In a case of spectacularly bad timing, Fox News happened to choose the day before the Zimmerman verdict was handed down to publish an op-ed proclaiming “the White American Male” to be the most oppressed creature on Planet Earth. In a piece entitled “Men — The New Second Class Citizens,” professional antifeminist Suzanne Venker declared that
From boyhood through adulthood, the White American Male must fight his way through a litany of taunts, assumptions and grievances about his very existence. His oppression is unlike anything American women have faced.
What is revealing about this quote, besides its complete disconnection from reality, is that Venker makes no other references to race in the rest of her piece, which runs through a number of tiresome and oh-so-familiar MRA talking points about the alleged oppression of men.
Venker complains about schools being biased towards girls, from grade schools that force students to sit still to colleges with their infernal Title IX. She whines about “sit coms and commercials that portray dad as an idiot.”
Quoting antifeminist psychologist Helen Smith, a friend of and sometime contributor to A Voice for Men, she suggests that women can get their boyfriends or husbands locked up on a whim just by claiming abuse.
I’m surprised she didn’t talk about the evils of “friend zoning.”
But when Venker refers to “men” in all of these complaints, she is evidently thinking only of white men — why else would she switch so seamlessly from talking about the alleged oppression of “men” to proclaiming “the White American Male” the ultimate victim?
There’s really no other word for this than, well, racist.
The day after Fox published Venker’s nonsense, we were of course reminded (as if any of us really needed to be reminded) of the very real oppression faced by “the Black American Male.”
Trayvon Martin didn’t die because he happened to see a show featuring a bumbling sitcom dad. He died because George Zimmerman saw a young black man in a hoodie walking home from the store and assumed, apparently because Martin was young and black and wearing a hoodie, that he was up to something sinister.
Trayvon Martin didn’t die because he was male; he died because he was a black male. His killer walked free not because his victim was male, but because his victim was a black male.
Suzanne Venker did us all a favor by revealing the unconscious racism underlying so many Men’s Rights complaints. The Men’s Rights movement is not only a movement that is overwhelmingly made up of white men; it’s a movement that’s almost exclusively about white men, and their largely imaginary oppressions, as well. We might as well call it the White Men’s Rights Movement.
I always think my job could use more kittens Hyena Girl! There is not enough kittens in the baby-delivering industry.
Um. Well, I WAS going to say that Jason’s original point (not the rest of his points, nor his logic behind that point) was legitimate, that (particularly young) men of colour have a much different stereotype from women of colour, and the particular way in which you lot were arguing against said point seemed a bit off. But it’s cool. Back to lurking I go.
Sid, what about it strikes you as “a bit off?”
Amazingly, this is actually part of what feminism is trying to accomplish. It is, in fact, implicit in the goals of most feminists. Most feminists want women to be able to have a greater share of the jobs that are currently male dominated, such as CEOs, politicians, mathematicians, physicists, the police service, the armed forces, etc. Ask any feminist whether they would like to see more women in male dominated roles and the vast majority of the answers you will get is “yes”, and the majority of the non-yesses you will get will be something like “yes, except that I am against war/the police/capitalism so I don’t want women to be in those jobs because I don’t want anyone in those jobs”.
So if we have, say, 100 CEO jobs and currently 80 of them are men and 20 of them are women. And then feminism takes effect, (lets say for the sake of simplicity that all of the incoming CEOs were previously stay-at-home spouses, and all the outgoing CEOs become stay-at-home spouses) and now 60 CEOs are men and 40 are women. Then guess what, men in the aggregate now have fewer job-related responsibilities, and women have more!
Neat how that works, right?
Now, I know you are getting all heated about the stay-at-home spouse assumption there. Yes, it is really unrealistic. And yes, men are judged more for being a stay-at-home spouse than women are, and yes, I probably wouldn’t have to search very far before I found a radfem who wants to shame men who don’t have jobs. And all I have to tell you is that those people are wrong to tarnish all men without jobs with that same brush. Some men without jobs are lazy layabouts who should get off their asses and stop depending on others. Some are stay-at-home fathers or students or trust fund babies who make art and volunteer in their spare time or long term unemployed who are just fucking sick of looking for a job or whatever, and it should be just as OK for a man to do that as it would be for a woman to do that. And I think it would be far easier to find a non-feminist who is willing to shame all men who don’t have jobs than it would be to find a feminist who is, because this point of view is not held by the majority of feminists.
Sid, I think you (and a few other people) make an interesting point that we could be a bit more nuanced about how we talk about intersectionality, or at least that’s the point I’m taking about what you said, let me know if I’m totally off. What irked me was the way that Jason was trying to appropriate the very dangerous intersection between black & male (with age and class as potentially complicating factors), and pretend the danger was all caused by the maleness, and that white men have the same experience.
Sid: The problem is that you’re expecting us to give the benefit of the doubt to an obvious asshat. Sure, there’s LOTS to talk about with regard to intersectionality, and how misogyny and racism interact and intermingle to produce different effects. But Jason, fearless Jason, wasn’t talking about any of that. He was talking about how the case proved that there was more animus against men, period, than there is against women, period, and downplaying the role of race in order to make his case.
We deal with trolls, douchecanoes and other asshats around here, a lot. And we’ve learned to recognize them, because they really aren’t very good at concealing their true motives. And if they happen to wrap their five metric tons of shit around a small kernel of Pure Truth? We’re not gonna bother taking the time to dig that kernel out and admire it; we’re just gonna flush the whole thing. Because those kernels of truth can usually be found elsewhere, without any of the crap that Jason was pushing, and locating a clean copy is usually easier and less disgusting than finding the one that they’re trying to lure us with.
Freemage:
Amen.See more on Know Your Meme
Whoops.
Aww, I guess Trolly didn’t read my link back in the early pages: “Who Will March For Marissa Alexander?”
Answer: “HAHAHA what planet do you live on if you answered with anything other than ‘despair and weeping’?”
Oh, and I’ve read Warren Farrell. All it made me want to do was take a hot shower, forever. And maybe scrub my soul with a cheese grater. Apologia of child molesters does not tend to win any reasonable person’s favor.
Wait, he had a point that wasn’t about hero worship and then BS about combat veterans?
And, you know, joining the group hug and then referencing his dick when I complained about non-consensual touching. After I’d implied I have first hand knowledge of PTSD from the other common cause? The line, he stomped on it.
Whee, Fight Like a Girl just started over here!
http://youtu.be/mpd9AZ6twC8
Oh yeah, just to be clear, I mean we could be clearer about this in talking to each other. I wouldn’t bother wasting time explaining nuance to trolls, but I have learned a lot from the discussions that are sometimes spurred by troll questions/assertions/assfax.
Yeah, black (cis) men definitely face different discrimination than black (cis) women, who face different discrimination than white (cis) women. But playing like black men face more discrimation than either of those groups because they are men is a load of bullshit. It’s because they are black men. And it’s the MRM only noticing MoC when it suits them that pisses off so many of us.
Since I know the intersection of race, trans* and gender better, I’ll go there. Trans* WoC have a terrifyingly high murder rate, idk about trans* MoC in particular, but trans* men don’t face the same shit trans* women do. Medical professionals don’t generally require a trans* men to jump through a million hoops to explain why he wants to be a man, whereas trans* women still have to have multiple psychs say that they’re women, not nuts, just to get estrogen (and HOLY SHIT the levels of it for GRS). Wanting to be a guy is seen as understandable, wanting to be a girl is seen as a sign you must be nuts. And trans* WoC have it worse (all too often fatally so) than trans* white women, who have it worse than trans* (white?) men…considering I’ve heard so little on trans* MoC, I’m going to go out on a limb and say they probably aren’t killed at anything like the rates trans* WoC are.
My point here? In nearly every case I can think of where race, gender and something else intersect, women have it worse. But since cis women are generally seen as unable to do harm, nurturing, etc, and that extends to WoC to a degree, MoC get the combined BS of racism and “men are more violent”.
Which might be a point that’s (actual non-MRA) men’s rights folks could address, except by and large, men are more violent. So yeah MoC are seen as more a threat than white men, but it’s because of racism. Seeing men as more a threat than women, in general, is a combination of fact — men commit the vast majority of violent crime — and the misguided belief that women are inherently nurturing (ironically, the same MRAs who whine about how masculine women are becoming, are often the same as the ones whining about how men don’t commit more crime, to say so is misandry. Pick one, either women should be nurturing, or they’re capable of violence, you can’t really have both prejudices).
Massive disclaimer — I’m not pasty enough to burn, but I’m mostly Italian of the read as white variety. And non-binary, so what I know of trans* discrimation is mostly second hand. I apologize if I just shoved my head up my ass.
Goddamned that got long, sorry!
“His oppression is unlike anything American women have faced”
That’s just ludicrous.
@ sittiekitty Thanks for the Jimquisition video; I enjoy Zero Punctuation and Unskippable and I’ve been wondering about other series at escapist but have been wary because of the infamous misogyny in gaming so it was good to have a MB introduction.
@ Argenti & Cloudiah Amen and I feel you have made a good start for all of us on having more dialogues on how misogyny intersects with race and trans* issues. The general invisibility of trans*men (outside of Chaz Bono) is a double edged sword that has always bothered me; murdered less but less accepted in popular culture as well (although I suppose that also means fewer insulting representation for the sake of “comdedy”).
Anyway, back to lurking ’cause I’ve got stuff to do. Cheerio!
Oh, and let’s address one of Brave, Brave Jason’s other “points” real quick:
Would the situation have gone down in the same way if Trayvon had been a black woman? Probably not. But the notion that Zimmerman wouldn’t have confronted her in the first place, wouldn’t have harassed her for the crime of being the wrong color in ‘his’ neighborhood? That’s speculative, unsupported BS. The hypothetical Trayvona, at best, would’ve simply been more likely to not eventually tell him to fuck off than Trayvon was, because women in America generally have to weigh the consequences of such confrontation more. If she HAD gotten back in his face, though, I have very little doubt that Zimmerman would’ve responded violently.
Emmy, yeah, I like Jimquisition, he’s usually got a really good critique, and he’s hilarious when he gets frothing mad. I also watch The Big Picture/Escape to the Movies (Moviebob) – he’s okay, better than most of the misogynistic crap out there in that he generally “gets it”.
Part of why I think there’s less focus on trans* men is straight up misogyny actually. This comment is about to get really fucking shitty on trans* issues, I apologize in advance, but I want to try explaining this from the view of a clueless society.
So, with that warning in hand, I think trans* men get less press because a girl wanting to be a boy is seen as relatively normal since boys clearly have the better position in society. Tomboys for example, sure, they get some shit, but nothing like what a boy there age doing “girl things” gets — just compare the terms — tomboy versus sissy? The boy child here is the one seen as dysfunctional, her peers may mock her, but tomboys don’t get much shit from adults.
Well, they grow up, some of the tomboys are cis women who like “manly” things, and some are trans* men, and any flack they get is because being manly is too good for them. But by and large, they’re ignored, unless being mocked on the assumption that they’re lesbians. Argh, I’m failing to say this well…it’s the “girls can’t do that, because girls are inferior” attitude, sometimes. Other times it’s just ignored, or even seen as fashionable — women in men’s clothing was flat out a fashion trend a couple years back. It’s acceptable by mainstream society.
The boys into girl things? If they don’t grow out of it (or, probably more often, get sick of being mocked), the cis men among them will face the homophobic comments about limp wrists and mockery because what man would want to do “girly” things? (Even the wording, manly things v girly things). The trans* women? Various degrees of assuming they have psychological issues, to shit about how they want access to women’s bathrooms so they can rape cis women, and a bunch of other shit rooted in the idea that no sane man would what to be a woman (well, probably not, seeing how they are women and this attempt at a general society explaination is killing me)
In summary, I really fucking hate having to describe trans* women as boys, and trans* men as girls, but it was needed to get at what mainstream society says.
Also, people of the assigned female at birth part of society, doing things associated with men, or dressing in masculine manners, face homophobia, are ignored, or, at best and fairly recently, seen as fashionable — this is, of course, assuming they use the women’s bathroom — using the men’s bathroom has the danger of a transphobic (or sexist, depending how he’s read) attack. But even then, it’s female associated things that are judged negatively, or the assumption that the person in question is a lesbian.
And trans* women (and cis men into “girly” things) — mocked, threatened, sometimes killed (particularly trans* WoC) because said girly things are seen as lesser. Why any man would “stoop” to that is questioned, assumptions that they’re gay gets homophobia. And trans* women? A punch line, something to mock, fear, shame.
This is probably really long already, so I’m just going to say “google transmisogyny” and STFU.
Oh and trans* gatekeeping is beyond frustrating, and I get Very Fucking Little of it.
Meep, trans* misogyny. I fail. Sorry.
*dies* come smash MRAs with us!
So, I found a legit use of the word misandry after grasping at google straws for a counter to trans* misogyny — trans* misandry. Yeah, that use I can buy.
As for trans* misogyny, try here (I have no fucking clue how racial diverse either of those sites are, just for the record there)
Ha, I knew 50 Shades of Gray would be cited by Jason eventually as proof that women cause rape.
I knew it was only a matter of time before Jason cited 50 Shades of Grey as proof that women cause rape.
Also, yes: men have fought disproportionately in war, but I’d guess that the real reason for war has been to secure resources and expand empires rather than to protect women.
Oh, and what is another clockwork-like consequence of war? Rape of civilian women. Starvation, people having to abandon their kids. So yeah, war isn’t easy on anyone.
Plus the men fighting in wars have had weapons, some level of training, the expectation that they’d defend themselves and kill others. Women – civilians in general, but women especially – haven’t had that advantage. Cities that didn’t surrender promptly in sieges could expect to be sacked; it was a rarity when leaders made some attempt to keep discipline and prevent it, or even prevent the usual levels of looting. One’s only to look at Jacques Callot’s engravings The Horrors and Pities of War to get a sight of how bad it was in the 17th century, for example. (His pictures illustrate the French invasion of Lorraine, a subset of the Thirty Years’ War – and yes, my man was the king who launched that invasion.)
Kittehserf stopppp!! You’re gutting us with actual fax.
::wraps anadiomene in bandages::