequalities in discourse in general, and thus the behaviour of everyone, presumably including yourself (unless you belong to every minority group). So you are discussing how everyone should not behave, not just the OP's work colleague.

[DuskAndShiver]

x-post
It's not irrelevant. The OP is about feelings. I feel annoyed.

If the OP was "how should not very experienced young men approach supporting feminism?" then maybe I shouldn't post without something positive to say.

As the OP is "This pissed me off, can I reflect upon it and discuss it here" I think it is fine to say "yeah, that would piss me off too"

[DuskAndShiver]

I haven't widened it out, I have just talked in general terms about the societal structures in which this whole episode took place because that is, essentially, why it is annoying.

I am not writing a recipe book on How To Be Well Meaning Without Annoying Dusk. Let alone the handbook for the world!

[HomeHelpMeGawd]

Dusk, you're being unfair. No-one is saying you can't find him annoying, but this is a discussion board, so when you unpack why you find him annoying, some people have disagreed with your reasons. And questions are inevitable here, no? You can always choose not to answer.

Other people have stated contrary views and been challenged. It's the nature of the board, and i find it helpful - especially when I hear arguments that don't fit with how I had previously seen the world. I remember Dittany doing this regularly some years back. It didn't convince me every time, but it shifted me from complacency and forced me to think more deeply, and I'll always be grateful for that.