The liveliest discussion on Orato right now is happening over The Naked Reporter’s latest post.
It’s all about feminism, which makes me uniquely qualified to comment.
I think I’m a feminist, in that I’m in favor of equal rights for all, and that includes women. Or maybe that makes me a motherhoodist, that is, someone who takes safe, popular decisions that no one will ever quarrel with.
You wouldn’t say that about Michelle Manhart, aka The Naked Reporter, who stakes her ground and will fight for that ground like a drill sergeant, which makes sense, because in her previous life, that’s what she was, a drill sergeant.
She’s not one any more mainly because of what she believed in: that a drill sergeant can be the subject of a nude photo spread in Playboy. She lost her job because of her belief, which makes her the opposite of a motherhoodist.
And that’s one of the reasons I admire her. I also admire that she took on the Naked Reporter idea with gusto, and regularly makes sure that it works on both levels: yes, she’s proud of her body, which she works hard to maintain as an icon of sexy health and fitness, but she’s also naked in the way she thinks: what you see is what you get, and no hiding behind the cloak of safe, popular ideas.
So Michelle riles people up, but she also gets them thinking and arguing passionately for their own points of view…if you don’t believe me check out the comment trail following the latest edition of the Naked Reporter and witness the eloquent invective being expended on the debate over who is and who is not a real feminist.
I notice that as I write, no men have ventured into the discussion. And perhaps I should stay out of it too – after all, as the stereotypical Angry Old White Male Boomer (AOWMB), I’d have to move the O one space to the right to qualify as a real feminist. But this lively debate has got me thinking so I have some ground to stake here.
If you don’t read fashion magazines, and I don’t, not even in the doctor’s office when there’s nothing else other than National Geographics from 1994, the news about women and clothing is often about covering up as in whether or not Muslim women are oppressed by the clothing they are required to wear as a profession of their faith. There may well be many, perhaps a majority, of Muslim women who feel the need to cover themselves from tip to toe – and there are others who would rather wear whatever they want but can’t because their religion, their mullahs, their husbands – some guy – won’t allow it.
I admit I am uncomfortable with such severely regulated behavior. I have a long philosophical backstory that I can unpack and bore you with if you like, but let me shorten it in the interest of liveliness, to which the column is dedicated: Orato (and its editors) are all about freedom of expression. Theoretically, that includes all those women who wish to cover themselves tip to toe, regardless of comfort. If that’s the way you want to dress, go for it. If that’s the way someone else wants you to dress, I support your right to tell them to take a hike or look in the mirror, whatever works best.
But that’s why I like the Naked Reporter. She has fought for the right to be free of restrictions over her own body. If she wants to appear out of uniform (when’s she’s off duty), then that should be her right. That’s what the US military is fighting for! The right to be free! So you have to wonder why they’d fire someone who was exercising that right. But if people and their institutions made sense, well…
Life would be better.
But many would have it otherwise, and I’ve given up trying to figure out why. I think it’s because their moms never gave them a hug, but then I’m an unreconstructed motherhoodist.
I think some of Michelle Manhart’s opponents have good arguments. It is possible that Michelle is being exploited to promote the prurient lusts of unreconstructed male chauvinist pigs who would keep women subservient, barefoot and pregnant and in the kitchen, while they’re out sowing their domestic oats. I think we should take their concerns seriously, but to contend that Michelle Manhart is not all about freedom and self-determination is taking it too far.
Anyway, Michelle Manhart can take care of herself.
The half of the population I’m more worried about these days is the male half. There may be plenty of feminists and motherhoodists around, but there aren’t too many menists. Menaces, yes. Menists, no. Wherever I go, I meet women who have a powerful and positive vision of who they are, but I don’t often encounter men these days, especially young men, who really represent the future. Maybe I’m wrong, but the young men I meet who aren’t buried in some electronic diversion seem a bit sheepish and more than a little confused. (Those who are buried should come up for air.)
It’s not just me who’s concerned. The mainstream media have noticed too: USA Today notes "universities fret about how to attract males as women increasingly dominate campuses and The Washington Post calls their disappearance the "question that has grown too conspicuous to ignore."
Did you know, for example, that: females outnumber males by a four to three ratio in American colleges, a difference of almost two million students? Men earn only 43% of all college degrees. Among blacks, two women earn bachelor’s degrees for every man. Among Hispanics, only 40 percent of college graduates are male. Female high school graduates are 16% more likely to go to college than their male counterparts.
I’m not sure what this means. Christina Hoff Summers thinks she knows what it means: “We have thrown the gender switch," says the resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and author of The War Against Boys: How Misguided Feminism is Harming Our Young Men. "What does it mean in the long run that we have females who are significantly more literate, significantly more educated than their male counterparts? It is likely to create a lot of social problems. This does not bode well for anyone."
There are many who have argued since Ms. Summers’ controversial book was released that society is still dominated by men and any idiot can tell that – all you have to do is search the executive suite for the women’s washroom, but the point is that men can’t stop showing up and expect to lives fulfilled lives. Women have figured it out and aren’t waiting around for some guy to give them permission. By contrast, men seem clueless and directionless.
I don’t actually believe there’s a war against boys, but it must be tough on the emerging male psyche to be told that women are oppressed, as the next obvious conclusion is that men, that is: you, Bubba, are the oppressor. Which is why I celebrate Michelle Manhart (gotta love that name, men!). She believes in herself 100%, but in a way that champions other points of view. She’s a role model for the emerging menist movement (which just started emerging toward the end of this column).
So, we’ve got our poster girl, now all we need is our poster boy. Burt Reynolds is getting on, but he’s still making the man rules, at least on those beer commercials. Still, somebody younger, someone who’s not an AOWMB nor James Blunt either, would be useful. What about you?
Are you man enough?
Let me know.
Comments
Re: Okay, Who Wants to Join the Menist Movement?
By delphyne, March 6, 2008 at 11:47"I also admire that she took on the Naked Reporter idea with gusto"
Does that mean it wasn't her idea Paul? If not whose was it?
How did the editorial meeting go where you discussed the idea of hiring a hot nekkid chick to cover news stories?
Re: Okay, Who Wants to Join the Menist Movement?
By Paul Sullivan, March 8, 2008 at 14:07Delphyne...that's not my recollection of the editorial meeting, but I can't blame you for being suspicious. Actually I'm not 100% sure of the provenance of The Naked Reporter -- it's one of those ideas that just turned up ... but the point is that it refers to Michelle's twin propensities for disrobing for Playboy and PETA and telling the naked truth as she sees it.
Paul Sullivan,
Editor-In-Chief
Re: Okay, Who Wants to Join the Menist Movement?
By Brandon, February 27, 2008 at 16:25Feminism as a philosophical paradigm owes its genesis to Nietzsche, of all places. While couching his critical philosophy in easily misconstrued mysogeny Nietzsche turned the philosophical paradigm of modernism on its head and introduced the concept of psychology and perspective to ontology and epistemology. Although if anyone actually understood Aristotle, it could have been derived from that ontology also.
This kind of perspectivalism perfectly applied is really just an appreciation for the distinction between constructs and material subjects. Adding gender to a list of affectations commonly confused for material causes is an epistemological advance not just for women but for anyone trying to understand things properly.
The movement to propel the interests of women as decidely distinct from men, for instance, is actually adverse from a philosophical degendering. In fact, to propel "women's issues" is to entrench the distinction. Whether feminism is properly a specific invocation of perspectivalism or the promulgation of female issues is the empty debate at hand. Curiously, either side can be correct, precisely because "woman" is a construct same as the self, viz. "Brandon"; so is "feminist" for that matter. A cosntruct has no amterial cause nor predicate substance to which anyone can refer so it is undescribable except through opinion or consensus. Debates on the essence of a construct can be interesting, but invariably come to nothing. Take the equally useless debate on "marriage".
Only an individual person can be a proper ontoligcal subject. Therefore only an individual person can have rights. Everything else is confusion and feedback. Only primary substances are proper subjects.
Re: Okay, Who Wants to Join the Menist Movement?
By luyen, February 27, 2008 at 16:55As long as such constructs, whether they are projected or not, exist in the minds of individuals, they are valid topics of discussions however, because they can provide some level of mutual understanding, and that resolves problems. The fact that such constructs are immaterial is almost irrelevant, as long as people hold them as relevant, and debate them in groups of individuals...which we as human beings invariably do on a daily basis.
I think what you wrote is very accurate, if you apply it to some kind of self-improvement, rather than an argument, and I suspect Nietzsche, despite our aggrandizement of his world-view, applied it purely to a subjective and personal outlook.
p.s. what is not a construct? Something that does have material cause? What if material cause is always changing, is it a variable construct then? Since everything is constantly changing, and made up of parts, and rely on some kind of condition, isn't everything imputed by mind as something, a construct? Food for thought...
Re: Okay, Who Wants to Join the Menist Movement?
By Melkor, February 27, 2008 at 16:20Generally speaking, I dislike ‘movements’ or ‘isms’ (even political parties) of almost every kind. The reason for this is they tend to define their subjects in too narrow a way – individuals who belong to these sorts of ‘movements’ understand where they will fall on any given issue even before they hear it. This to me is the opposite of rational thought.
My first real experience with ‘feminism’ came in a master’s political science class. There were about 3 guys (me included) and over a dozen women (including the prof.). The weekly subject was ‘postmodernism’ (a truly bogus position philosophically) and by way of discussion we were dealing with the last 50 years of the feminist movement.
My point is not to get into the differing opinions regarding this subject (which there are by the way), but to say that ‘feminism’, because of the differing opinions inside the school, makes it one of the very few ‘isms’ which holds any weight. And again, this (my opinion) is because two ‘feminists’ can disagree on the same topic while both continue to be ‘feminists’. This is a strength of the movement, not a weakness. And it is a very important predicate concerning its legitimacy.
I was going to discuss how Nietzsche points out that women are the new men in contemporary society. And although I agree with him (generally speaking, from my experience only, the women I know are much harder workers than their male counterparts, and are willing to take on more responsibility while men today are too busy dishevelling their frosted hair for hours on end between video game sessions) I’ll spare you all his reasons. But a ‘manist’ movement is even given this emerging dynamic probably rather superfluous. Perhaps what we need is a real ‘humanist’ movement (I am pro human, on almost every issue).
As an aside, a man did get the highest grade in that class – I know this because all the grades were posted on the Prof’s door – and I was the one who got it (88%, not my best grade but pretty sweet). Ah, more accurate to say a boy. I have to go play some vids now.
Re: Okay, Who Wants to Join the Menist Movement?
By Hazel8500, March 8, 2008 at 07:56Excellent points all around. I think you may have hit the nail on the head with your Humanist comment.
Not so long ago women who identified as feminists were warned not to fall into the trap of Humanism. What a load of cr*p in my opinion. I strongly feel that feminism is humanism and that 'Manism' is necessary to round out the equation. Skipping the divisions what do we get? Humanism.
So yeah Orato, I think I'll gladly self identify as a manist. Oppression of one side of the equation is oppression for all. It may not look like that, and believe me I've got a lot of flack over this but, if men only get half of what women can offer (ie intellectual, spiritual, and physical labor) then they really are missing out, and by extension so is the entire world and every wee beastie in it.
Re: Okay, Who Wants to Join the Menist Movement?
By luyen, February 27, 2008 at 15:11I thought about writing something, then i changed my mind - probably because my opinion would quickly be categorized as "something"...and I think if what Michelle does empowers her or makes her happy, who is anybody to judge?
Is there some final authority on feminism? ...so maybe my opinion is a typical guy answer, so what's the big deal?
Already i've probably said too much, and might get criticized ;-)
Re: Okay, Who Wants to Join the Menist Movement?
By Heather Wallace, February 27, 2008 at 15:29Lu - everyone is afraid to comment on this topic. It's too bad we have to be afraid.
You haven't said too much. I clearly said a lot more and so am a lot more open to criticism. I normally pick and choose my battles carefully and avoid this topic. But Paul was brave in his blog, so I thought I'd come out of the feminist closet.
:)
Re: Okay, Who Wants to Join the Menist Movement?
By luyen, February 27, 2008 at 16:45I wouldn't say i'm afraid, but after reading all the comments in the Michelle Manhart story, i changed my mind, feeling it wouldn't add much to the discussion, i felt like many of the opinions voiced there were really valid and presented different POVs...
Maybe that's just my cowardly way of avoiding conflicts...;-)
Re: Okay, Who Wants to Join the Menist Movement?
By Heather Wallace, February 27, 2008 at 14:46Yay! A man has jumped into the lively debate.
The women's movement came about because the menist movement had been around since the caveman days. While I think we've made vast strides, I don't think we've quite caught up yet.
While we may be as educated and literate (or more so according to the statistical analysis), women are still earning less for the same work and still not occupying the senior level positions nearly as often as men. Which is puzzling, considering we won't take no for an answer, are just as smart and dominate the educational institutions.
The guys have had a couple thousand years to dominate...why when women are just starting to take an equal share of the pie is there a call for a men's movement? I think it's because it's a brave new world - unchartered territory - and it scares some men or angers those guys who only want to give women a piece of the pie.
We won't know who can do a better job of global management until women have had a kick at the can for 2,000 years. We haven't even gotten the first female president of the U.S.A. yet! (and we likely won't in 2008).
I think at the most basic level the women's movement still needs to exist because women are still prey. I'm not sure it's possible for a man to know what it's like to occupy a world where someone may want to kill you simply because he desires you. I know the vast, vast majority of men do not want to kill women, but that doesn't make the all-too common phenomena of serial killers any less distressing. The psychological impact of living in a world where women's heads are found in freezers is profound. Until you can walk down the street in a woman's shoes late at night and fear for your life because you are wearing your hair in a ponytail, which is easier to grab you by, you may never understand why it's such an emotional topic for women. Who was it that said, "Men's biggest fear is that women will laugh at them; women's biggest fear is that men will kill them."
We've had this conversation before and I recall you saying that women commit violence as well. That they do. But the history and geography of violence is so overwhelmingly gendered that it renders female violence an oddity.
This fight is not against men. I love and support men and agree with you that males don't have enough positive affirmation for their beautiful masculine qualities. I think it must be psychologically damaging to be confronted by the menaces of masculinity while women are pointing out how they've been wronged.
What feminists have a problem with is only the destructive and dominating aspects of masculinity - not individual men. (OK, maybe we do have a problem with George W. Bush or that scary guy ruling North Korea) But I think men should take the same issues with those aspects of masculinity. You poor guys are taught that you're not a real man unless you can win a fistfight. That's just not good. I don't envy the standards you are expected to live up to or those softer aspects you are expected to suppress.
If there is a men's movement, I think the first step is undoing centuries of bad programming. Why be in denial about the negative aspects of masculinity? Not only do they hurt women, they have been hurting men for centuries as well.
I do think men should be extremely proud and have a clear vision of who they are. Certainly the women's movement doesn't prevent men from having clear visions of themselves. I'm not sure why the women's movement makes some feel confused, and many men angry. We just want our struggle to be validated and not resented. We want males to stop minimizing how the last couple centuries made us feel.
I think supporting women instead of resenting their quest for equality is a reason to be proud. The men I admire most are the ones who aren't threatened by feminism.
I know, I know...women suck too. Femininity is a terrible thing when it renders us trite. But the women's movement has already shone the light on the less savory aspects of our gender. As you can see from all the arguments between women on Michelle's story, we have been just as hard on our own gender.
I think men take these arguments very personally. Well, I have taken the history of oppression personally, so we're even!
The reason women have a clear sense of who we are these days is because determining it for ourselves is brand new to us and it's liberating. No one is saying we're better than men. We're just saying we're not who you thought we were.
I don't want this to be a source of argument. I think we can do away with the women's movement once we no longer need to debate why it exists. Why can't we just acknowledge our history for what it is, embrace the strides we have made, and go into that unchartered territory without fear, resentment or backlash?
This conversation is so exhausting that I rarely engage in it anymore. Michelle Manhart lit a fire under my butt, but now I feel like I better run for cover...This conversation just always gets so damn heated, and since I can't stand the backlash, I better get out of the kitchen.
Heather
Re: Okay, Who Wants to Join the Menist Movement?
By Mike Small, February 27, 2008 at 14:14Well as a generally Happy Young White Male (do i call myself a HYWM?) I have to say I wasn't aware of the lack of "man power" in the world today. On the other hand, the thought that women still aren't on equal footing rarely occurs to me.
Perhaps I'm living in a dream world, but I've never considered any of my female associates as being beneath me. Like the BETAMAX, I thought that sort of thing died out a long time ago. But after taking a second to think, that might be because for most of my educational and professional life, I've been surrounded by women.
During school, my class was split at about a 60/40 girl/guy ratio. If anything i felt I was in steep competition with women. But just because I've always been around successful intelligent women doesn't mean that I haven't seen my fair share of successful intelligent men.
Maybe it's because we haven't had the Manist movement, but there are plenty of quality young men out there who aren't getting any recognition. Maybe we need to rally together, burn some tighty whities, and spread the word that we're still around.
Re: Okay, Who Wants to Join the Menist Movement?
By Heather Wallace, February 27, 2008 at 14:47Burn some tighty whities? Oh my God - that's what the movements need - humor! Thanks Mike!
I do think the younger generation of men is much more egalitarian because it has been raised by women who were raised during the rise of feminism and because this generation inherited the institutions after they already changed.
This is good - the fact it is becoming a non-issue for the tighty-whitey generation. Even if it is one more reason to make me feel old!
Then again, the younger female generation is in some ways regressing. I'm not sure butt cleavage and tube tops are a good sign.