A friend emailed me a while back because she had received a Facebook invitation that was riddled with sexist notions. She had tried to explain the problems to the male who had written it, but found it difficult to express herself to him when she was so frustrated and the whole thing was written half-jokingly. She asked me if I could help explain the situation to him. Patriarchy silences women, and objections frequently result only in further silencing. As a male ally it felt only right to try to explain the situation to this other male that he might hear my words without being able to discredit me the way women are frequently discredited as seeing something that isn’t there.
Here is the invitation
A successful trip to Blockbuster begins with a goal; get in, get out, get an awesome move. This goal is best accomplished by careful planning, that is to say, have an idea of which movie you’d like to see ahead of time, know in which section the movie will most likely be, and remember to bring your Blockbuster card.
A realistic trip to Blockbuster goes a little something like this; bring your mom/sister/girlfriend because you think you want them to be happy with the movie you bring home. In your mind’s eye everything is planned out, you know what movie you want, Bruce Lee, Bruce Willis, Bruce All Mighty- you can see it on the wall, and you’ve remembered your Blockbuster card. But each Blockbuster trip ends exactly same as the last: A Walk to Remember with Mandy Moore.
Why? Easy. Because the term “the weaker sex” is probably the most misleading, biggest misnomer in the English language, because your movies make you a misogynist directly responsible for the plight of millions of women around the world, and let’s face it; she actually made you think her movie was a good idea at the time. It also explains why you dressed the way you did this morning, why your room looks the way it does, and why you don’t own a Porsche. Or many Porsches.
So what are we going to do about it? We can’t buy a new wardrobe, our room really isn’t that bad, and we can’t afford insurance on the Porsche anyhow. But we can absolutely watch the movies that we’ve wanted to watch for ages. The movies that somehow slip through the cracks in our lives and would normally go unseen. These movies were made for us and they need to be seen by us.
So I’m starting an age old tradition: MANdatory Man Movie Night. It’s a night where we catch up on the movies we haven’t seen but have no real excuse for not yet experiencing.
Its not imperative for the guys to show up, and of course, all the ladies are welcome.
But on this night we watch great movies, and don’t take no guff from the betties.
Here is my response
Okay, here are my thoughts, feel free to share them with ____.
First, I think we need to acknowledge that feminism is an ambiguous term and clarify what it is we mean when we say things like that movies is sexist, or, that invitation was sexist, etc. Feminism, when you and I use the term, refers to third wave feminism. Let’s briefly touch on the distinctions between the waves: first wave feminism emerged at the end of the 19th century leading into the women’s suffrage movement, and was concerned with very basic rights like voting; second wave feminism came after the 50s ended and argued for equal pay, equal treatment, equal protections, and so forth; third wave feminism is a more recent movement, beginning in the 90s, and is concerned with the subjective experiences of the oppressed, challenging “essentialist” notions embraced by society and unchallenged by earlier waves.
Many men can be classified as second wave feminists, that is, they believe women have a right to work, and to receive equal pay for that work, they are pro-choice, they support women in sports and women in politics, etc. Often these men are not afraid to self-identify as feminists, and they are proud of their progressive spirit. But it can’t stop there.
Third wave feminism is concerned with identity politics. It involves recognizing that, “oppression shapes the consciousness of the oppressed such that oppressed people usually internalize their oppression” (Wikipedia). A main tactic of the third wave is consciousness-raising, which–much like what we are doing here–involves talking about these issues and creating an awareness of how pervasive oppression is. Liberation, however, must be self-determined and self-defined.
There are several problems with second wave feminism. So-called victory was defined by a white male status-quo, which is why many people today have a difficult time even recognizing that sexism is at work in nearly every aspect of our lives. Second wave also over-emphasized the experiences of middle and upper-middle class white women, which led to the disenfranchisement of poor folks and women of color. Intersectionality, then, is an important concept which refers to the ways in which all forms of oppression work in concert.
Anyway, we arrive now at the fundamental point of this overview: essentialism. Essentialism is the view that specific entities necessarily have specific characteristics. We can detect essentialist notions informing a person’s reasoning when they say things like, “black people are loud,” “women are weak,” or “gay people are too sexual.” Essentialism is the root of all prejudice, and it is problematic because it offers gross oversimplifications based on insufficient evidence while totally ignoring systemic factors.
Some black people come off as “louder” than white people, because they have been historically denied a voice in popular culture, and overcompensate for this by demanding to be seen and heard in their everyday lives. Some women appear weak because society has taught them that they should not speak up for themselves, and when they do they are not heard out. Some gay people seem to be too sexual because their sexuality is a site of politics, and they must reclaim it in order to restore their humanity.
So when we talk about feminism we are really talking about combating essentialism, working to understand the subjective experiences of women, and stepping back to give women the voice that has been historically denied them.
So let’s look at the invitation in that light.
It should be immediately obvious that essentialist notions are informing the author’s reasoning. Yes, it is clear that he is trying to be humorous, but this does not excuse reinforcing an abusive worldview. The invitation assumes that men like a certain type of movie, and women like a different sort of movie. It alludes to a resentful deference that men give women only to save themselves the trouble of being nagged later on, and this notion of nagging is itself very sexist because it implies that women are capable only of petty complaint and not of legitimate objection. By grouping mom, sister, and girlfriend in one lump, the author has implied that women are not individuals–that their feelings and desires are all the same–and has attributed men’s failings to this ridiculous construction. Further, from the specific movies mentioned, the author has made clear that he believes manhood and masculinity necessitate a love of androcentric plots high in violence and bravado. By contrast, and by direct citation, the author has indicated that womanhood and femininity revolve around emotions and vanity.
So we identified three main principles of feminism as follows: challenging essentialist notions, understanding women’s subjective experiences, and giving women a voice. This invitation was able to disregard all three principles: it was informed entirely by unrealistic stereotypes, it lumped women together into a perfectly uniform whole, and it implied that women are annoying because of their petty complaints.
Finally, this was all accomplished under a guise of comedy, which serves to make this invitation all the more insidious. If a woman were to object to this invitation, she would likely receive in reply, “Are you serious? Chill out. Can’t you take a joke?” So not only does it reinforce an oppressive framework by describing women as marginal and insignificant–as other–it also operates within that oppressive framework by creating further opportunities for women to be silenced.
I admit my analysis may be harsh, given that the author of the invitation clearly meant no harm. I offer, however, that the critical spirit which informs these arguments is absolutely essential to “the achievement of full equality between the sexes” (Two Wings of a Bird).
Hope this was helpful.
In solidarity,
_____
July 15th, 2008 at 8:32 pm
Thanks for posting. I am intrested to hear others reactions.
July 16th, 2008 at 2:12 am
Wow. A very well organized response.
July 16th, 2008 at 9:37 am
I understand now, more than ever, why my daughter loves you like a brother/sister.
I would like permission to forward this to some of my friends. Right on the mark.
July 16th, 2008 at 3:15 pm
Absolutely, please do!
July 16th, 2008 at 4:34 pm
I have a problem with your response, but I can’t articulate it. It would go something like “humans recognize patterns in order to sort through a chaotic and incomprehensible pool of data in order to make orderly decisions” and that essentialism is a tool to do that. Some essentialist notions, like the statement “triangles have three sides”, are direct from the definition. Likewise, “boys have penises, girls have vaginas” (from Kindergarten Cop) is an essentialist notion, but it follows from a set of definitions.
Essentialist notions CAN be a root of prejudice, but I am not convinced that it is a necessary condition for prejudice. Additionally, I assert that essentialist notions are not a sufficient condition for prejudice. Given this, there must be other conditions in place in order for prejudice to exist (hubris is a good example).
Since essentialism allows us to perceive our environment in a meaningful way, and since essentialist notions are neither necessary nor sufficient to create prejudice, I recommend we refrain from throwing them out altogether.
That being said, though MANdatory Man Movie night sounds like the sort of event I would attend with Erin, I can see why the invitation may be perceived as bothersome.
July 16th, 2008 at 4:50 pm
Essentialism, as it concerns the present discussion, is contrasted with constructivism. Constructivists, like myself, believe that things like gender and race are social constructions–circumstantially but not essentially linked to sex or skin color.
The essentialist paradigm ignores systemic factors and provides justification for Social Darwinism, and, ultimately, eugenics.
The constructivist paradigm recognizes the causal roots of an entity’s characteristics, which precludes the sort of value judgments enabled by essentialism. The site of judgment shifts from the individual entity, no longer taken as wholly responsible, to the factors which created those attributes under assessment.
Constructivism also allows for the reality of change, while narrow essentialism is unrealistically rigid in its assessments.
At this point, if we are miscommunicating, it is because I am using identity-theory jargon that is being presented in what may for you be a new context. If that is the case let me know and I will rephrase without the jargon.
July 16th, 2008 at 8:55 pm
Saying essentialism is unrealistically rigid in its assessments is awfully essentialist of you.
July 16th, 2008 at 11:32 pm
I said “narrow essentialism is unrealistically rigid in its assessments.” It’s a self-sealing statement wherein “narrow” is defined as “unrealistically rigid.”
July 17th, 2008 at 1:37 am
To be fair, you only applied ‘narrow’ in your response to Josh; so are we now breaking up essentialism into different flavors of essentialism? Because, to be honest, Josh’s use of essentialism seems a lot like ‘learning’.
I agree: no, there is nothing inherent in having dark skin that makes you loud, as there is nothing inherent in having two X chromosomes that makes you like sappy movies. There’s also nothing inherent in something being six feet tall with claws and sharp teeth that makes it dangerous to run into in the middle of the woods, but to say that it is only a strong correlation reeks of a semantic brow-beating; I don’t care what you call it — a strong correlation, learning, common sense. Does it really matter that much to say, instead of “women like sappy movies,” “there appears to be a strong correlation between people who identify as ‘women’ and enjoying movies that are widely known as being ’sappy love stories.’”? You can’t be arguing that every person who says “black people are loud” or “women like sappy movies” literally believes that every person of African origin is loud or that every woman enjoys lovey-dovey movies. The fact that people who do believe that black people and women are inferior happen to use the same specific language as people who don’t believe that black people and women are inferior doesn’t mean we need to change language — language will ALWAYS be subverted. Language is not the culprit, here, so don’t pretend that we’re using the wrong words.
July 17th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
[…] to men about sexism” Jack Valentine breaks down feminism beautifully in a teachable moment of a sexist facebook invitation at his blog. […]
July 17th, 2008 at 2:44 pm
The language indicates an ignorance of systemic factors. Understanding those factors is an important part of breaking down prejudice. Also, those statements are usually guilty of availability heuristic.
July 17th, 2008 at 7:53 pm
I think the language used indicates an ignorance of your preferred language choice, which you take to then signify a lack of understanding. I suppose this is your blog, so yours is the vernacular, but to rigidly insist that yours is the ‘correct’ speech and that using language not built on years of study of rhetoric is somehow incorrect seems extremely unfair.
July 17th, 2008 at 8:51 pm
I’m not saying people should speak in a certain way, only that their choice in this matter generally reflects their sentiments.
July 18th, 2008 at 9:22 pm
And we wonder why feminists are stereotyped as having no sense of humor. Not that I think the first message was particularly amusing, of course, but it certainly shouldn’t incite moral outrage.
July 18th, 2008 at 10:51 pm
Hey - I haven’t got the time to finish reading your response (I’m at Essentialism) but I fully intend on coming back.
I just wanted you to know that so far, I wholly agree with and appreciate what you have to say. The little mini-lesson on feminism is more than I really knew, and I’m glad I do now.
I’m only slightly offended, as a woman, by the invitation, but enough that I would say something. Likely due to the fact that I LOOOVE the movies above categorized as something your mom/sister/girlfriend “wouldn’t like.” Bruce Willis is one of my all time favorite actors - and I’m down for an action flick any night of the week. Bring on the Bruce Lee - I dig Kung Fu too. And I’m an avid Star Wars fan. Hell, I quote Star Wars more often than anyone I know.
I’m also offended because I know that my response would be met with claims that I must be ugly, fat, and indefinitely single. Not to say that I have anything against any of that, but none of which are true. I’ve had these conversations before - they usually end with two choices: I admit to a lie, that I am in fact (although NOT in fact) fat/ugly/single, or I have to go beyond my comfort zone and offer pictures of myself and my family.
Anyway, it’s refreshing to see an educated response to this topic. I look forward to the time that I can finish reading it! (Haha!)
July 18th, 2008 at 11:12 pm
It frustrates me that when such a succinct and intellectually available statement has been made on behalf of feminist philosophy, the comments immediately ignore the beauty of what was successfully communicated and instead proceed to drill a ten-foot-hole into an inane, ultimately irrelevant detail.
Thank you for posting this. Too many conversations inevitably reach the point where my voice, as a woman, is not enough, and it is more effective to direct my listener to a male point of view. Now I know where to forward them.
July 18th, 2008 at 11:50 pm
I think that Erin’s comment above is a good example for the oppression that women face today. She mentions the need to prove that she is not fat ugly or single, this comment is in itself very disturbing, because not only does it imply that these are unvaluable traits but that we must go to lengths to expose their false-ness. This whole idea is centered around the concept that as women in our society if we are any of these things that our opinions are not valid, that we are not valuable memebers of society. The opression therefore lies in the need to conform to unrealistic ideals, that to be valuable we must thin, we all must be attractive and we all must not be single. We must conform to be valuable. Therefore where is the choice, where is the freedom. It’s counterproductive for Erin to feel the need to place her movie choices in a context of ‘I am not fat/ugly/single’ and therefore it’s ok for her to like action movies.
July 19th, 2008 at 12:00 am
I hate you.
July 19th, 2008 at 11:29 am
Excellent post!
One interesting phrase caught my eye: “…and stepping back to give women the voice that has been historically denied them.” I can identify with the unconscious sense of entitlement, that is, that we should “give” women what is theirs. Perhaps it would have worked better to say “…and stepping back to listen to women’s voices, which have historically been denied them.”
July 19th, 2008 at 12:08 pm
Good point Pablito, and that had occurred to me while I was posting but I didn’t want to change it from what I had originally written.
Thanks for all the comments, keep up the discussion.
July 19th, 2008 at 4:31 pm
@ Mallamun
“instead proceed to drill a ten-foot-hole into an inane, ultimately irrelevant detail.”
How about drilling a ten-foot-hole into an inane, ultimately irrelevant invitation? Irrelevance is in the eye of the beholder. To me, that invitation was irrelevant. Low-brow, perhaps, but certainly not worth writing a thousand-word sermon / history lesson against. What I care about is that this was not an appropriate application of words; I understand that feminism — or, really, these days, the fight against Essentialism in whatever arena you care to mention — is frustrated everywhere by structural inequality, ignorance, and plain old apathy.
But seriously, how does a response like this make anything better? It’s overblown and condescending, and, because of that will be ultimately ignored by the people it is intended for. This is a prime example of something that will only polarize people into angrily taking a stand against what it is you have to say. Shit, I agree with it completely and even I was so upset by the wording that I felt like trying to find something wrong with it.
July 19th, 2008 at 7:01 pm
Text deconstruction: A+ :-)
About the “prejudice as a pattern recognition” thing I used to say: “Statistics is a root of all discrimination”. Until one begins a sentence with sincere subjective “I feel like most (all) … were …” or “Most … I’ve met were …” It’s OK, but when comes to forced objectivisation (preferably by the means of mathematics), boom, one becomes a sexist, rasist or whateverist.
July 19th, 2008 at 10:11 pm
Andrew, the person who wrote the invitation made it clear that he was open to criticism. That is the only reason I felt it appropriate to respond as I did, and he found the response very valuable. I understand deeply the potential for polarization, and I only whip this stuff out when it’s truly appropriate–this was one of those times.
July 20th, 2008 at 12:35 am
I love this piece. I have read some of your other blogs and agree with what you say about Obama. wolf in sheep’s clothing is what I say. I came across this site by Stumble Upon. It is nice to find people who don’t agree with the system we live in today. I often feel like I just do not belong here.
July 21st, 2008 at 3:18 am
I’m sorry to tell you this, but he spoke the truth, you are the one being sexist here.
July 22nd, 2008 at 6:36 pm
Although I totally realize sexism is alive and strong, and sitting in our parliments and senates, I think you’re being over-sensitive here. (Although, again, I know there are contexts for sensitivity).
If you deconstruct any message in that manner, you can find any part of our culture you like. You just happened to put the ’sexism’ lense onto it. I’d imagine you could find racism, fascisms, or even traces of Kellogs Cornflakes in that message. I’m not saying the sexism isn’t there, all I’m saying is that the author, being a man (I assume) writing in the context of a society that happens to be sexist, racist, partaking of Cornflakes, fascist, etc, is not necessarily conscious or intending to write in this manner.
I mean -I know- as an activist, you have to raise awareness of the significance of their actions. However, perhaps tearing apart this fairly meek example is not the best practical manner of doing this?
July 22nd, 2008 at 6:41 pm
As I commented above: the person who wrote the invitation made it clear that he was open to criticism. That is the only reason I felt it appropriate to respond as I did, and he found the response very valuable.
July 23rd, 2008 at 9:11 pm
I wanted to say that i thought your article was well thought out and articulated and very even tempered. you apologize for being harsh at the end but you didn’t, in any way, over step. I have been thinking a lot about this lately, especially since i just finished a class called ‘media and audiences’ where we talked about different popular culture theories, feminism being one of them. ‘Essentialism’ is a term i was looking for. it is that concept that frustrates me to no end. when people are asked for opinions from the perspective of ‘a woman’ or ‘a homosexual’ or ‘a black man’. they can’t speak for all who have that in commen with them.
September 6th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
Excellent. Not harsh. You expose the insidiousness and everydayness of sexism. I appreciate this very much.
September 10th, 2008 at 3:55 pm
[…] Talking to Men About Sexism […]