Derrick Coyle
Now and then the news of the day will touch a collective nerve and permeate insular worlds to provoke discussion on larger life issues. On matters so personally poignant, that it can unify a nation in patriotic solidarity, or polarize the masses in passionate debate.
There have been several high-profile events dominating the media and our thoughts in recent weeks: the terrorist killings of two Canadian soldiers and attack on Parliament; the medically assisted suicide of 29-year-old cancer patient in Oregon; and the charges / allegations of sexual assault against Jian Ghomeshi and Bill Cosby.
It is the last of these issues that has dominated the press longest and generated public discussion that continued this week, in fitting recognition of International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women, November 25th. If the best chance of correcting an injustice is when it is pulled from the shadows and laid bare under a spotlight of media scrutiny and public debate, this would appear to be a good opportunity for change.
*************************
Photo by George Pimental / Getty Images
The Huffington Post recently published an opinion piece by Michael Laxer titled Men Need to Admit That Jian Ghomeshi Is No Exception. The essay, originally posted on the Feminist Current website, elicited a firestorm of reader reaction through on-line commentary. The writer’s assertions of gender-level complicity incensed many male and some female readers, and was lauded by many female and some male readers.
“You know how they are telling you that it is ‘not all men?'” the essay begins, “Well, that is bullshit.”
“It is all men. We, collectively, and most commonly as individuals, are responsible for creating the conditions that not only facilitate Ghomeshi’s alleged abuse, but that ensure he will exist,” says Laxer. He goes on to explain that, by definition, systemic oppression of women in a male supremacist culture makes all men responsible. “There are no ‘good guys.'”
*************************
What seemed like heated debate over Laxer’s article on the Huffington Post website, was coffee break banter in comparison to the scalding exchanges of the Feminist Current.
It became evident after scrolling through streams of comments, that contributors were weighing in from vastly different perspectives and levels of enlightenment. Some had clearly invested heavily in researching the subject and others had narrow or superficial viewpoints. Some were constructive and others more incendiary. It was clear that many contributors were speaking from personal experience, from the perspective of victim, witness, and quite likely perpetrator, of one shade or another.
The trick in sifting through a tsunami of opinion on a sensitive subject is to scroll past the rhetoric, hyperbole, and acerbic rants, and focus on informed and constructive commentary. An approach not unlike the judging of an Olympic Figure Skating event, where partisan opinion in the extreme, is tossed out in favour of the more credible assessment at the center.
*************************
Wading into the discussion in a feminist community website is not for the fainthearted. While many contributors were full-out confrontational in their commentary, others were more conciliatory. Some put forward reasoned arguments of opposition. It appeared few, if any, objections to Laxer’s views would settle into the comment thread unscathed. All were challenged, many refuted, and some ridiculed.
One man – who gave every indication of being well-intentioned – withdrew from the debate after being roundly emasculated for attempts to articulate his belief that Laxer’s contentions were unfair to men who were genuinely interested in being part of the solution.
“All you are really doing on this blog is trying to get us to validate you as a good guy. That is really derailing the conversation. This is not about you personally as a man.”
In these circles, men (MEN) seems to be used principally as a species-level reference. While some may concede that men (men) can be exceptions at a personal level, exceptions, by definition, do little to influence the social dynamic by feminist movement standards. When a comment addresses you, it is not necessarily personal. It is generally referring to you in your capacity as a spokesperson of MEN. While Laxer and a few male contributors on the feminist site are clearly considered vetted exceptions, they themselves make no attempt to dissociate themselves from affiliation with MEN. They may also suspect that as men contributing in these discussion circles, they teeter just one contradictory word, phrase, or careless ideological capitulation away from joining the scorned.
*************************
Judging from comment threads, self-proclaimed exceptions, or good guys, are viewed with heavy suspicion. The skepticism over authenticity has likely intensified in an era where feminism has become trendy among celebrities. Or worse, a means of manipulation, as in the case of Ghomeshi disguising alleged abuses behind a public facade of feminist support. Anyone exhibiting a hint of subterfuge or self-serving motive is quickly called out. One of the male feminist allies piled on with stinging advice for the same visitor mentioned earlier:
“Dude, we’re just trying to explain to you how ignorant you are … You gotta shut up and listen to what they have to tell you. How else are you gonna know what they’re going through?”
The weary site guest extracted himself from the conversation – and possibly the cause – with one last sentiment:
“Fine. I will shut up. No. Before I go, actually: Only the party line is allowed here. The thing that bothers me most about this article is how unhelpful it is to the situation, he wrote. “It’s pure sensationalist clickbait, pandering only to hatred and antagonism. Just nonsense, fuel for more fire. A man scrolling through news links doesn’t see this as ‘we need to change ourselves if we want to prevent this kind of thing from happening. He sees, ‘you are as bad as a sex offender.’ And he knows that’s bs, so why should he care? It can only further divide people.”
Farewells from site faithful came fast and furious:
“Oh poor me. All of these lesser humans refuse to help me deny my ignorance and won’t puff up my ego as per their biological destiny! I’m so unused to women who won’t ultimately cater to my demands and who own their own intellectual authority, I’m going to project my totalitarian notions of my own superiority onto them.”
From another:
“At the very least …, you’ve shown your misogynist hand fairly quickly and have also done us the favour of providing an object-lesson that proves Laxer’s point perfectly.”
And finally:
“By the way, this isn’t HuffPo. Where did you get the idea liberal dude-ism would go safely unchallenged here? This is fairly advanced feminism and you’ve got to have a solid background in feminism 101 to be prepared to take your allyship to this level. Clearly you bit off more than you were ready to chew. You seem to be stuck on Level Jezebel.”
*************************
Some input – on either side of the debate – was arguably less than productive in terms of increasing awareness, building support, or advancing the goal of stopping violence against women. But there are lessons to be learned in a feminist domain where the perspective of profound personal experience and decades of study is obvious. For someone interested in broadening understanding of the issues, there is valuable perspective among the several hundred comments linked to this article. There is much to be learned from constructive, well-informed, and effectively articulated views of people closest to the subject.
*************************
Among the most enlightening discoveries from the Feminist Current website was a link to a podcast interview with Kris Macomber, PhD, a sociologist at Meredith College. The podcast led me to her 2012 Dissertation, Men as Allies: Mobilizing Men to End Violence Against Women. The paper is an excellent culmination of considerable research and extensive interview of female and male activists in feminism. It examines the benefit, pitfalls, and complexity of men being involved in the solution to a problem that’s very existence arises out of MEN as the cause.
Macomber’s work concluded the involvement of men “is necessary and critical.” It makes sense when the problem is MEN’s treatment of women, men must be part of a solution that effects behavioural change. Enlightened and supportive male allies, as parents, educators, employers, politicians, law enforcers, or instruments of the legal system – supporting women by way of example, teaching / training, intervention, lawmaking and enforcement – are well-placed to influence change now and for generations to come.
But it’s not nearly that simple. It is the conditions that facilitate the behaviour of MEN that dominates the discussion in feminist circles and is more than evident in Macomber’s research. Some concede that men can be part of the solution, but it is with no small measure of reservation:
“What is necessary and critical is for men to stop abusing women. Men seem to have trouble conceiving of problems they are not the solution to. I have no doubt you can help, and as I’ve stated before I think it is in fact your responsibility to do so in some capacity, but that doesn’t mean this movement won’t succeed without you”
Another contributor weighed in with:
“…The whole basis of the feminist movement was consciousness-raising, which by necessity is a male-exclusionary practice.
In contemplating eligibility criteria for male allies in the movement, one contributor to Macomber’s study made this distinction:
“… I have struggled with this question for the past two years. What I’ve learned is that there is a difference between well-meaning men, and men who get it.”
*************************
Macomber found that activists generally seek to pre-qualify males as allies in activism by three measures: recognition of privilege; willingness to hold other men accountable; and listening to women’s feedback and/or being receptive to it. There was ample evidence of similar differentiating in online discussion threads.
Recognition of privilege can be found referenced throughout the blog commentary. Patriarchal privilege is considered the societal nexus of gender inequity and part of the culture of entitlement and superiority at the root of sexual abuse and other violence. It’s seen as a social perversion manifested in the home, in the workplace, and in social interaction. An imbalance of societal muscle consistently flexed in the courts, in the boardroom, and in the bedroom.
Holding other men accountable. This is another area of concern frequently cited in discussion thread examples. MEN – who may well talk a good game – fail to call out, and thereby perpetuate, sexist language or behaviour. They refuse to intervene in the presence (or with knowledge) of harassment, abuse, or other violence against women. To the extent charges against Ghomeshi and the allegations against Cosby are accurate, it is inconceivable that the abuses could have been carried out without enablers.
Listening to women’s feedback. Macomber shared several examples of female activists disgruntlement over male activists – new to the movement – dominating conversation and insinuating themselves into leadership roles. Some of the commentary from the feminist stream offered similar counsel on boundaries:
” … part of men offering themselves to feminism have to entail accepting that they, the men, are not the authorities on feminism. They are blinded by their position atop the sex-gender hierarchy. They need women to lead the movement against what they cannot see clearly.”
“You’re feeling hopeless? Welcome to our world. Now, run along and study Feminism 101 before barging in to whine, beg to be educated by women, then argue with them at every step, and irritate with stupid questions. Don’t come back until you get it. At this point, you don’t even know what “it” is and are embarrassing yourself.”
*************************
One thing that is both clear and encouraging from the events and discussion of recent weeks, is that violence against women has been brought to the fore of public consciousness. There is perhaps unprecedented interest and support – among women and men – for change. It’s also clear that when dealing with social dynamics rooted in centuries, or more accurately, Ages, it is not going to be a quick fix. Change is more apt to evolve in increments of deliberate reform as attitudes change and societal intolerance strengthens.
The thought that resonates most with me from: recent news stories; Macomber’s research; Laxer’s essay; and the reams of opinion provoked, is that for men to contribute meaningfully to stopping violence against women, it behooves them to better appreciate the female perspective and understand their own role in changing the dynamics that sustain it.
There are ‘good guys‘ of course – and there is an important part for them to play.
*************************