For any man, venturing into women's health topics is an inherently dangerous proposition. Different types of female feminists encourage more male participation in these conversations while others deride us for failing to fully grasp the issues and insist that we remain out of the discussion altogether. So I will only treat the periphery of the preeminent political maelstrom of the past two weeks: Rush Limbaugh's rant against Georgetown Law Student Sandra Fluke.
The use of one word in particular struck me as rather odd (thought not from Limbaugh), and that was the word 'slut' - an apparently illogical reference to Fluke having so much sex she couldn't afford all the birth control needed. Numerous sources have already pointed out that more sex does not, in fact, require more birth control, so I need not address that particular concern. What do concern me, however, are the value judgments surrounding the frequency with which one has sex.
Limbaugh directed an epithetical use of the word 'slut' at Fluke because in Limbaugh's world, female promiscuity is immediately connoted with immorality. For Limbaugh and his followers, a woman's morality is inversely correlated with how frequently she has sex. Now the feminist movement has done extremely well in liberalizing attitudes towards sex. There is certainly less stigma attached to a woman who has intercourse frequently than there was 50 years ago. Nevertheless, far too much stigma remains.
However, the feminist movement, and to a certain extent the left more generally, understands that this remains a serious problem. In fact, while not often, sometimes a feminist woman can feel that having lots of sex makes a political statement. Unfortunately, it probably does. But if we are to truly transcend a world of stigmatized sex (including orientation) we must also move beyond correlating, in any way, frequency of sex with any moral value.
As I mentioned already, the left has done a decent job of understanding this as it pertains to women. The stigma is not anywhere near gone, but the left at least understands that it is an issue that must be dealt with. Unfortunately, the less severe but just as frequent stigmatization of men who have relatively little sex remains rather absent from these conversations. In fact, negative moral judgment of men who have little sex is simply the flip side of the same coin.
When this alternative but highly related issue is ignored in conversations like the one about Limbaugh's assault on Fluke, an enormous opportunity is lost. Men can simply brush off the entire discussion as relating only to women's issues. If we are not constantly reminded that the stigmatization surrounding gender norms is oppressive of both men and women, men will forget that they are stakeholders in the conversation. In large part, I believe this has been the single greatest failing of the feminist movement to date.
Of course, we are all stakeholders in these issues even when we are not directly oppressed by them. Institutionalized racism in the United States is bad not just for racial minorities, but for whites as well. And we have already seen how draconian immigration laws in Alabama have resulted in the incarceration of corporate executives and the ire of Alabaman farmers who have no one to pick their crops. But when discussions surrounding these issues focus only on the marginalization, it is easy to forget the ways in which those not directly marginalized benefit from the destigmatization of oppressive social norms.
As leftist theory moves into its 3rd century (pre-Marx, it's difficult to conceive of a left-right political spectrum), it is time to make men more central to feminism, it is time to make whites more central to the elimination of racism, and it is time to make straight people more central to the fight to end homophobia. Leftist variety of all sorts must cease to view these groups as the "oppressors" and begin to reach out and explain how they, too, are marginalized by oppressive norms. The onus must be on the left to convince those who don't live the oppression consciously and daily what is at stake for them in these debates.
I agree with your general conclusion that we should all work together to end injustice, even when we aren't part of the oppressed group, but I'm having trouble with a few of the points you made along the way. I'm all for engaging more men in the feminist movement, and I'm all for reaching out and helping people understand why strict gender norms are bad for everyone, and I think the feminist movement definitely *should* try to do that. However, I don't think it's a "failing" if they don't. I think it's an opportunity, and an important one, but I wouldn't go so far as to call it an obligation. A movement that is designed to advance an oppressed group towards equality has an obligation to that group first and foremost. I think that if you identify as a feminist, and you are ideologically consistent, you should care about issues such as the ones you're mentioning, but that does necessarily mean that those issues fall under the umbrella of feminism, or that it is the responsibility of feminists to address those issues simply because they are feminists.
ReplyDeleteI would also challenge the idea that the burden is on the oppressed group to convince the non-oppressed group to care about their particular issues. I think that is, practically speaking, the way it usually works out, but I think there is a certain responsibility that all people have to educate themselves (if they have the means to do so) and to care for their fellow humans. Perhaps that's a little idealistic, but I just don't see the logic behind an oppressed group being obligated to convince people that they deserve to be equal - I think it's everyone's responsibility to recognize that from the get-go.
I think it is an effective obligation - if only because it's not going to be possible to overthrow oppressive norms individually. Feminists aren't going to be able to overthrow the oppressive norms that remain against women without also overthrowing those norms that oppress men. So no, you're right, it's not a moral obligation of feminists to make feminism of relevance to men, but it's an effective obligation in that if we feminists don't do, we're not going to have much success.
ReplyDeleteYour second paragraph makes a lot of sense. It shouldn't be the obligation of the oppressed to group to explain how they're oppressed, but practically speaking, it is. We can either sit around wringing our hands about this, and being upset about how unjust it is, or we can accept the fact that it is the case and work within that reality.