Godheval

This essay is likely to meet with immediate opposition, simply because I am a man writing about what is essentially a “female issue”. Still, I hope to make some valid points. Recently it has occurred to me that there is a certain paradox within the feminist ideology. Now, as with all things, there are those who support or believe in something, and then those who carry those ideas to extremes. The problem I am talking about seems most prominent amongst those women who have been given names such as “feminazi” or “men-haters”. As a man, do I feel particularly offended by their views, and will I use my site as a platform from which to attack them? Not at all. The truth is that I often find these views laughable, not because feminism as a whole is wrong or misguided, but because these extreme separatist views actually undermine the cause of their proponents. This is the paradox.

To lend some weight to my idea, I will make a comparison between extreme feminism and extreme racial pride, namely “black nationalism”. As a person who once (but no longer) identified himself as “black”, I can understand the need for self-identification, and particularly for standing tall amidst prejudice and all of its corollary status disadvantages. However, it is common amongst the more extreme black nationalists to bring forth a hate agenda, to elicit aggressive discrimination against so-called “white people”, perceived as some universal enemy. The truth is that most people do not want to hear messages of hatred, and no one really wants to be embroiled in controversy if there is a better alternative. Also, as I have argued in another entry, it is the very concept of race which allows discrimination to continue. If equality is one’s goal, then the angry accentuation of differences between people, fostered by a language of hate, only serves to broaden the race gap and to almost justify feelings of discrimination. It is much easier to hate those who hate you, and therein lies the endless and counter-productive cycle of black extremism. It is much the same as the idea of “violence begets violence”. It only ends when one side is able to elevate their point of view so as to find a solution that is optimal for all parties involved.

That brings me back to the feminist paradox, which should already be clear at this point. If women go about spreading hateful language towards men, and/or continue to emphasize the differences between men and women, then it undermines the whole idea of gender neutrality that to me seems to be the ideal for everyone. Frankly, sometimes the ideas people put forth are not only counter-productive but completely absurd. For example, the idea of spelling the word “women” as “womyn”. The extreme feminists would claim that they are removing the word “men” from the word, and in doing so giving women a distinct identity that does not rely on men. That’s all fine and well, but is such a minor thing worth fighting tooth and nail, when there are so many larger problems? First of all, we should consider the pronunciations of the two words. “Women” is not pronounced “Woah-men”. The accent is on the first syllable, and the second syllable does not even sound like “men”, but more like “min”.

I am sure that when most people think of or see the word “women”, they think of WOMEN, and the “men” part is irrelevant. Also, it should be noted that tracing the words back to their origins, “men” does not signify gender, and only refers to being human. Perhaps it is a product of our mostly patriarchal world that the word for all humanity became synonymous with the male gender. However, wouldn’t it be more conducive to gender equality to propose language that eliminates the separation? How about “people”? How about getting rid of “actor” and “actress”, “steward” and “stewardess” – which are more clearly intended to separate occupations by gender – and using terms that refer to both men and women equally? The terms “womyn” or “waeman” (women) and “wyfman” (men) proposed by some feminists are no different than “women” and “men” in how they distinguish between genders. I was once talking to someone who changed the word “boycott” into “girlcott”, intending to remove the apparent male root of the word. It took me only a few seconds to research and discover that the origin of the word boycott is actually a name, Charles Boycott, a land agent that had a boycott organized against him for unfair practices. As I argued with that girl at the time, that kind of blind bull-headed ignorance is much the same as that which allows gender bias to continue. Let’s keep things in perspective, and not become preoccupied with such trivial matters, shall we?

So that you understand where I’m coming from, I should make it clear that I am something of a feminist myself. That may be a strange thing for a man to say, but growing up under the influence of strong women made it impossible for me to harbor misogynistic views. Even when my father belittled my mother out of spite, I not only resisted his ideas, but I resented him for them. For half of my life my mother raised me on her own, with virtually no financial or emotional support from my father or any other men. I came to appreciate and love my mother for that, and it never had anything to do with her being a woman. She was a strong and supportive person. My sister today continues to raise her two children as a single mother, and I hold nothing but the highest respect and admiration for her. Is this because she is a woman? No, because that would imply that as a woman she is at some inherent disadvantage. That, in itself, is a product of a patriarchal worldview. Granted there are difficulties that women face that men do not, but I know for a fact that there are other factors (e.g. race and class) which weigh heavier on some single mothers than the fact that they are women – the same factors which may plague single fathers.

I do not in any way mean to dismiss, belittle, or argue against the feminist cause as a whole. I have done a good amount of personal research on patriarchy, such as its origins in religion, namely the displacement of goddess worship with the more violent and patriarchal creeds. I recognize and condemn the inherent misogyny of the Bible – one of the very foundations of modern western society – particularly in the Adam and Eve myth. I acknowledge all statistics that show that women are not given due recognition, i.e. regarded in the same light as men. I appreciate, although I do not claim to personally understand, the difficulties that women have faced and continue to face today. However, as with any worthwhile cause, success is usually just a matter of time.

As another comparison, consider the differences between the ideologies of Malcolm X and Martin Luther King, Jr. Dr. King was proposing integration; not only equality, but a social blending that deconstructed the racial barrier. Malcolm X, on the other hand, originally proposed the idea of “separate but equal”. He did not want integration, he wanted to maintain separation amongst the races, but for both to have the same status and power. As Malcolm came to realize in the time close to his death, this was the wrong approach. As long as there is separation, as long as there is a reason to regard another person, another group, another “race” as “different”, then there will always be a platform for discrimination. People tend to fear those that are so much different than they are, and fear naturally engenders hatred. It has been suggested by a number of people that Malcolm X was killed because of this realization and the subsequent change in his language, as it went against the separatist views of his former fellow ideologues.

So my message to all feminists, and especially to more extreme amongst them, is to truly consider your mission, and to be careful not to fall into the paradox. If you continue to push forward an agenda based on misandry, then you only give license for misogyny. Hatred, in the minds of most people, is just cause for hatred, as I’ve already stated. Highlighting – even exaggerating – the differences between men and women is the very root of the problem, and therefore you only work against your own cause. This is of course assuming that your cause is gender equality and/or gender neutrality, and not to create two new worlds, one of man, and one of woman, separate but equal! However, if that is your aim, well…good luck with that one.

RSS | 52View Comments (3)http://godheval.net/the-feminists-paradox/The+Feminist%27s+Paradox2005-06-05+03%3A45%3A59Godheval | Trackback |