Last Thursday I attended a Guardian-initiated meeting on ‘Everyday Sexism’. The title is Behind the Headlines: What's all the fuss about feminism? and the blurb says: “Why do some women hate feminism? What is the 'fourth wave' of feminism? Who decides what it means to be a feminist? Can men be feminists? And, with the pay gap still widening and sexism prominent across campus and offices, where has it really got anyone?” In Part I the week before, I discussed the issues that might be addressed.
Well, it was a well-attended meeting at Red Lion Square’s well-known meeting-place, Conway Hall. Laura Bates, convenor of the everyday Sexism group, presided, with a panel of four:
(a) Yas Necati, 18, a student, campaigning against Page 3,
(b) Bonnie Greer, OBE, playwright, black American feminist from Chicago,
(c) Jane Fae, a transgender feminist, also writing on climate change,
(d) Beatrix Campbell, Green Party, latest book The End of Equality, a call for a global feminism.
The meeting seemed very much a rally for the converted: when people referred to sexism on campus ‘which we had all come across’ no attempt was made to explain to the likes of myself, a man. Obviously it related to some extent to gender roles and harassment, but I couldn’t get any feel for this. None of the questions were really answered, except for a definite affirmative for the question “Can men be feminine?”
Mention was made of the men showing up, and we received a round of applause. Thanks. All the other men there, perhaps 20, seemed to be there with partners Coming back to the panels. Anti-feminists might claim that feminists are a ‘load of harpies that stigmatise women for being women’.
Er, no. Even though Laura Bates wrote a very angry book on Everyday Sexism, she came across as a very friendly though business-like chair of the occasion. Harpies? I see no harpies. I felt however a certain amount of anger at own experiences, and that heat was fuelled by an absence of light.
I will briefly go through four points arising from the discussion:
(a) Why do some women hate feminism?
Barely discussed, though Bonnier Greer made an aside about some feminists benefitting financially, citing the monetary reward some movements receive for holding contrarian view. “We are developing a new narrative.”
But you only have to google on women+against+feminism to see the massive resentment of women at being talked to by women who think they may presume to know best This may well be a matter of concern, but scarcely addresses the issue.
This anti-feminist view was clearly not generally comprehensible to most people present, at least those who spoke simply felt that anyone who has experienced either discrimination or harassment will wish to be a feminist.
(b) Men and gender roles
Obviously a lot was said about men, but I felt that Bonnie Greer made a very interesting remark:
“We must discuss the problems that boys have,” [Bonnie says, citing the ways they are pushed into masculine tropes, like sports.] “As feminists, we must have discussions about men and masculinity.”
I get trolled a lot by young men, [she continues] just speak to them as if they are human and it disarms them; they don't expect that, they expect a fight.... they constantly have to define manhood, not just in their houses, but everywhere, online, on the street corner: are you a man, are you a man, are you a man?
I also remember brief mention, by the Green lady, Beatrix Campbell. According to the official blog she said: “Feminism is very interested in men and masculinity; how could it not be?” and then brought up another audience question, about men taking on more feminine roles in the house. “Men themselves have not initiated any mass movement to enable them to take care of their children, to be parents rather than providers.”
One may note that mothers very often get the support of grandmothers, and now that men are living longer I am sure we should have a ‘Grandfathers For Justice’! Not only would this help the fathers, but might make the grandfathers live even longer!
(c) Sex and Page Three
I am afraid the discussion of Page Three, led by Beatrix Campbell, was so poor I wondered whether I should become a supporter of said Page. She first shared the fact that the topless feature began in the same year the first Women’s Liberation conference was held in Britain. “It was Rupert Murdoch’s riposte to feminism in Britain. It is not about the glorification of women. We should be absolutely confident in our repudiation of [Page 3].” It wasn’t meant to glorify anybody. Nor do I think it was about a riposte to feminism. We were at the tail end of the permissive society, and Murdoch was not opposed to equality of the sexes: he equally exploits everybody. I shall put on my thinking cap, but whatever merits there are should not be stolen for an exploitative establishment.
Ms Campbell brought up the idea that feminism should ‘celebrate feminine sexuality’. To this a Page Three fan might retort that surely Page Three celebrates sexuality in general. Crucial to such a debate are women’s intuitions. Is there for example a class divide in such intuitions?
(d) Who decides what it means to be a feminist? Can men be feminists?
To my mind, if feminism is defined as gender equality, one may if one wishes call oneself a feminist: when asked whether they considered themselves feminist, some 90% of the audience put up their hands. I did not. Indeed I have no difficulty with the idea that feminism stands for gender equality, and that it is called feminism rather than masculinism since women are the losers in this inequality.
However I am not a woman and lack the intuitions of a woman, just as they lack our intuitions and therefore I would be arrogant to claim to be a feminist. I should be more concerned with battered husbands and victims of machismo taken too seriously. Say I as the proud owner of the local Rugby Club scarf. ;]
But machismo is not always an amusing ritual in New Zealand at least I understand there is a disturbing level of young male suicides and men are decidedly better-placed to counteract this.
I have no trouble with “Ich bin ein Frau.” [except the word should be the feminine ‘eine’!], but if I am asked to celebrate female sexuality, I have no useful contribution to make.
To conclude... to my mind a key issue is gender roles, and related to this is the question of the discrepancy between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome. One must indeed strive to overcome obstacles to equality of outcome, but one runs the danger of a more authoritarian approach which does indeed tell other women what to do.
I also think that many political groups, and indeed many intellectual communities, must learn to recognize that there is a limit to people’s understanding: hypotheses should not be confused with established facts. In this regard I have written before about ‘single peg reasoning’, and I feel that this helps to remind one of the limitations of our understanding. My single peg in regard to feminism is that the vast majority of species and human communities have gender roles. Why?
Martin Prior
