ON MAN-HATING, MALE BENEVOLENCE, AND THE NATURE OF FEMINISM

The slur that feminism is equivalent to "man-hating" has always been puzzling to me.  After all, how can advocating freedom, equality and dignity for women be considered a slap in the face to men?  In a way, it doesn't really have anything to do with men, although certainly feminists have been highly critical of men who engage in bad behavior towards women.  Amanda tackles this phenomenon of viewing feminism as anti-male in a post that considers why the Dixie Chicks song "Goodbye Earl" is often criticized as a "man-hating song."  It's actually an anti-wife-beater song about a woman who is beaten by her husband and teams up with her best friend to kill him when the law fails to protect her.  I think the commenters are on to something when they note that the reactions to the song might have been quite different if the beaten wife had had a man protect her rather than another woman.  As Amanda notes in the comments thread, it's not really an anti-male song but an anti-male dominance song; it feels like an anti-male song to a lot of people because they conflate being a male with being dominant by right. 

I think a similar conflation is inherent in this statement from an article entitled "Liberated from Feminism: The Personal Testimony of Carolyn McCulley." MucCulley, despite earning some kind of certificate in women's studies, apparently misses the whole point of feminism:

There is a certain response from men that both feminist and Christian women desire to elicit: a masculine benevolence that knows how to live with women in an understanding way, being both considerate and respectful toward those who are co-heirs in the gracious gift of life. Secular feminists approach this desire stridently, from a position of anger. Christian women are taught to approach it gently, from a position of trust . . .

This statement takes male dominance for granted, and reduces feminism to the mere desire to have men be nicer to us.  There is a frequent misapprehension, especially in conservative religious circles, that feminism is a mere response to bad behavior by males.  If men just lived up to their leadership roles in more loving and responsible ways, the thinking goes, the feminists of today would be living contentedly as subservient women. 

In fact, however, feminism isn't about a desire for male "benevolence" at all.  It is about the desire for freedom, equality, and dignity before the law, in our workplaces, in our homes, and in our culture.  It is not the wish for nicer leaders to submit to.  As I wrote before, feminists believe that being placed in a subordinate position based on sex is wrong even if the men in charge are wonderful and kind and enlightened. 

McCulley's assumptions illustrate how ingrained and beyond question male dominance is, at least in some quarters of our society.  These assumptions also show why feminism is sometimes believed to be identical to "man-hating."  If you take male dominance as a given that is beyond question, then feminism comes to seem as a rebuke to men, a statement that they aren't doing a good enough job.  In fact, feminism is only a rebuke to those men who believe in their automatic right to dominance, not to men in general.

Another common belief is that feminism is an effort to render men unnecessary or superfluous.  Again, this belief about feminism only makes sense if you believe that a man's role is to be in charge of women.  The distinction that is missed is that feminism only renders traditional roles superfluous, not men themselves.  That distinction is easy to miss if you identify men with their traditional roles so thoroughly that you cannot see a value for men otherwise.  In fact, feminism is about getting rid of arbitrary roles so that we can all, male and female alike, be seen as necessary and valuable for the individual abilities and characteristics we bring to the table. 

Comments

[Shawna R. B. Atteberry]

I'm in the part of the pond where people believe God ordained women to submissive. Oy. I know exactly what you're talking about, which is one of the reasons I blog what I blog, and I want to put out books for the every day woman.

[mythago]

Shorter McCully: if you're polite and pleasing to Daddy he won't hit you.

[Sydney]

Mythago -- I hope this isn't post derailment, but you reminded me of something a classmate said to me the other day.

I was joking that I like to be right, and that my boyfriend has to convince me in a roundabout way if he wants to get his way with things. The guy I was talking to said, "Well, that's why it should be legal for men to beat their wives." I think he was trying to be funny, but I found the statement incredibly unfunny. I wasn't sure what to do at the time, so I kind of gave him a dirty look, and that was it.

Any suggestions on how to handle this in the future?

[The Happy Feminist]

Hmmm . . . it's one of those traps. You know if you complain, you become the shrill feminist who has no sense of humor. I think a dirty look, or stone-faced silence is a perfectly fine response.

Or you can just matter-of-factly say why you think it's not funny. I am sure other people have a more confrontational approach than I do, but I tend to acknowledge that the other person may have had okay intentions and then tell them why their conduct isn't okay. In my experience, this gets people to listen to you more, unless they really are determined woman-haters. So you might say, "I know that you're just making a joke, but it really isn't funny when you consider that thousands of women like me are beaten by their male partners to this day. Also, when you say something like that, you never know what a person's history what that sort of thing might be."

Of course, I am guessing many people have wittier come-backs than I do!

[Ahunt]

A stony silence and an unwavering gaze is a perfectly fine response to such idiocy. So is a sweet smile, and in tones dripping with amused contempt...

"What a remarkably stupid thing to say, even in jest."

[Ginger]

"feminism is only a rebuke to those men who believe in their automatic right to dominance, not to men in general."

I've never been able to understand this line of thinking. I just can't wrap my head around it, at all.

[arielladrake]

I think you're partially right about the strong and almost destructive identification with traditional roles, but your use of the word 'arbitrary' reminded me of the fact that it's not even just that; it's that those who can't make the distinction have a tendency to believe the roles are 'natural'. The people who believe that men are exactly (perfect) as God/biology made them, and changing that would be evil. Or something.

[roula]

oh god. sydney, when i read that i actually recoiled. i wouldn't blame you for doing so in person.

that said, i think that feminism has left me with little of what people call "sense of humor," at least in that sense of the phrase, and sometimes i wish there were a way for me to cope with other people saying stuff like that when really it just makes me want to go home. so. i guess i don't have any ideas for a lighthearted rejoinder to something like that, even though i may wish for one sometimes.

when i do speak up i tend to stick to "whoa, tasteless joke!", or "i don't think that was as funny as you thought it would be". sometimes i'd like to just be direct and say "it must be nice to not have to worry about real life domestic violence, yourself".

[mythago]

I like A.'s response, as it completely cuts off the backpedaling where he would say "geez, it was JUST a JOKE!!!"--because you've just pointed out that even as a joke it's idiotic.

[roula]

also, HF, i blogged about the "man-hating" topic a while ago and wanted to make an update to it that included your and amanda's posts. i'm a little confused about how to work trackback (btw if anyone can help me with it i'd really like that -- i use blogger and livejournal), so i wanted to give you the heads-up manually (mixed metaphor?)... anyway, i hope that's ok, but let me know if not.