One classic bad argument against feminism is the disingenuous claim that “we don’t need it any more.” In the bad old days, proponents of this argument would concede, women may have faced some pesky little obstacles, but now that they can vote, and own property, and briefly work as the executive editor of The New York Times, there’s just no need for feminism any more. Problem solved!
But these days the great minds of the Men’s Rights movement have moved beyond this bad argument to a worse one: feminism was never really necessary in the first place, because women have never been oppressed.
The other day a Redditor by the name of cefarix earned himself a couple of dozen upvotes by posting a version of this argument to the Men’s Rights Subreddit.
I often see feminists make the claim that women have been oppressed for thousands of years. What evidence is there to back up this claim?
Personally, I don’t think this could be the case. Men and women are both integral parts of human society, and the social bonds between close relatives of either gender are stronger than bonds with members of the same gender but unrelated. So it seems to me the idea that men would oppress their own close female relatives and women would just roll over and accept this oppression from their fathers, uncles, brothers, sons, etc, for thousands of years across all/most cultures across all of humanity – and not have that society disintegrate over the course of a couple generations – is ridiculous.
This is so packed with such sheer and obvious wrongness that it’s tempting to just point and laugh and move on. But I’ve seen variations on this argument presented seriously by assorted MRAs again and again so I think it’s worth dealing with in some detail.
Before we even get to the facts of the case, let’s deal with the form of his argument: He’s arguing that history cannot have happened the way feminists say it happened because he doesn’t think that could be the case.
Trouble is, you can’t simply decide what did or did not happen in history based on what makes sense to you. History is history. It’s not a thread on Reddit. You can’t downvote historical facts out of existence the way, say, Men’s Rights Redditors downvote those pointing out facts they don’t like.
Cefarix follows this with an assertion that’s become rather common amongst MRAs: men can’t have oppressed women because no man is going to oppress his wife or his daughter or his mother, and besides, they wouldn’t have put up with it and it wouldn’t have worked anyway.
It seems to me that if the core of your argument is the notion that men would never harm members of their own family then you’ve pretty much lost the argument before it’s even begun. Husbands batter wives, fathers abuse children, boyfriends rape their girlfriends, and so on and so on; all this is not only possible, but it happens quite regularly. And only quite recently, historically speaking, has any of this been regarded as a serious social problem worthy of public discussion.
And so the idea that men might “oppress their own close female relatives” is hardly beyond the pale.
Of course. history isn’t about what could have happened; it’s about what did happen. But the evidence that the oppression of women did happen — and is still happening — is everywhere. Indeed, it takes a certain willful blindness not to see it.
History, of course, is a complicated thing, and the ways in which women have been oppressed have been many and varied over the years. Nor, of course, has the oppression of women been the only form of oppression in history, which is not only, as Marx would have it, a story of “class warfare” but also of ethnic warfare, racial oppression, and many other forms of oppression, some of which are only now beginning to be fully understood.
So if cefarix is genuinely interested in evidence, let me make some suggestions for places to start.
For a history of patriarchy that looks in detail at how it developed, whose interests it served, and the various complicated ways it was intertwined with class and other oppressions, a good place to start would be Gerda Lerner’s classic The Creation of Patriarchy, and her followup volume The Creation of Feminist Consciousness. Here’s an interview in which she goes over some of the points she makes in these books.
To understand some of the hatred of women that has been baked into Western culture from the beginning, I’d suggest taking a look at Jack Holland’s highly readable Misogyny: The World’s Oldest Prejudice. Meanwhile, David D. Gilmore’s Misogyny: The Male Malady offers an anthropological take on the same subject.
Alas, after going through his commenting history, I’m not sure that cefarix will be open to changing his mind on any of this, given how wedded he seems to be to a number of other rather appalling opinions — like his contention that homosexuality is a “disease” and his belief that “the whole age of consent thing is a modern Western aberration from what is considered normal for our species.”
Of course, if you look at the discussion inspired by cefarix’ post on Reddit, you’ll see that most of the Men’s Rights Redditors posting there don’t seem much interested in looking at facts that challenge their beliefs either. Most of those dissenters who pointed out the various ways women have been oppressed throughout history found their comments downvoted and dismissed.
Consider this amazing exchange — and notice which of the two comments is the one with net downvotes.
![Little_maroon_alien -2 points 1 day ago* (1|3) Women weren't allowed to own property or request divorces in most countries until the last 80 years. That is pretty oppressive. China didn't allow divorce or land ownership until the 1950s. Women in the U.S. only got to start owning property in the mid to late 1800s if their husband was temporarily unavailable (they couldn't "control it" though). Women coulldn't request a divorce in Great Britain until 1857, two years before women were allowed to teach in Denmark (wayy before Austria allowed it) or attend college in Russia (but not Sweden, Japan, Brazil, France, the Netherlands, etc) and 10 years before New Zealand women could own property in their name. In 1865 Italy allowed married women to become the legal guardian of her children and their property if abandoned by her husband. How progressive! How is this not both oppressive and possible? It was very widespread for a very long time. permalink save parent give gold [–]tactsweater 1 point 1 day ago (2|1) Are cats oppressed? They can't own property, or decide who they get to live with. None of what you're describing is oppression. Sorry. Throughout most of human history, we had a couple of hard truths that needed to be faced. The strength of a society is largely based on its population, and women can increase that population, while men can't. This meant that if a society needs to lose one or the other, they're going to send the man off to die nearly every time. Another hard truth throughout most of human history is that overt power makes you a target. Leadership meant assassination attempts. Property ownership meant you had something to lose. Since the cost to society was greater if a woman died, men were forced into taking those roles just as much as women were forced out of them. Maximum protection comes with a cost of freedom, and that doesn't at all imply oppression.](https://i0.wp.com/www.wehuntedthemammoth.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/catsoppressed.png?resize=580%2C523&ssl=1)
That last bit, about men being “forced” into having power, is quite something. But I’m still stuck on the whole cat thing. I mean, I like cats and all, but cats are not people, and it really wouldn’t be appropriate for me to lock a woman in my apartment, feed her on the floor out of a can, and make her poop in a box, even though my cats seem quite content with this arrangement for themselves.
Meanwhile, here are a couple of the comments that won upvotes.
Someone named goodfoobar suggesting that men have always been the slaves of women, because women live longer:
![goodfoobar 3 points 1 day ago (3|0) A woman made the claim of thousands of years of slavery to me a few months ago. Did not have a good response at the time. I have a response today. Slave masters have a better quality of life than slaves. Life expectancy is a good measure for quality of life. Over most of history the average female life expectancy is longer (historical exception during child bearing years) than the average male life expectancy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy#Gender_differences[1]](https://i0.wp.com/www.wehuntedthemammoth.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/goodf.png?resize=449%2C221&ssl=1)
And our old friend TyphonBlue. who turns not only history but logic itself on its head by arguing that men are “disenfranchised” by … having power over women.
Yep. The most badly oppressed creatures in history are the ones wearing crowns on their heads.
I’m really not quite sure how Typhon manages to avoid injuring herself with all of her twists of logic.
I think my first comment was eaten. Anyways. I’ll try to repeat what I said as best as possible.
I’m not wholly surprised that someone who is part of the manosphere would compare women to cats to prove that we aren’t and have never been oppressed. It’s fairly clear that the vast majority of the people who involve themselves in the manosphere do not see women (or anyone that isn’t a cis white male) as human beings.
As for reading recs, right now I’m reading Ana Mardoll’s deconstruction of the first three Chronicle of Narnia books. She is critical of them (while still liking them since they were childhood favorites) and points out a lot of issues in the material such as racism, classism, sexism, and ableism.
cloudiah, speaking of Ida Wells, have you seen the latest Hark, A Vagrant page? Six strips, all about her. 🙂
titianblue – yay, I just added Under the Paw to my library!
Well, as a fairly radical animal rights person I do believe that cats are oppressed. Not because they can’t vote or have an education, but because they’re legally property, can be legally killed on their owners’ whim, and although treating them badly becomes a crime if it’s bad enough, it’s not really considered a very serious crime. Among other things. I’m not sure what an MRA would answer to this though – I guess just shout something about illogical ladybrains or the like.
The reason it’s not oppression that cats can’t vote is because they don’t care about voting and don’t even understand the concept. I guess if an MRA were told this he’d just happily snigger and go “just like with women see what I did there?”.
Weird, my comment just got stuck in moderation?
David said the spam filter was swallowing lots of comments today.
I actually do believe that cats are oppressed (wonder what an MRA would make of that concession? Probably just rant about illogical females or something). Of course it’s not a problem that they can’t vote, but I do think it’s wrong that they (together with a host of other species) are considered legally our property, can be killed just because their owner tires of them and how mistreating them isn’t considered that big of a crime. Among other things.
The reason it’s not oppression that cats can’t vote is because they don’t care about voting and don’t even understand the concept. I guess if an MRA were told this he’d just happily snigger and go “just like with women see what I did there?”.
Tried to rewrite the comment slightly and see if it got through now (David, if you get around to cleaning this up, you don’t have to let both through, since they’re saying pretty much the same thing), but it didn’t work. Ah well.
There is a great book discussing some of these issues by Michael Kimmel called Angry White Men. It even goes in depth into the MRAs.
I’ve gotten really picky about my fantasy/sci-fi as I’ve gotten older and the stuff I used to enjoy is just… the sexism is disruptive. My favorites (the books I keep going back and re-reading) are:
The Enchanted Forest Chronicles by Patricia Wrede
Diane Duane’s Young Wizard series
and while it’s problematic, if you like detective stories Jim Butcher’s Dresden Files can be a lot of fun.
For sci-fi:
The Barrayar series by Lois Bujold
Historical fiction:
I really liked “My Lady of Cleves”. Anne is portrayed as smart, capable, sensible, insightful, kind, and yet still very human.
Maybe the spam filter doesn’t like all the recs?
I think David said yesterdayish that this thread was so busy the spam filter was getting all overexcited. Something like that, anyway.
Considering their explanation for most things seems to be ‘science, cavemen, men and feemales are just inherently different on a molecular level’ crapola, why is does women living longer mean a sign of terrible oppression against men?
Would this even be a thing if men lived longer? Then it’d be men just care so much more and proof of how fickle and givey-upy women are.
Added to my ‘to read’ list!
@melissaangelik will check that out also. Have you read Susan Faludi’s ‘Stiffed’? I thought that was really well done.
I’m re-reading Faludi’s ‘Backlash.’ It’s kind of depressing in a “the more things change, the more they stay the same” kind of way. But I highly recommend it if you haven’t read it.
Bonus scented candle rec: if you’re in the U.S. and you have a World Market near you, their Indonesian Teak candles smell great and are under 20 bucks.
cloudiah: come to Seattle! Rents have gotten ridonkulous, but the air is clean and I can lay off the Zyrtec!
weirwoodtreehugger said:
Oh! The Willows is one of my favorites! The atmosphere in that story is just so weird and evocative. I really think its one of the scariest stories ever written. Caitlin R. Kiernan wrote a book called Threshold which references The Willows, and which is also an excellent horror novel.
Also, if anyone else likes ghost stories, The Virago Book of Ghost Stories is a collection of short horror fictions by women writers that is also awesome.
And anything by M.R. James, who is my absolute favorite writer of ghost stories. He always told his spine-chilling tales with wit and dry humor. Just a joy to read IMHO.
And Thomas Ligotti’s The Nightmare Factory. Really great short horro fiction.
And I like the man’s kicky yellow shorts, in the comic up top. Or is that a one piece romper he’s wearing?
Book recs!
Historical fiction/short stories: The Round Barn
Here’s a “biography of a farm:” a collection of short stories that are historical fiction in the sense that they are literally true, but embellished with conversations as they would likely have occurred. Think Laura Ingalls Wilder crossed with James Herriot
Sample stories, vids etc here:
http://roundbarnstories.com
(discount code douganbarn for $5 and free shipping!)
Also on Amazon (+kindle):
http://www.amazon.com/Round-Barn-Biography-American-Farm/dp/1884941184/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1400336375&sr=1-1&keywords=The+Round+Barn
Biology/genetics: The X in Sex
Possibly the most interesting book I have ever read. Tells all about the fascinating characteristics of the x chromosome. Example: did you know that girl identical twins are not literally identical (boys are)? Find out why!
http://www.amazon.com/The-Sex-Chromosome-Controls-Lives/dp/0674016211
RE: books
I haven’t been reading much else besides the work of Michel Foucault these days. All I can recommend is Discipline and Punish, which is an analysis of the history of penal reforms, specifically the birth of the prison (as stated in the title). It’s a great introduction to Foucauldian genealogical analysis, which is basically a type of analysis centering around the relationship between power and knowledge (and in particular institutions of power like the university).
I recommend it to anyone who is interested in discursive analyses of power and the concept of biopower (power over human bodies). I think his work is valuable not because all of his arguments are convincing or even based in truth, but because he provides an alternative analysis of power that, to me, helps uncover the more obscure dynamics that maintain institutions of power. I wish I could describe the book less abstractly, but I don’t fully understand his work so it’s kind of hard to describe things more concretely.
@katz, Send your draft along when it’s ready if you want a reader. I don’t have any particular qualifications, except I like to read good stuff.
@kittehs, I had not seen that Hark, a Vagrant strip on Ida–very cool. She was kind of awesome.
And I’m just starting Kimmel’s book, which looks pretty interesting.
MISCATTERY!
I am currently standing up and working on my computer using one of those breakfast-in-bed trays and a volume of the Encyclopedia Britannica because one of my cats has decided that my desk chair are belong to her (she’s recovering from having a couple of teeth pulled).
See, cats can’t be the oppressed because cats ARE the oppressors! They force us to go out and work so that they have toys and food and clean litter and desk chairs, and then when we come home we must feed them, scoop the litter box, scritch them, rub bellehs, feed them again, scoop the litter box, throw the feather toy, no not the mousie toy the feather toy, throw it again, throw it again, throw it again, throw it again, throw it again, throw it again, throw it again, throw it again, throw it again, throw it again, throw it again, throw it again, throw it again, what do you mean you are tired of throwing the toy? THROW IT AGAIN NOW, okay if you don’t want to throw the toy then feed me again, I DON”T CARE THAT I JUST ATE I WANT MORE FOOD
…ahem…
So, because I work and my cats don’t, I am oppressed by my cats. And women like cats, like, a lot, so women identify with cats, women are JUST LIKE cats, therefore women ARE cats and THUS because all cats are oppressors and all women are cats, therefore all women are oppressors, QED.
PS – Come to the Northeast, cloudiah! We have jimmies!
Re: books, I’ve been chin deep in really terrible apocalypse fiction and leavening the mix with Rita Mae Brown’s (and Squeaky Pie Brown’s) Mrs Murphy mysteries. Clever, well written and at times quite funny.
Ally, have you read The Archaeology of Knowledge? I found it a more useful foundational way into Foucault than beginning with Discipline and Punish. And if it’s the biopower angle you are most interested in, Georges Canguilhem’s The Normal and the Pathological is absolutely invaluable. Canguilhem was Foucault’s intellectual and personal mentor for many years and I can’t overstate the value of going to his work to see the material Foucault understood himself to be building on. Once you get Canguilhem under your belt, both Discipline and <The History of Sexuality pick up nuance that is really difficult to see otherwise.
And then, of course, you can move on to Agamben’s Homo Sacer.
Sometimes I miss grad school…
Blah, looks like my comment got eaten by the spam filter.
Seconding Valerian’s recommendation of the Dresden Files. It has lots of great supporting characters, many of whom are badass women. Also, vampires that are actually scary, which is a nice change from the current trends in vampire literature.
The Boss by Abigail Barnette (blogger Jenny Trout’s pen name) has the same basic concept as 50 Shades of Grey (average woman hooks up with kinky billionaire), but without the grammatical errors, misogyny, and abusive dynamics. You can download it for free at Amazon or Barnes & Noble.
For YA fantasy, I suggest the Abhorsen Trilogy by Garth Nix (Sabriel, Lirael, Abhorsen). It has zombies, badass leading ladies, and one of the coolest setting concepts ever.
Hellkell,
I wish so much that I could move northwest. I have a grandmother there that I miss terribly.
Alas, it is not to be.