Here’s some resources/writings from people’s blogs that are quite good that I haven’t talked about here but have kept track of in any case. You might find them interesting and/or useful.
Tia from Unfogged wrote a very useful post a couple of months back that sets out guidelines for how men should interact with feminists if they enter into a discussion with us. I kept the link in case I came across any of those feminist haters that lurk around discussion boards on feminism and bait or come up with arguments (or insults) we’ve heard a million times. For example, “Stop complaining, at least you’re not in Afghanistan and have to wear a burqua”, “You feminists are all ugly manhaters who can’t get laid”, “men have problems too” etc etc.
I’ve alread linked to this in another post. But see what happens if pharmacists and doctors are allowed to put their personal beliefs above patient care. I’m not sure if this is allowed in Australia (it’s only been recently that the Morning After Pill has been available over the counter here) but it’s happening in the UK too more on this instance here. Now one thing I’ve wondered is, if this would be allowed if it wasn’t only affecting women who want the Morning After Pill/ Emergency Contraception. For example, what if a catholic pharmacist refused to sell condoms, would that be okay? And if a catholic pharmacist sold condoms, is there a hypocrisy clause that one can invoke when faced with a refusal to fill an EC prescription or sell it over the counter? Can anyone else think of any religious practices, or general “moralities”, which could interfere with patient care that wouldn’t be allowed if the law was uniform and not just applicable to women? Also, here’s a related post rallying the US blogosphere to action around this issue- a fundraiser drive for those who want but can’t afford abortions.
Zuzu from Feministe reveals the hypocrisy and aims of the AmTaliban.
Amanda from Pandagon wrote this post about porn and the feminist divide that created quite the maelstrom.
It seems so simple to me, and it’s also the middle ground between the two camps. It concedes to the pro-porn side that fantasies are a reflection of society, but it refuses to go along with the idea that fantasies themselves are somehow beyond analysis or criticism that makes the person clinging to the fantasy responsible for his own hatefulness. It concedes to the anti-porn side that misogynist porn (which is, to be honest, most porn) is a dreadful view into the cruelty at the heart of the patriarchy and even that it reinforces these attitudes, but it won’t go so far as single it out as a cause that’s noteworthy.
[Update] And also here’s a post from PunkAss Mark about rape porn aka the “secret patriarchy handbook” [Trigger warning]
More recently there’s this post from Angry and Queer, which is about a blogger (Ampersands from Alas) who made his name as a male feminist but recently sold his popular domain name to drive up the hit count for porn sites without telling any of his readers for several months. The outcome being that everytime an anti-porn feminist visited the site they were inadvertantly driving up the google rating of porn sites. Skullduggery indeed. This is part of the post I found quite interesting though:
Ultimately, it revealed that he hasn’t finished unpacking that backpack o’ privilege.
Too many male feminists fail at the moment of truth. I did too when i was still male-identified, and it was a long time before i came to understand how and why. What it comes down to is unwillingness to give up privilege when you have the chance to benefit from it. In Ampersand’s case, his privilege as a man is the ability to overlook the harm pornography does to women. In my case, the privilege that tripped me up was the unspoken assumption men have that they can walk into a feminist discussion and turn the topic away from women and onto men.
Every “failed unicorn sighting†hurts the movement, because we want to believe that men can change. It is a good thing for men to listen to feminists and demonstrate that they understand what they are hearing. But if feminists are also cautious around men, it’s because there are so few men who in the end actually stand by what they profess to believe and give up their privilege when faced with a real ethical dilemma.
That got me thinking about my previous stance on men being feminists and the terminology debate, about whether men with feminist sympathies should be called pro-feminists or feminist allies instead. I was of the opinion that men could and should be feminists, but does that give them too much power to co-opt the movement. Apparently Ampersands had appeared on a radio program representing feminist bloggers. Isn’t that a tad wrong? It is a women’s movement after all? And how many men, if they call themselves feminists, will shelve their privilege when it comes to the crunch? I still believe that men can play a vital role in the feminist movement, but should it only be a secondary role?
Recent Comments