{"id":9473,"date":"2012-01-23T09:00:37","date_gmt":"2012-01-23T09:00:37","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.badreputation.org.uk\/?p=9473"},"modified":"2012-01-23T09:00:37","modified_gmt":"2012-01-23T09:00:37","slug":"guest-posts-white-knights-of-womens-rights-yes-men-can-be-feminists-too","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/badreputation.org.uk\/2012\/01\/23\/guest-posts-white-knights-of-womens-rights-yes-men-can-be-feminists-too\/","title":{"rendered":"[Guest Post] “White Knights of Women’s Rights”? Yes, Men Can Be Feminists Too!"},"content":{"rendered":"
It’s a guest post! Please welcome Becky
Shepherd<\/a> to the soapbox. (And if you’ve got a guest post, send
a short pitch to badrepeditors@gmail.com<\/a>).<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n
The subjection to online abuse of female writer sorts is something that
has, of late, been widely discussed. The press appear to perceive it as
a non-issue, even though there resides a catalogue of women who\u2019ve
experienced this kind of backlash, ranging from the latently patronising
to intimidating and violent threats. But a new twist came when Nick
Cohen wrote an article<\/a> defending writers Laurie Penny, Polly
Toynbee and Melanie Phillips – and condemning the vitriol that
they in particular experience when passing comment in the mainstream
press. His bone of contention is not that any of these women face
criticism; that\u2019s a given if you make known your judgement on
highly emotive issues. What he does have a problem with, however, is
that these journalists encounter very personal, sexually abrasive and
downright scary comments because they are women, and that these comments
specifically target their womanhood. He even goes as far as to blame the
\u201ccomplicity of newspaper managers\u201d whom he believes do very
little to deter this type of victimisation and actively
\u201cdemean\u201d their female staff.<\/p>\n
Seems a commendable sentiment, does it not?<\/p>\n
The problem then became that he was zealously praised for bringing these
virtual misogynistic tirades to light, despite the fact that female
bloggers have been persistently trying to get their mistreatment taken
seriously. Feminists are angry that Cohen rode in on his horse, waving
his gallant testimony, rescuing the damsels and making this concern
valid, like it wasn\u2019t already. Nicky Woolf, another New Statesman
voice, wrote
a counter piece<\/a> claiming that \u201cmale supporters of
women’s rights risk looking like \u2018white knights\u2019\u201d
and subsequently raised the question: can a man ever really call himself
a feminist? There followed a lot of dictionary definitions of feminism
and references to the multifarious tapestry that is social
theory.<\/p>\n Photo: Rachel Strohm
(http:\/\/www.flickr.com\/photos\/rachelstrohm\/)<\/p><\/div>\n
There are those who believe men cannot identify themselves as feminists.
End of. The argument being that unless you relentlessly suffer under
patriarchy, you can\u2019t comprehend the impact it has on your very
existence. I do appreciate this school of thought, and it\u2019s used
for many other social prejudices, including racism. The reason I
don\u2019t agree with it though, is twofold; firstly I think genuine
empathy is just as valuable as shared experience, because it
demonstrates a wider acceptance of the goals you\u2019re trying to
achieve. If you only encourage your philosophy within the tight
constraints of those whom it will inherently appeal to, you\u2019re not
going to change anything. It\u2019s like running an ideological bakery;
trying to sell cakes to a cake lover is easy, trying to sell cakes to a
diabetic is\u2026 well, it\u2019s dangerous, but you catch my
drift.<\/p>\n
My other reasoning is that, as my crudest understanding of feminism is
the pursuit of equal rights, refusing to call men feminists on the basis
of their gender is hypocritical, and the very antithesis of equality.
Throwing inter-defined phrases like \u2018pro-feminist\u2019 or
\u2018feminist sympathiser\u2019 around creates a \u2018them\u2019 and
\u2018us\u2019 mindset. By resorting to the dissection of semantics, you
risk alienating someone who wanted to identify with you – and you,
with a desire for black and white delineation, then reject them. Men
already suffer prejudice if they express any distaste for hegemonic
masculinity; it\u2019s difficult to publically denounce sexism without
being seen as ‘girly’ somehow. I think it’s widely
believed that until traditional ideas about masculinity are rewritten so
that\u2019s it \u2018normal\u2019 to feel sensitivity to violence and
rape, feminism will fail to accrue male mass appeal. I\u2019m sure that
lots of men don\u2019t give a flying fudge what their peers call them,
but ignorance to the implications of old fashioned gender roles for men
is unforgivable. Separate sphere-ism is something that still plagues
society, for all genders.<\/p>\n
It translates into pop culture too. A current example of the divide is
exhibited in criticisms of Stieg Larsson. The Hollywood revision of
The Girl With The Dragoon Tattoo<\/strong> has, yet again, stirred up
misgivings about Larsson\u2019s depictions of misogyny in the Millennium
Series<\/a>. I too, feel uncomfortable with the sexed-up sexual
violence displayed onscreen, but is it really fair to question the
author\u2019s motives? It\u2019s common knowledge that the books were
inspired by a childhood trauma, when Larsson witnessed the gang rape
of a local girl. And all the evidence suggests that as a consequence,
he genuinely abhorred violence against women. He was a socialist
activist, founding the Swedish Expo
Foundation<\/a> which sought to expose and end extreme right and white
supremacist activity. He was very vocal about his feelings on
inequality. So why does it appear so difficult for us to read the
message with the spirit in which it was intended? Would we feel the
same discomfort towards the franchise if the creator was a woman? If
the writing had been female, maybe it would have been viewed as
harrowing instead of graphic. But whatever your thoughts on the
series, you have to pay credit where credit\u2019s due. Larsson has
helped bring misogyny to the forefront of public debate, the volumes
have sold 65 million copies worldwide, and the films are huge too.
Regardless if it appeals to one\u2019s personal taste, surely the
feminist community should embrace the chance to discuss misogyny
within a contemporary and popular context?<\/p>\n
I suppose for me, my perception of men and feminism is built around
my own heroes. My Dad, for one, always instilled a sense of
\u2018you are not a girl, you\u2019re a person\u2019 in both me and
my sister, and that was vital to my understanding of sexism,
misogyny and the injustices I felt later on. It\u2019s not because
he identifies himself as a feminist, mind – he has no
socio-political interest whatsoever. It was simply that, as his
children, he wanted to pass on his interests to us, and the fact
that we were girls and some of his pastimes were less than feminine
was irrelevant. His biggest passions were music and film, and I owe
my love of both to him. I was listening to Dire Straits when most
girls my age had little in the way of audio knowledge other than the
theme tune to
Rosie and Jim<\/strong>. He made us have a crack at everything;
fishing, sailing, karate. We were taught to use tools. Although
I\u2019d like to think my thoughts on egalitarianism are a little
more sophisticated than they were as a kid, I do owe my unwavering
faith in fundamental parity to the men in my life, as well as the
women. So I feel a personal obligation to ensure that men and
women are credited and treated fairly.<\/p>\n
I do get it. We don\u2019t want to rely on men to make feminism
credible – I suppose the fear is that many thoughtful
discussions aren\u2019t ‘validated’ until
they\u2019re echoed in a male voice, meaning that the content of
the message is only getting through via a diluted medium. But to
split hairs over whether or not a man calls himself a feminist
is flouting the nature of what we\u2019re all about. After all,
what\u2019s in a name?<\/p>\n
<\/a>
\n