[Smashpatriarchy] When Men on the Left Refuse to See Their Sexism

[usman x]

http://muslimreverie.wordpress.com/2012/12/22/when-men-on-the-left-refuse-to-see-their-sexism/


When Men on the Left Refuse to See Their Sexism

22 Dec 2012


TRIGGER WARNING: This post cites examples of misogynistic language,
gender slurs, sexual objectification, and other forms of sexist
oppression.

A couple of weeks ago, I came across an article on Vice that was oddly
titled, “You’re a Pussy If You Think There’s a War on Men.” It seemed
clear that the author, Harry Cheadle, was referring to an awful
“reverse sexist” and anti-feminist article about “The War on Men,”
which asserts that women are to blame for the “dearth of good men” and
must “surrender to their nature” while letting “men surrender to
theirs.” Cheadle writes in defense of feminism and exposes the
absurdity of claiming that men are “oppressed” by women. While I agree
with his arguments that men need to stop blaming and fearing women,
the sexist use of the word “pussy” in his title couldn’t be
overlooked. After a brief conversation with friends who also found it
offensive, I decided to write an e-mail to the author. I expressed
overall support for his post and agreed that men need to be held
accountable for their sexism, but I also pointed out that using the
word “pussy” as a slur to characterize men as “cowardly” and “weak” is
still misogynistic because it relies on degrading a woman’s body. It
reinforces the sexist logic that being called a woman or, in this
case, a body part of a woman, is always negative, demeaning, and
shameful. It reminds us that in order for men to feel truly insulted,
they must be compared to women because women, as heteropatriarchy
teaches us, are weaker and inferior to men. I mentioned in my e-mail
that I had no problem with calling men out on their laziness, lack of
accountability, and insecurities. However, using the word “pussy” to
describe their fear of women is counter-productive and perpetuates
sexist attitudes.

I never heard back from him, but a few days later, a friend of mine
noticed a status update on Cheadle’s public Facebook wall*, which
read:

Just got an email from someone who A) assumed I was an ally in the
“feminist struggle” B)Took issue with my use of the word “pussy” in my
article “You’re a Pussy if You Think There’s a War on Men” and C)
informed me that “the term is not only misogynistic, but also
inaccurate since the vagina is actually quite tough, not weak.”
asldkfjalsjf adlsj foiasj doia e


When it was asked on the comment thread about whether or not he
identified as an ally, Cheadle responded, “I just hate whiners and
knee-jerk anti-feminists. I don’t really feel that I’m a part of the
whole feminist enterprise, and I don’t really want to be.”

Not sure what he meant by “feminist enterprise,” but I was taken aback
when I read these comments because I felt that I was being supportive
of his article’s overall message. The quote he used from my e-mail
(point C) was actually me paraphrasing common anti-sexist responses to
those who equate the vagina with “weakness.” I also pointed out in my
e-mail that women have done a lot of work on gendered insults and the
impact they have on society, so I was confused as to why he saw me as
being a “knee-jerk anti-feminist.” What I noticed the most, however,
was his refusal to acknowledge the sexism in his title, which he never
chose to change.

I share the above as an example of something I want to discuss in a
broader context: sexism and misogyny from men in Leftist spaces and
their refusal to hold themselves accountable, even when they are
called out on it. What does it mean when a man speaks in defense of
feminism, but then, after being informed of his sexism, rejects being
an ally in order to absolve himself of any accountability? What are
the implications for women who self-identify as feminist when men can
easily reject feminism or disassociate from it to excuse and normalize
their own sexism? In this post, I will discuss how this refusal of
accountability contributes to violence against women, beginning with
the usage of misogynistic language, then addressing the various
manifestations of sexist oppression, and concluding with points on
doing work to end this violence.

1. Misogynistic Language

Whether we are men who self-identify as anti-racist, advocate against
homophobia, hold leadership positions in radical movements, rightly
express outrage against right-wing misogynists and patriarchy at
large, write articles that condemn all forms of injustice, or all of
the above, none of this gives us a free pass on sexism, including
sexist language. Gendered insults like “pussy,” “cunt,” “bitch,”
“slut,” “whore,” etc. are so normalized and acceptable that we hear
them in classrooms, workplaces, activist groups, and from our friends
and colleagues. In mainstream media, the frequent and increased use of
the “b” word on prime-time TV shows over the past decade only
reinforces this acceptability. Even in popular video games like
Batman: Arkham City, women characters like Catwoman and Harley Quinn
are repeatedly called the “b” word by both good and bad male
characters (and when women gamers address sexism in gaming, many men
respond by trivializing the slurs and making misogynistic attacks).
The pervasiveness and normalization of misogynistic language is not
simply limited to particular movies, games, songs, or novels, but
rather reflective of the sexist and patriarchal values that shape
society. These sexist values, as bell hooks explains, are “created and
sustained by white supremacist capitalist patriarchy.”

There is a long violent history of these words being used to shame,
exploit, persecute, rape, and murder women, especially women of color,
who face racism and misogyny simultaneously.  Sikivu Hutchinson
explains that linking the word “bitch” with “bad girls” has strong
racial connotations since “black women have always been deemed ‘bad’
in the eyes of the dominant culture, as less than feminine, as bodies
for pornographic exploitation.” Azjones0210 mentions in her blog post
that the Oxford dictionary includes a definition that states “bitch”
is a “black slang” for “woman.” She elaborates:

[O]ur culture has attached the word “bitch” to the character of a
black woman so many times that it deserves to be integrated into our
formal language system. Regardless of the word “slang” existing within
the definition, it is still there. This is not present for other
racial groups in the way it is present for black women. This says to
the world that when I walk down the street, and people see me and
identify me as black, it is acceptable to connect the word “bitch” to
me and everything that it carries way before I even open my mouth or
complete any sort of action.
AF3IRM, a feminist and anti-imperialist organization whose membership
identifies as “transnational women who are im/migrants or whose
families are im/migrants from Latin America, Asia, and Africa,”
addressed the history of the word “slut” for women of color and how it
continues to be used against them:

This label is one forced upon us by colonizers, who transformed our
women into commodities and for the entertainment of US soldiers
occupying our countries for corporate America. There are many
variations of the label “slut”: in Central America it was “little
brown fucking machines (LBFMs)”, in places in Asia like the
Philippines, it was “little brown fucking machines powered by rice
(LBFMPBRs)”. These events continue to this day, and it would be a
grievous dishonor to our cousins who continue to struggle against
imperialism, globalization and occupation in our families’ countries
of origin to accept a label coming from a white police officer in the
city of Toronto, Canada.

When white men and men of color who proclaim to be “progressive” and
“anti-oppression” refuse to stop using misogynistic language, they
participate in another form of violence against women and end up
damaging activist spaces that are supposed to be safe. A typical
response is to blame women: “But women say these words, too!” Another
excuse is that they were using the “b” word as a “compliment” in a
“reclaimed context.” A couple of points need to be addressed here: (1)
Some women of color and white women believe in reclaiming gender
slurs, and some disagree. (2) Whether or not the women in our lives
say these words, men should never say them. A woman saying the “b”
word compared to a man saying it is very different. Given the history
and present day realities I mentioned above, men are in no position to
“reclaim” those words nor do they have any right to tell women not to
say them. I’ve seen white men and men of color who self-identify as
anti-racist use the “b” word in ways to exert dominance over others,
including other men (e.g. “Man up, bitch!”), or to “humorously” refer
to a group of male and female friends (e.g. “Got a new phone, send me
your numbers, bitches!”) None of this is “ok,” no matter what the
“intent” is.

When describing racist and/or homophobic women, there are men with
progressive politics, whether white or of color, heterosexual or gay,
who somehow think it is permissible to use misogynistic language and
slurs. Again, this is unacceptable. We need to go beyond “restraining
ourselves” from using these words. Instead, we need to eliminate
misogynistic language from our vocabulary and challenge the ways in
which this language has shaped our perception and attitudes towards
women. This doesn’t negate the activist work we already do nor does it
diminish the racism of racist women, but rather calls for us to work
against sexist oppression and take responsibility for unlearning the
serious ways in which we’ve internalized sexist socialization.

2. Men on the Left Perpetuating Sexist Oppression

In addition to misogynistic language, sexual harassment, rape, and the
silencing of women is disturbingly common in Leftist spaces. In a
hostile white supremacist and heteropatriarchal climate where many
women, especially women of color, cannot call the police because they
do not want to strengthen the state or be further victimized by it,
working collectively against misogyny and gender violence within
activist movements is crucial. If a male activist threatens a woman,
or follows her home, or sexually harasses her in a meeting or a rally,
or tries to silence and shame her, or rapes her, this man must be held
accountable. What’s disturbing is how white men and men of color
appoint themselves as “leaders” and use their “activist credibility”
or “celebrity” status to hide and excuse their own sexism. On one
hand, there are male activists who reject feminism, as discussed
above, but then there are men who consciously insert themselves into
feminist discourse and assert authority over it. Hugo Schwyzer, for
instance, persistently defines himself as a “male feminist,” yet
doesn’t see the harm he causes when dismissing his history of engaging
in sexual relations with students or writing about how he almost
murdered his ex-girlfriend and then made himself the “hero” for not
following through with it. Angus Johnston of Student Activism
describes this crime as an act of gendered violence and explains that
“in all his (Schwyzer’s) writing about this act he has never addressed
its implications for his feminism — the feminism he professed when he
committed the crime, or the feminism he professes today.”

When writing about “slutwalk,” Schwyzer described his role as “herding
sluts” and then gave racist responses to criticism from women of
color. Elsewhere, Schwyzer wrote an outrageous article that tried to
justify degrading sex acts against women (read Tiger Beatdown’s
important response to his post). By declaring himself a “feminist” and
advertising himself (as seen on his website) as an “author, speaker,
professor” who “shatters gender myths,” Schwyzer dangerously tries to
legitimize his sexism as feminist discourse. Refusing to check his
white male privilege and power, which has undoubtedly contributed to
his “celebrity” status, Schwyzer allows other men to see his behavior
and beliefs as “feminism.” When it is taken into account that Schwyzer
proudly sees himself as “paternalistic,” it isn’t surprising that he
deflects criticism so defensively. His refusal to see this violence is
evident in his own words:

Go ahead, call me paternalistic. I’ll wear that title with pride,
thank you. I see my students not merely as independent, autonomous
agents whom I need to empower, but as vulnerable young people whom I —
and others around me — need to protect. And I still have the nerve to
call myself a feminist.

I have seen similar refusal from white men and men of color that I’ve
come in contact with. Last year, I wrote a post, “Unlearning Sexism
and Other Oppressions,” where I mentioned a male photography
“activist” who took an invasive, zoomed-in photo of a woman’s body and
shared it on his Facebook for public viewing. When white men and men
of color left despicable and sexually objectifying comments, I was
alarmed to see one of my “friends,” a man of color who asserts himself
as a “leader” in his local activist community, participating in this
objectification. When I and another male friend/ally wrote to him
about this, he responded by denying that anything ever happened. We
went back to the photo and noticed that he had deleted his comment. We
and a few other friends (women and men) who saw the comment earlier
must have been “seeing things” (sarcasm). After confronting him on
this, he went on about how his friend, the man who took the photo, is
an ally in anti-racist struggle and has even gotten arrested for
taking photos of the police. The troubling implication seemed to be
that if a man does important social justice work and got arrested
several times, it somehow “erases” his misogyny and the harm he caused
by sexually objectifying women.

Along with shamelessly lying that he ever commented on the photo, this
man never took action against the photographer. Despite the messages
my friends and I sent to people in our network and asked them to
report the image, it still remained posted. A couple of weeks later,
this same man commented on another photo, this time of a woman
modeling in a bikini (which appeared on my news feed even though the
person who posted it is not on my friend’s list). As men left
perverted comments, he encouraged their objectification by saying: “Be
careful. some of the puritanical leftists will gouge our eyes out. we
must remain serious at all times. after all, we are activists. humor
is banned at all times  ” (smiley icon in original).

When friends and I wrote to him and voiced our outrage, we never
received a reply. Some of us, including myself, deleted him, but still
see his hypocritical “anti-patriarchy” comments posted on mutual
friend’s walls. I sent out messages to many of these mutual friends
and while some were definitely outraged, others excused his behavior
due to his activist work and “leadership” role. So, men who perpetuate
sexual objection or other forms of sexist oppression can get away with
it just because they do “important work” overall? What does this say
about sexism and misogyny? That these issues are “secondary,” “not as
important,” and disconnected from struggles against other forms of
oppression? What some failed to take into account was how men like him
are not unique in Leftist movements.

As my friend Sitara wrote in reference to a white male activist in her
community:

What does it mean for our movement that a known abuser (who has
REFUSED to address his actions in any meaningful way) has put out a
call to form a national revolutionary organization whose platform
includes “rejecting patriarchy” in all its forms, including “familial
roles”? Answer: nothing good.


In Courtney Desiree Morris’s very important post, “Why Misogynists
Make Great Informants: How Gender Violence on the Left Enables State
Violence in Radical Movements,” she describes the numerous encounters
she had with abusive men:

There were men like this in various organizations I worked with. The
one who called his girlfriend a bitch in front of a group of youth of
color during a summer encuentro we were hosting. The one who sexually
harassed a queer Chicana couple during a trip to México, trying to
pressure them into a threesome. The guys who said they would complete
a task, didn’t do it, brushed off their compañeras’ demands for
accountability, let those women take over the task, and when it was
finished took all the credit for someone else’s hard work. The
graduate student who hit his partner—and everyone knew he’d done it,
but whenever anyone asked, people would just look ashamed and
embarrassed and mumble, “It’s complicated.” The ones who constantly
demeaned queer folks, even people they organized with. Especially the
one who thought it would be a revolutionary act to “kill all these
faggots, these niggas on the down low, who are fucking up our
children, fucking up our homes, fucking up our world, and fucking up
our lives!” The one who would shout you down in a meeting or tell you
that you couldn’t be a feminist because you were too pretty. Or the
one who thought homosexuality was a disease from Europe.
Yeah, that guy.

While she points out that many of these men were probably not
informants, “the work that they do supports the state’s ongoing
campaign of terror against social movements and the people who create
them.” I suspect that many male readers will read the examples shared
above and think, “Well, I’ve never done any of that, so I can’t be
sexist.” However, this belief is an “innocence” mindset that fails to
address our responsibilities as well as the ways in which we are
complicit in reproducing oppression.

3. Accountability

There needs to be clarification that not all men benefit from sexism
and heteropatriarchy in the same way. Certainly, the ways in which
gender and race intersect must be taken into account.The framework
here isn’t “all men are the same” or “men are the enemies,” but rather
that white men and men of color need to practice accountability and
understand the different, though interconnected, effects interlocking
systems of oppression has on them (e.g. heterosexual cis-gendered
white men benefit from both white supremacy and patriarchy). Men of
color are horribly demonized and victimized by racist forces in
society (as are women of color), though this should not absolve them
of sexism and misogyny. White women can exert power over men of color
and women of color through racism and reinforcing white supremacy,
though this doesn’t lessen the importance of dismantling
heteropatriarchy (which is interlocked with white supremacy).

As Morris writes, “Dismantling misogyny cannot be work that only women
do. We all must do the work because the survival of our movements
depends on it.” Abusive male activist “leaders” maintain power not
only by reproducing heteropatriarchy, but also because they are upheld
by those who actively support them, which includes both men and women.
This support is not always a result of passive or naive
internalization of sexist oppression; there is active participation,
too. When this complex process is failed to be understood, men may
dismiss how harmful sexual objectification is, for example, and make
excuses like, “Well, women were commenting on that photo, too” or
“But, women weren’t offended by that photo.” Instead of using other
women to justify our sexism, we need to challenge heteropatriarchy and
work within a framework of accountability. Another mistake that many
men (not just those with radical politics, but also those who consider
themselves liberal or progressive) make is think they are “outside of
patriarchy” just because they read feminist literature, attend
patriarchy workshops, have women friends, etc. When we are called out
on sexism, instead of getting defensive and claiming that we are “not
sexist,” we should be more concerned about whether or not we are
reinforcing sexism, either through our language, our behaviors,
actions or non-actions, etc. I believe bell hooks’ words are relevant
here:

All men support and perpetuate sexism and sexist oppression in one
form or another… While they need not blame themselves for accepting
sexism, they must assume responsibility for eliminating it.
This is not about men taking on “savior” roles, but instead taking
responsibility for their complicity. We are complicit when we are
silent about misogyny within movements; we are complicit when we tell
women to ignore sexist oppression;  we are complicit when we laugh at
misogynistic “jokes”; we are complicit when we encourage sexual
objectification instead of challenging it; we are complicit when we
continue friendships with these abusive men despite knowing the damage
their misogyny is causing; we are complicit when we make the conscious
decision to refuse listening to those who are calling us out on being
silent or participants in any of the above.

Responsibility doesn’t mean we should speak for women either. As I was
sharing with a friend, I often get tired of calling white people out
on their racism all the time and think it’s important to have
solidarity from anti-racist white allies. I don’t need white people to
speak for me, for instance, though at the same time, I don’t want to
be on the receiving end of racism while my white friends just stand
around and do nothing. Similarly, it’s not enough for men to simply
say, “Oh that’s messed up,” when they see or hear the sexism of male
allies. It is important to confront these men, especially if these are
men we work with, study with, have friendships with, etc. If we say or
do nothing while women are struggling to address these issues, we are
only resuming our complicity.

We need to seriously reevaluate and question what is happening in our
communities. If a powerfully positioned “leader” in a radical space
that strives to end all forms of oppression is a man who uses
bullying, shaming, violence, and other oppressive tactics towards
members in the group, why is this injustice allowed to continue? Why
is he standing on a podium, dominating the mic, and leading a large
rally of people who are seeking to end oppressive behaviors like his?
Why is he held up as a “representative” for his community, being
interviewed by the media, quoted in newspapers, or featured on popular
blogs when there are women within the group who are not only fighting
against the state’s racist, sexist oppression, but also against the
misogyny within their communities? Oddly enough, when men tell women
that they should “ignore” sexism or put their experiences with abuse
“on hold” for the sake of “the greater good,” there paradoxically is
an acknowledgment that abuse is taking place. And yet, despite this
recognition of injustice, no action is taken.

We need to stop giving legitimacy to these men and start holding them
accountable. We have to stop promoting them as “leaders” and start
listening to the voices that matter. There needs to be collective
action and communities need to work within a framework that
understands that if we do not fight misogyny and heteropatriarchy,
especially within our own groups, then our work will amount to
nothing. Refusing to address these problems, as Morris crucially
reminds us, has dangerous consequences and will work to strengthen the
oppressive forces of white supremacy, heteropatriarchy, imperialism
and other systems of violence and domination that seek to destroy us.
Whether its men who write articles about women’s rights, men making
speeches about ending patriarchy at activist rallies, or men who just
think they “cannot be sexist” because they are “nice guys,” our work
and words mean nothing if we deliberately refuse to accept and
practice accountability. As so many anti-racist women of color and
white women activists, academics, and community leaders have
articulated in their work, heteropatriarchy and other oppressions
cannot be dismantled if we do not also work to eliminate them within
ourselves.

Photo Credit: #Leftfail

*I was reluctant to share this status message since I’m not friends
with the author, but it was pointed out to me that his Facebook wall
is open to the public. After verifying this myself, I decided to
re-share.



-- 
"Until all of us are free, the few who think they are remain tainted
with enslavement." Lee Maracle
http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/margins-to-centre
http://electronicintifada.net/new.shtml
http://noii-van.resist.ca/