I've been feeling for quite some time now that feminism has been going a bit off track. It's gone from women saying "Why can't we have the same rights as men?" (which nobody I know has a problem with) to "Why can't men be the way women want them to be?"
Don't get me wrong - I am still very much the egalitarian - I believe in equal rights, equal pay, equal opportunities and so on, for everyone, and women have achieved immense amounts in a remarkably short time (relative to the many millenia of patriarchy). Feminism has been a huge success and I for one am very happy about that. I've certainly found it very liberating. How men and women relate to each other has been one of my main interests in life as long as I can remember (alongside gardening and ecology). For the last 60 years or so, the study of men and women has been largely a feminist enterprise - concentrating almost entirely on how society treats women badly and men have all the power, but there is also a psychotherapeutic perspective which is more broad-minded, but mostly done in private, where I've always been painfully aware that men are often far from powerful. In short there's a profound mismatch between how feminism portrays men politically, and how they really are in private. But as we know, the private is political. Lately it's become obvious that feminist theory has deep holes in it.
The first response to what I'm saying will of course be women saying "Who cares what you think of feminism? You're a man. Who are you to tell women what they should or shouldn't want?" and I agree - anyone can say anything they like - as long as it doesn't affect anyone else. I can think and say anything I want too but I can't simply impose my will. Unless you plan to be a despot you have to persuade people you are right. They won't simply do as they're told - no matter how right you think you are. You need to convince people - either politicians directly or the people who elect them. In politics - unless you are trying to change people's minds you aren't really doing anything more than complaining. You can be angry - you can shout at people and call them names or lecture them or cancel them but unless you change their minds you're just preaching to the converted. They won't go away with their tails between their legs - they'll go away and talk about it among themselves elsewhere. The only difference is you won't be involved in the debate anymore. I think some activists forget this - they think just shouting and marching is political action. I made this mistake in the 2000s - thinking we'd won because racism and sexism and homophobia were so rarely heard in the media or on the streets nowadays. And then 2016 came along and we had Trump and Brexit and it was obvious it hadn't gone away at all. They'd just gone somewhere else to talk about it. And they voted.
I'm not 'telling' anyone what to do. My voice has no more power than anyone else's. This is just my point of view here. Feel free to ignore it and move on. I am under no illusions as to how much influence I have. I can assure you that nobody in the world is compelled to do anything at all by me. I'm here to communicate, to debate, and yes, to change people's minds, or at least, perhaps to throw a tiny grain of doubt in people's beliefs so maybe they won't be quite so intransigent next time. I know they won't admit to it but you never really know what people take away with them. Ideas niggle at you, and they spread. Am I willing to change my mind? Absolutely, and I have done recently on some pretty major issues - not least that shouting at people and insulting them doesn't work, but that talking to them respectfully, and listening, to find common ground, is pretty much the only way. I too was arrogant and self-righteous and thought was 'making a difference'. My mind was changed by a friend on Facebook who was canvassing voters in 2016 USA. She believed in actually talking to Republicans - finding common ground. She said she usually felt she made some sort of progress. I was a bit dismissive I admit but the idea stayed with me and now here I am. Sadly we lost touch so she doesn't know she changed my mind.
A belief that gets in the way here that I see very often among my fellow progressives, is that the other side are not worth talking to. They even seem to get some satisfaction out of dismissing the opinions of well over half the population as irrelevant. It feels like, to them, being right (or rather, self-righteous) is more important than actually changing things. They seem to view 'the other side' as extremists and fascists, violent white supremacists and bigots, when in fact most of them are just ordinary people with a mixture of different opinions and feelings - some compassionate and informed, others, not so much. It all depends so much on wealth, education, and where you come from, and conditioning none of us can escape with ease, and yet they're treated as if they're simply wilfully evil or stupid - well able to be different - they just don't want to be. It's a common conservative attitude too - to the poor and the mentally ill - that they could try harder but they don't bother. They like being evil and stupid. It's a choice they make and they won't change. One thing is certain - if all you do is insult and sneer at them they definitely won't listen - they'll just dig in. The kind of modern progressive politics popularly known as Woke politics is exactly this. It makes no attempt to talk to people it disgrees with - it just shouts them down ('No Debate!') and imagines that's a good way to bring about change. So much for 'kindness'. One thing that has astonished and saddened me about the new breed of progressive activist is how little psychology they know. They just don't seem to understand how people work. Given the urgency of the Climate Change situation, to me this seems monumentally stupid. My impression of them generally is that they only read things they agree with, and won't talk to anyone whose opinions diverge in any way from theirs. To be seen talking to the other side is tantamount to treason. They imagine that conservatives feel 'validated' when a progressive talks with them - as if our validation matters so much to them. Personally I would speak to the foulest Nazi if there was the slightest chance the conversation might knock a tiny hole in their beliefs. I would consider that a very good day's work. But progressives don't have the time apparently - as if they have something more important to do. Mainly I think being a progressive has become a club. All you do is join in the activities, agree with each other about everything, and feel jolly proud of yourself. At least you're doing something...
There are two reasons why a man's view of feminism is worth having. One is that what women want does affect men. Feminism is to a great extent about getting men to change, and unless they expect men to simply unquestioningly do as they're told, they need to persuade us that it's the right thing to do. I'm not talking about crime here. Feminism has already changed the law about violent and threatening behaviour and discrimination in the workplace etc. The law needs applying better no doubt but that's a different campaign. No, I'm talking about feminism wanting to change the way men think and talk and behave - things about how men should approach women they're attracted to, or give advice, or do the chores - things that come under the heading of 'Everyday Sexism'. These are not a matter of law – they’re more about politeness, or decency - the correct way to behave in society, and they are more a matter of education or persuasion or guidelines. Much as women get very angry about these things, they still can't expect men to simply do as they're told. I don't unquestioningly do as I'm told by anyone - male or female. If you want me to do things your way you will need to convince me that you're right. I won't just roll over, whoever you are.
The second thing is that if women want men to change, they'll need to understand what’s going on with men. If you want to change something you need to understand it. Now, I know many woman seem to think they understand men very well and don't need to know any more, but I’m here to assure them they don't. I have been told how I feel, what I want and what I think by women so many times, and they almost always get it wrong. Often they're using some out-dated stereotype - some old 1960s truism like "You're all the same, you men", or "You're only after one thing" or perhaps some over-simplified feminist theory about power or violence, most of which are laughable when you think about what actual life is like for most ordinary men. Sadly, one of the basic tenets of feminist theory seems to be that women understand men better than men do themselves and that’s bound to cause trouble. Many women get very angry when it is suggested they actually go and ask men what men really think, feel or want. “All those books were written by men” they say. "We've read quite enough about men thank you very much!" I can guess how they'd respond if I said I knew all about what it's like to be a woman because I read a lot of books, but actually I'd probably be in a better position because there are so many books about what it's like to be an ordinary woman. When I used to read novels, a lot of them were women's literature. I preferred them because the books by men just seemed so distant. They were about things, events and ideas - science, religion, history. They were so external. Women's books were about relationships, growing up, getting a job, struggling with life. I can think of nothing I read about how it feels to be an ordinary man. I dare say such books exist but I don't remember any. One of the problems for men is they often don't really know how they feel or what they think, because they're trained by masculinity not to think about that stuff - far less to talk about it. I've heard good-hearted, sensitive men accede to the powerful violent image feminism has given them - "Yes we are so powerful and aggressive" says the man with no money, no self-esteem, no status, and no real sense of what his life is for. "It's a man's world" he adds apologetically. It's a deep kind of cognitive dissonance.
The main thing maybe women would discover if they did actually go and ask men what it's like to be a man, is the deep sense of inadequacy and humiliation many of us feel. A small number of us are, of course, very powerful, and rich. There are far too many old white men in top jobs - we all know this, but contrary to feminist theory, the rest of us do not benefit from some sort of patriarchal trickle-down effect. The idea that the rest of us get some sort of 'privilege' from having the same genitalia as the billionaires is frankly ludicrous. What progressives forget (being a very middle-class movement) is that most of us are working class, on low incomes, with very little in the way of prospects. Most people have no real power at all. 'Privilege' belongs to the affluent educated college kids who tell us what we should think.
But what about the pay gap? This currently stands at 8 or 9% in the UK but that of course doesn’t mean that men in general get 8 or 9% more than women. The average is skewed by that ‘long tail’ of mostly male high-earners whose incomes go up into the millions and beyond. Most of us are way down near the bottom. But anyway, ONS data says that for the under 40s there is no pay gap, and among school-leavers, girls are doing better than boys. The real inequality is not between men and women but between that top 10% (mostly male) and the rest of us – and that gap has been growing since the 1980s. It’s also worth noting here that there are more men at the bottom as well. More women live in poverty it’s true, but they are mostly single mums who are entitled to some sort of accommodation and benefits. The genuinely destitute (homeless, addicted, involved in petty crime) are mostly men.
The other powerful people are the violent criminals, most of whom are men of course. Most criminals are men but most men are not criminals. Lately it seems feminism has tried to make out that violence is a normal part of male behaviour, when in fact violence is a crime, and like all other sorts of crimes, it is overwhelmingly perpetrated by a small minority of re-offenders. This is a basic fact of criminology. Most men are not violent. It's not normal behaviour. Most men are not criminals. One BBC Radio 4 presenter who should have known better said that since most women are victims of violent crime, most men must be perpetrators, but a moment's thought tells us that that is just obviously not true. We’ve all had stuff stolen at some point but are we all thieves? But women will say "But how would you know? Look at your friends. It could be any one of them" but I would be astonished if any of the male friends I’ve known over the years was a violent criminal. I don’t think I’m that bad a judge of character. I have come across violent men of course - every Saturday, going into town, we knew exactly who to avoid, who not to make eye-contact with and which pubs not to go in. We knew who they were. We didn't mix with them. I've also heard women complain that, even if it is only a few men, we can't tell which are violent so we don’t trust any of you, but that exact same argument has been used to try to prevent Muslims from entering the country (because you can't tell which ones are terrorists) and to keep mentally ill people in institutions (because some of them might be dangerous). No - that way of thinking is a kind of paranoia and does nothing for women's freedom - to be afraid of half the population does no good to anyone. Every car coming in the other direction could cross the midline and kill you. Every large dog could tear your face off. It happens, but most of us don't live in fear of cars and dogs. And there will always be crime. I can't think of a single instance where any type of crime has ever been eradicated. There will always be criminals. There's a popular meme calling for "An end to violence against women" when we know there will always be a few violent men out there. It’s like campaigning for an end to robbery or fraud. It’s not going to happen. We should take precautions of course (dismissed as 'victim-blaming' by campaigners), avoid dangerous situations and look out for suspicious behaviour. If crimes happen, we report them to the police and hope to get the criminal convicted, and if the legal system lets us down, we can campaign about that. That's how it is with crime. Crimes happen and they're terrible, but no amount of women reclaiming the night is going to change that. Men talking to each other in locker rooms is not going to change that. Good men changing their behaviour has no effect on what bad men do. (UK crime stats by the way show that men are just as likely to be victims of violent crime as women and twice as likely to be murdered. Women point out that men are also the perpetrators, but I fail to see how that makes it any better. More on this later.)
No comments:
Post a Comment