Very few people seem to find anything offensive about the presumption that feminism is a cover for “misandry.” The stereotype of the man-hating, ball-breaking scold is so deeply entrenched in cultural ideology that identifying feminists as such is typically absorbed as par for the course. Those women who do take umbrage at this representation (and if you are one of them, I fervently hope that this book will inspire you to let go of those concerns) are met with the same response given to all women who complain about how society or individuals depict them as objects of ridicule. They’re told to get over it, to lighten up, to learn to take a joke. They’re also told that they brought it on themselves, that being a feminist in this day and age is automatically synonymous with man-hating, that if they truly cared about equality they’d call themselves a humanist (which, by the way, is an existing ideology with a definition that has nothing to do with gender or equality at all) or the even more meaningless “egalitarian.” “Outspoken” feminists—by which I mean feminists who dare to speak about their politics in any way, shape or form—incite the anger of people deathly afraid of women’s power, and whose only recourse against it is to try to nullify it by using the threat of male exclusion.
This is standard procedure. It’s seen as perfectly acceptable to accuse a woman of misandry and admonish her for the supposedly gargantuan crime of man-hating. This stereotype is used to control women, because—as I’ve already mentioned—one of the worst things a woman can do is to consciously opt out of the apparently great privilege of enthusiastically sucking on patriarchy’s dick. Man-hating = bad.
But what happens when similar discussions of misogyny or even garden-variety sexism are raised? What happens when a woman criticizes the actions of one man or a group of men, and connects these actions with the gender inequality that thrives in broader society? If you guessed that a dozen or so men would pop up to clarify that, actually, not all men are like this and that must be specified before the feminist discussion goes any further then DING DING DING! Congratulations! You win a prize! It is a cushioned band to protect your noggin from all the head-desking you must do.
“Not all men” has become the notorious battle cry some men (see what I did there?) bellow whenever women start speaking about the impact misogyny has on our lives. It’s become a running joke on my Facebook page, with regular commenters often taking informal bets to see how long it takes for a variation on the “not all men” theme to pop up on posts about domestic violence, sexual assault or just basic male entitlement. I’ve found that the theme of these comments can be separated into three basic categories.
The Super Right-On Male Feminist Ally
Is totally here for women’s rights and equality and totally wants every woman to know just how here he is for them. He’s so here for them that it upsets him to be associated with those other guys. Instead of turning his Super Right-On attention to schooling those bad boys on their behavior, he thinks it’s more important to get women to acknowledge just how much of an ally he is. And if they refuse to do that, how can he in good conscience continue to support them?
Typical comment: “Those men disgust me, but I’m disappointed that you don’t acknowledge that not all men are like this. How are we supposed to be allies if you lump us in with the bad guys?”
What you should say: “If you think the post isn’t about you, then it’s not about you. But if your allegiance is conditional on being flattered and showered with gratitude, then you weren’t really an ally to begin with.”
The Feminism is Dangerous and that’s Why It’s Dying Whiplash Prophet
Is very concerned with letting you know how irrelevant and outdated he finds your views. In fact, he’s so concerned with letting you know how irrelevant you are that he’ll devote multiple hours to the theme, using whatever medium he can to yell at you that men are tired of being demonized and subjugated by the feminist agenda. This guy is deeply aggrieved by the thought men are being stereotyped unfairly, and will defend that stance by building a Straw Feminist and attempting to set her alight.
Typical comment: “This is why feminism is such a joke now, because you act as if all men are criminals. In fact, 99 percent of men are good guys, but you don’t care about that. Feminists are just angry because they’re ugly.”
What you should say: “Can you cite your source for the statistical claim that 99 percent of men are good? Please note that ‘my butt’ is not considered a peer-reviewed journal.”
The Fuck All Feminazis Guy
Hates feminists because his wife left him and/or beautiful women don’t want to date him. Claims this is because he isn’t rich, ripped and willing to treat them like an arsehole. Cannot conceive of the fact that it might actually be because he is a terrifying, sad individual who quite obviously has a problem seeing women as human-being people. Fuck All Feminazis Guy thinks men are genuinely enslaved by an all-powerful matriarchy. He blames feminism and the family courts for male suicide rates. Refuses to be labelled a misogynist because he insists no one loves women more than he does.
Typical comment: “Fat fugly feminazi cunt, do you bathe in the tears of all the men who killed themselves this week? Fuck you, not all men are the bastards you make them out to be, you dumb slut.”
What you should say: Nothing. Block and delete them. These men don’t deserve your time, and their hatred of women is legitimately terrifying. (Of course, if you’re like me you never do what anyone tells you, so if you have to respond, do it with a meme. I like the one of Dawson Leary crying, but kittens sometimes work too.)
We can laugh about these guys (particularly the last one) and we should. In fact, a note on that: women should direct more of their laughter at men, primarily because men can be so ridiculous and they also get so upset when women laugh at them. Ever had a man tell you to relax and take a joke? Ever had him tell you you’re overreacting when you object to something sexist he’s said or behave as if you’re being hysterical and unreasonable because you told him something was offensive? And have you ever hesitated over calling out a man on his rank, sexist humor because you didn’t want to have the inevitable interaction which involved him laughing at you and telling you to stop being so sensitive?
Of course you have—you’re a woman. But compare that attitude to the way men behave when we laugh at them in return. Oh my good giddy aunt, you’d think we’d poured a jar of fire ants all over their junk. The way they erupt into a volcano of rage is hysterically funny in and of itself. It’s almost as if they haven’t spent their entire lives being conditioned to think of themselves as a foolish waste of space who lacks the proper objectivity to understand how ridiculous they are. It’s almost as if they haven’t been shamed and gaslit into absorbing ridicule as part and parcel of simply existing. Why . . . it’s almost as if they’ve been raised to believe they’re worthy of some kind of respect!
I’ve started joking about men more often and more deliberately on social media now just to watch as they stumble over themselves to lecture me on how offensive I’m being and how disgustingly sexist I am. At the end of 2015, I sent out a deliberately provocative tweet that said, I’m not sexist or anything, but men just aren’t funny. Of course, this is the kind of thing women hear all the time. When we argue that maybe, probably, perhaps, possibly this isn’t strictly true, usually in relation to the lack of women on comedy bills or supposed-to-be-funny panel shows, we’re told that if women were funnier, we would get more gigs as funny-makers. That’s how the world works, you see. It’s a meritocracy. And if it’s a meritocracy (which it definitely, definitely is except for in the millions of cases when it isn’t), then we can hardly blame all the white, middle-class, mostly middle-aged, cis-het men for just being better at everything.
“In the vast majority of cases, when men speak to other men about feminism and gender equality, it is through the prism of protection and paternalism.”So I tweeted out a variation on an argument women hear all the time and I kid you not, within about three seconds there were ten men gnashing to get their gobs around the bait. One of them said he was a Feminist (with a capital F) and followed my work, but he had found this tweet “extremely disappointing” (I guess he can’t follow my work too closely, because most of my tweets are considered extremely disappointing to one man or another). A handful more swiftly rattled off tweets of their own about things women couldn’t do as well as men and that was nice because then it felt like just an ordinary day instead of another Clem Wants To Make A Point On Twitter festivus. Another guy just started tweeting the names of famous male comedians at me alongside a hashtag, as if maybe I’d just woken up that day with temporary amnesia and imagined I might be living in a world where women weren’t constantly reminded of men’s Great Achievements. Oh! I was supposed to think to myself. Billy Connolly! Of course, I forgot about him. Well, I guess that settles the matter. CASE CLOSED.
Rather than dissuade me, that little experiment just further convinced me that women should laugh at men frequently and often and even more so when it makes them mad. Don’t let anyone tell you this is an example of “reverse sexism,” or some other made-up thing that doesn’t exist but which once again makes privileged men out to be the most victimized group in society. Laughing at the men who grow irate whenever women assert themselves isn’t bullying, nor is it a blanket dismissal of men the world over. To borrow an olden day phrase, it is what it is. Pointedly, the “is” of this is highlighting how absurd and ridiculous some men can be when their power is challenged even slightly. If they have even a shred of the self-awareness that they claim to, they might just use it as a teachable moment for how it feels to live in a world where your opinions and hurt are routinely dismissed as “humorless oversensitivity.”
But here’s where we need to get serious. Because while those Not All Men types may be parodies of outrage in and of themselves, they also have a lot of power. They have a lot of power because women have been trained since birth to coddle men’s feelings and to regulate our behavior so as not to appear too intrusive or domineering. We are taught to shrink ourselves so that we take up as little space as possible, but we are also told to sacrifice the little space we do have—and to do so joyfully—to men and their voices.
For feminism to work, apparently we need to be appealing to men. We need to be nice to them. We need to make them feel like it’s a non-threatening movement that will take all of their interests and needs into account and hold their hand as we transition into an equality that will in no way disadvantage or even moderately disrupt their current privilege. Unfortunately, a lot of women take this message to heart because doing anything contrary to it presents as almost frightening. This is why, despite the stereotypes of separatism and misandry that are so repeatedly levelled at feminist activists and workers, so many women bend over backwards to try to be as accommodating as possible to men’s sensitivities. These women believe, with the best of intentions, that we are better served by stroking men’s egos than by issuing some straight talk to them.
No. Feminism is not obligated to provide equal space at the top for men to lead us. That idea is completely ludicrous. It isn’t our duty as women to set a better example so that we can confidently advocate for equality without fear of being accused of hypocrisy. Resisting the urge to allocate time, money, resources and space to ensuring men are given authority in the feminist project isn’t “silencing” them—it’s a deliberately political act that reasserts the rights of women to lead ourselves in a world that would still prefer we toddled off to the parlor after supper so the men could smoke in peace.
Let’s ignore for a moment the fact that the world beyond feminist institutions (and often even within them) does little to nothing to prioritize inclusivity of anyone who occupies a marginalized identity. This “inclusivity” that’s expected of us—the inclusivity that’s in fact demanded of us if we want to demonstrate the true spirit of “equality”—is little more than replicated patriarchy. Consider the reasoning. We need men to speak if we want anyone to take feminism seriously. We need men to speak to other men if we want them to listen to our message. We need men to speak if we want to show that we’re not out to subjugate them all and install a matriarchy.
Really? We want to dismantle a patriarchal system which values men’s voices over women’s and prioritizes them in almost every sphere that’s given value in the world, but if we want our movement to be successful in this venture we need to elevate men to the head of it?
None of that makes sense!
Men’s voices are considered to be fundamentally more authoritative than women’s—this is one of the core expressions of patriarchy and has been throughout all of history. So how is it remotely challenging that perception to insist that men’s voices are the only ones that will be heard on feminism?
Additionally, feminism and the treatment of women has always been constructed differently by men as a group than it has been by women. In our society, a man is able to consider himself a feminist (indeed, he’ll often be promoted by himself and numerous others as a feminist deserving of praise) simply because he says he won’t tolerate violence against women. But how does that same man react when a woman discusses sexual violence with him? Let’s say she argues that women should be able to walk wherever they want, whenever they want and trust that if something “bad” does happen to them, the public and police response won’t be to issue warnings to women about modifying their behavior. Is his reaction to listen to her input, acknowledge her experience and agree that, of course, she’s absolutely right—the emphasis should always be on a zero-tolerance approach to criminal activity and a blanket support for human-being women people? Or, as my own experience suggests, does he react by telling her that she’s wrong? That everyone has a responsibility to take care of themselves and make wise choices, that this isn’t victim blaming, it’s just common sense, that there are Bad People out there and we don’t always know who they are and how dare she or any woman tell him, a man, that he isn’t allowed to advise his daughters or wife or sister or friends that they need to take more care on the streets?
“Feminism is not obligated to provide equal space at the top for men to lead us.”There are exceptions, of course. But in the vast majority of cases, when men speak to other men about feminism and gender equality, it is through the prism of protection and paternalism.
Men, we mustn’t do this. Men, we need to take care of our women better. Men, we need to make a pledge to always be Stand-Up Guys. Very rarely will you hear these conversations being framed in ways that incorporate women as anything other than objects requiring masculine defense.
When this tendency towards paternalism is critiqued by women, it is us who bear the brunt of the resulting anger. Why aren’t you being more supportive of men? Men are just trying to help. You’ll never win men over if you keep telling them what they’re doing wrong. You’ll never get men onside if you keep being mean to them. Don’t you dare tell me that I don’t care about women. And then, the best one of all: You’re everything that’s wrong with feminism today.
If you’re still uncertain about the subtle ways in which this paternalism is enforced, consider the different ways men and women are treated when either group advocates vengeance for victims of domestic violence. Men are allowed to say things like, “I would beat the shit out of any man who was a wife beater,” or, “Those bastard men who rape women are pigs and they ought to be castrated and then shot.” Pop culture’s cup runneth over with stories of men banding together to “teach” other men a lesson, while women have been conditioned to find this kind of vigilante behavior attractive. This starring role of Woman Protector is almost exclusively assigned to men, and as reward for their efforts they receive standing ovations and showers of bouquets.
What happens when women say these things or act in similar ways? When women talk about protecting ourselves against violence? When women reference the steps we take just to walk to our cars at night? When we talk about what should be done with rapists and wife beaters and misogynists, or indulge in fantasies of what we might like to do to them? What happens when women stand in front of men and say, “This is what our lives look like and this is why the world is so fucked up. If you care about that in the slightest, you’ll stop telling me and other women what to do and you’ll start listening to what we think YOU can do to help make the world a better place”?
Wow. Fighting violence with violence, hey? That sounds a bit hypocritical. Shouldn’t we be arguing that all violence is bad, not just violence against women? Violence is never tolerable. Also, Not All Men are like that. I insist that you acknowledge Not All Men behave in this way before you make that argument, otherwise I’ll have no choice but to ignore everything you say and write you off as a man-hater.
Men cannot change the world FOR women, because men have no concept of what it’s like to live in the world AS women. They don’t know what it feels like to have their specifically gendered experiences either immediately discounted or assessed (unconsciously or deliberately) as exaggerated. They don’t know the trauma that accumulates from hearing constant commentary about all the ways in which they’re weak, how they inherently lack merit, how they possess less business acumen, how they cannot help but be overly emotional and irrational, how they could succeed just as well as the other side if they tried hard enough, how they’re all their own worst enemies and how in fact it’s other men who disadvantage men the most. Men cannot understand how infuriating it is to have circumstances of safety be reduced to behavioral change not in perpetrators but in victims. Even those opposed to victim-blaming attitudes can’t really appreciate the impact that being exposed to them has, especially when opposition to these ideas is often met with abuse and ridicule.
How can men possibly hope to change the world in all the ways that women need when half the time they don’t even realize we’re living on two different planes of the same dimension? We are the only ones equipped to lead the feminist fight because we are in possession of knowledge that can only be gleaned from experience. Surrendering control of our liberation to the same men who benefit from us being denied it isn’t just a dangerous exercise in irony—it’s a guaranteed way to ensure nothing truly changes.
Women are being killed on a weekly basis by men who hate them so much but want desperately to control them. We’re raped, violated, abused, pushed around, undermined, ridiculed, mocked, beaten, bullied and degraded. And to make matters worse, we’re told that our complaints about these things are overwrought, hysterical and defamatory.
Suck it up, princess, the world isn’t fair. Get over it, it’s just a joke. A good cock up ya will sort you out.
And still they ask: Why do you hate men?
From FIGHT LIKE A GIRL by Clementine Ford, published by Oneworld Publications. Copyright © Clementine Ford 2016, 2018.
