Thursday, November 12, 2009

Anger Does NOT Equal Hate, from The Angry Black Woman blog

[image is from here]

Things You Need To Understand #8 – Anger Does Not Equal Hate

Ever since I started this blog I’ve had people comment or email or say elsewhere that, by the very nature of its name, this blog is about hate. That because I identify myself as angry (and black), and because I have categories like “Angry At White People” I am promoting hate. Up until now I’ve been willing to blow these folks off, but it’s becoming clear that the conflation of anger with hate (particularly when the anger belongs to people of color) is a persistent meme and not just the crazy rantings of ignorant people. So, I wanted to set the record straight:

Anger Does Not Equal Hate.

People who hate are very often angry, yes. But people who get angry do not always hate.

Let me illustrate by analogy. Everyone is someone’s child. If you were lucky enough to grow up with good parents who loved you, chances are you love them back and always have. But even if you love your parents, sometimes they made you angry. They wouldn’t buy you that puppy, or let you go to that movie, or date that person, or let you eat junk food all day, or whatever. When they denied you, set rules and boundaries, etc. that probably made you angry. Depending on the strength of your desire, it may have made you really angry. Did you hate them then? Do you hate hem still? No. Even if, at the time, in a childish fit of pique you screamed or thought “I hate you!” you didn’t mean it. You were angry.

Say you’re a parent right now. You love your kid(s). They do something crazy like break something expensive, cut school, do drugs, marry someone you dislike. Do you hate them? No, of course not. That’s your child. Are you angry? Hell yes.

Anger and hate are only the same thing to people who have not yet moved beyond the childhood notion of hate, which is: Hate = Anything I Am Pissed About Right Now. No. Hate is much stronger and less fleeting than that.

I am angry, that much is certainly clear. The things I’m angry about or the people I’m angry at? I don’t hate them. I’m just frustrated and annoyed. I deal with my frustration by blogging, by trying to make people understand why I’m angry, by trying to fix things so they don’t make me angry, anymore. But that’s hard to do when people insist on telling me I feel a way I don’t.

So, to be as clear as I possibly can be: I don’t hate white people. I don’t hate men.

What I do hate? Racism. Sexism.

Don’t you?
________________

There are many other posts that I could copy and paste here. But here's the page that has 'em all:
http://theangryblackwoman.wordpress.com/required-reading/

Wednesday, November 11, 2009

Misogynistic Activism in the U.S.


[ image is from here, where a man named Mr. Deem say what many men think, that some men say women make up. Feminists don't make it up. Men say it and men do it.]

Christina brought my attention to these two articles. It is for her that I post them here.

I've commented plenty on this topic. Just read, scream, and stop these jerks:

and

Where are The Heroic Men Protesting the release of Brian Warner's Murderous Misogynist Video?

BOYCOTT ALL MARILYN MANSON MATERIAL. DO NOT BUY HIS MUSIC OR ANYTHING ELSE ASSOCIATED WITH HIM, ESPECIALLY ANYTHING HE PROFITS FROM.


TRIGGER WARNING: MEDIA VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN ALERT!!

His fucked up video does NOT appear below and is not directly linked to at A.R.P. His language is enough for the reader to understand where he's coming from. One place he's coming from is corporate desperation--he's an pseudo-iconic has-been who should just stop making music. Period. And he's a misogynist prick.

"This record is more about, ‘If you say you’ll be with me until I die and then you change your mind, you should run very fast. Because I’ll kill you.’" -- Marilyn (Brian Warner) Manson

Two feminist blogposts have alerted me to the latest activities of Brian Warner, better known to the Western pop public as Marilyn Manson. His latest music video shows him beating and killing a woman.

So where's the outrage, fellas? Where's the call for a boycott?, the blogging by men who claim to give a shit about women, the MySpace group organised to challenge Mr. Warner/Manson?

When yet another man makes it seem like ALL men are evil where are the men calling his behavior unacceptable and horrific (and not in a good way)? I know all men aren't evil. And I know almost all men are cowards when it comes to calling out other men, and organising against their overtly woman-hating/male supremacist activities.

JENNIFER DREW has the analysis in a comment I've copied from the post titled "I'm really sick of this shit" (which I link to below):

What is all about? Why denial, denial and yet more denial. Videos, books, films, pornography, prostitution all are about men’s violence against women but guess what? Why these are all men’s entertainment and hence not male violence against women.

Men such as Steve Wright and others whose names I am not going to name but remember the man who abducted and committed multiple rapes against an 11 year old girl. Then remember the man who supposedly couldn’t get any woman to notice him – what did he do? Why he murdered women who didn’t even know he existed.

There are innumerable other men including one man who murdered his wife because ’she provoked him!’ All all these men and I include Josef Fritzl are supposedly individual cases which have no bearing whatsoever on our misogynistic and women-hating society.

Back again to denial, denial and yet more denials from powerful male-dominated and male-owned media, denials from the male pornographers and male consumers, denials from the male politicians who are too afraid to admit that yes there is a war against women and it is men who are committing these femicides and sexual violence against women.

Denial that men are accountable for their actions towards women because guess what? It is women’s fault for not preventing male sexual violence committed against them and it is women’s fault for daring to imbibe any alcohol which of course ’causes respectable men’ to rape them, since women who drink alcohol ‘provoke men’s supposedly insatiable sexual desires.’

Back to denial again and look who are the ones denying it – why it is men of course.

Manson’s video is not ‘edgy’ it is not unique it is not intelligent – but what it certainly is is profiting by portraying women as dehumanised sexualised commodities who can be beaten and then murdered by men because guess what? Women aren’t human, they have no feelings or emotions but what they do have apparently is ’sexualised masochism’ because women want to be beaten and raped and subjected to horrific male sexualised sadistic acts.’

All lies of course but you wouldn’t know this given the male-dominated and male-controlled media is obsessed with male sexual violence against women because it ‘entertains men’ and ‘tells men they are human and therefore entitled to be treated with dignity and respect whereas women and girls are non-human and any male act of sexualised cruelty is not cruelty – just male entertainment!

Do men see it? Most do not because guess what? Such violence is not inflicted on men it is men committing such violence against women and since men are not being beaten or subjected to sadistic sexualised violence by women it doesn’t matter – it is irrelevant.

Am I angry at men? You bet!
[end of Jennifer Drew's comment]
_____________

The two feminist blog posts are here: http://toomuchtosayformyself.com/2009/11/07/im-really-sick-of-this-shit/ and here:
http://agirlcalledpanda.blogspot.com/2009/11/marilyn-manson-is-pathetic-misogynistic.html

The liberal to progressive blogs and sites by men criticising Marilyn Manson, and all media misogyny are, well, virtually non-existent. Wait! Here's one: http://www.craveonline.com/entertainment/music/article/did-marilyn-manson-beat-his-ex-girlfriend-to-death-89837

Men's Betrayal of Women's [S]Existance In Australia's Patriarchy: When Will Men Stop Other Men's Sexism?



Mel Gibson's mugshot, after his arrest for driving drunk and also making sexist and anti-Semitic remarks. [image is from here]

[Some minor revision was done by me on 17 Nov. 2009, ECD]
One of at least 1000 key issues feminists have taken up in my lifetime is trying to convince men, by non-violent means only, to get other men to deal with their own and other men's sexism. To see, recognise, name, call out, interrupt, and STOP MEN'S SEXISM from happening. To try to get men to understand that if women are human, women ought not be continuously subordinated to and violated by men. Why, so many women have asked, does men's sexist behavior go UNCHALLENGED BY MEN? To try, with every tone of voice imaginable, with every effort, to get men to stop other men from socially treating women inhumanely, as wh*res, as "just wives" who are supposed to do wifely duties, as just mothers, as only mammys, as just mistresses, as receptacles for men's disgusting and harmful violations, as THINGS THAT ONTOLOGICALLY EXIST FOR MEN.

This blog exists to challenge men to challenge each other in this regard. To not be silent, supportive, and supremacist in the ways you behave when with sexist-racist men. This appears to be a lot to ask. And any man who asks it will be called various negative terms that women are called, or ridiculed as if "being influenced by women" is a bad thing. To challenge men to stop being sexist. What does it say about men, about our humanity, that only doing THAT is a lot to ask?

There are innumerable examples, in print, in many people's own lives, of men's sexist (and racist, and anti-Semitic, and homophobic) speech and the non-verbal behavior that accompanies it. There are also countless examples of MEN WHO GO OUT OF THEIR WAY TO DEFEND THEM.

Let's start there. Just with this very modest idea that, to be humane, men must not support, encourage, or defend other men's racist-misogynistic practices.

It has been my contention for some time now that it is not "feminist failures" that have allowed white male supremacy to thrive and flourish, it is this: men will not call out other men, will not risk losing friendships or some pseudo male bravado, some socially obtained man-status; men will not risk losing privileges and entitlements to have the opportunity to do to women what some men do to women. Men, by and large, will not systematically challenge other men who speak and otherwise behave in sexist ways, including racist and anti-lesbian ways against women. What men DO, usually, is to defend other men IN THE NAME OF MANHOOD. How quickly men forget that it was MEN, not feminists, who first equated sexist and racist behavior with what it takes to be "men". Men give medals to men who rape and kill, after all. Women do not. White Western men call one another heroes and brave soldiers, fighters for freedom and democracy, for invading countries of color and raping girls and making the mothers watch, and then raping the mothers too. And making the sons watch it all. And when feminists notice, they are called man-haters. Why is manhood as an identity that requires men to encourage harassment, exploitation, and violence against women?

Why is men interrupting and stopping other men from male-bonding-with-misogyny such a difficult thing to get going on an international level? What's the hold-up? Really. I mean it. What IS the hold-up?

Before getting to the main piece being focused on in this post, let me first mention a portion of a post at the page the Mel Gibson photo is from. The whole piece is written by a man named "Digger", who seems to like mocking and going after men who DO anti-racism work, such as Mark Potok of the Southern Poverty Law Center, a very well-respected organisation in the U.S. He  makes it his practice to defend men's fucked up behavior and to criticise men who do good (humanitarian/pro-justice) work.

In Defense Of Mel Gibson's Anti-Semitic Comments

In the "defense of Mel", Digger, who doesn't deem it necessary even to mention the sexist remark, says:

I will only tackle the defense of his anti-Semitic comments though. Ever since before the Passion of the Christ began filming Mel Gibson has been the continued target of Jewish activist groups. Before the movie was even "in the can" they were calling him an anti-Semite and barraging him, his family and his friends with outrageous comments and inserting themselves into his personal and professional life. They have done this not only with boycotts of his films but picketing and general harassment at every turn.


Since the release of the Passion of the Christ I'm sure this has not let up by some heavy activists. For anyone this would weigh on their mind. It's hard to ignore having a group in your face without eventually getting a little paranoid and angry at the group targeting you. Gibson has been particularly angry at those who focus on his father, a holocaust denier. I'm sure the activism against him has only increased recently since Gibson has been working on a movie about the [Nazi] holocaust.


Now into this we throw some alcohol and personal or professional problems. What you end up with is a Gibson who reaches his breaking point and lashes out at all those he sees bringing these problems onto him, the police, the Jews, the media and the world in general. I find it totally understandable as a man.
In case you missed it, he says: "I find it totally understandable as a man." He finds anti-Semitism understandable "as a man"? He finds obnoxious, harmful, bigoted speech "understandable as a man"? WHO does he assume "men" are? Only non-Jewish men? only heterosexually sexist men? He's talking about this being understandable to non-Jewish heterosexual men (like him), to be clear. And his assumption that "men" = "gentile men" = heterosexual men is in itself anti-Semitic and homophobic, invisibilising gay men and male Jews of all colors.

Does he really have so little regard for "mankind" as to state this in no uncertain terms: "I find it TOTALLY understandable AS A MAN"? And to think there are men who get all up in arms if women make these sorts of generalisations! What does that say about that man's humanity? What does that say about what some heterosexual gentile men DO in order to BE "men"?
Let's move on to...

1,000 terrible things that Australian men have said about women

From RICHARD SHEARS in SYDNEY
Last updated at 23:13 11 November 2007
The world has always known that Australians speak their mind and do not seem overly burdened by political correctness. Where others aspire to rapier wit, they use a blunderbuss.

Some years ago, I spotted an advertisement on the back of a cattle lorry exhorting everyone to support farmers. It read: "Eat more bloody beef you b******s".

Every Englishman with an interest in sport expects to be called a "whingeing Pommie b*****d", and any time there is a looming contest against the Australians, the epithets fly.

But sporting opponents are not the only subject of Aussie invective. When it comes to insulting women, the Australian male appears to be in a league of his own - and the evidence is provided by an extraordinary book published this week.

Two of the country's top feminist academics have gathered together thousands of one-liners uttered by men in high places for the book which has taken the nation by storm.

Meredith Burgmann, a former president of the New South Wales Legislative Council, and her colleague, Yvette Roberts, have called their book One Thousand Terrible Things Australian Men Have Said About Women - and if that's a bit of a mouthful, the comments they have unearthed are even harder to stomach.
Could it really be true, for example, that a Sydney magistrate, peering down at a young female defendant in a mini- skirt, told her: "Come back when your IQ is as high as your skirt?"

Well, yes it is. Just as it's true that former rugby player Eric Rush, musing on the changing state of marriage, once remarked nostalgically: "In the old days, you were a good guy if you lifted your feet when she was vacuuming."

The authors describe their book as a "portfolio of piggery" - indeed, Miss Burgmann suggests it is a shocking barometer of her country's legendary chauvinism and should cause the Aussie male to hang his head in shame.
"We'd like this to be seen as a way of poking fun at these men but it's also a serious piece of research into misogyny."

Among those they want to embarrass are the Australian celebrity chef who watched Nigella Lawson's voluptuous performance on her TV show, before remarking: "Why doesn't she get them out - that's what they [the viewers] are watching for."

And the ever-charming [anti-Semitic and misogynistic] actor Mel Gibson, who asked a bewitched female fan: "What do you think you're looking at, sugar t*ts?"

The 1,000 chauvinist remarks have been culled from a list of 5,000 submitted for the Ernie awards for the most unacceptable sexist comment of the year.

"We started the Ernies in 1993 after the death of Ernie Ecob, a famous sexist," explains Miss Burgmann.
"Ecob, who was head of the [sheep] shearers' union, has had his name permanently etched in the annals of Australian history with his infamous comment that 'women only want to become shearers for the sex'."
One of the strongest contenders to win this year's award at today's book launch in the New South Wales Parliament House is MP Bill Heffernan.

It was he who appalled the nation in May when talking about his political opponent Julia Gillard, who happens to be childless. Heffernan suggested she was "deliberately barren" - adding that she did not understand the public because she had no children and was therefore unsuitable for high office.

Less offensive, but still included in the book, is the former Prime Minister of Australia who once told female reporters: "I will not be harassed by journalists, even pretty ones like you. Nick off."

Other politicians in the feminists' roll of dishonour include the Workplace Relations Minister Joe Hockey with his immortal comments on his expectant wife: "Well, it's exhausting for me, her being pregnant. I don't know why, during the birth process, they only focus on the women. What about the men standing there? I mean, that's pretty hard. Well, as long as they get the cricket [on television] in the hospital."

It is a mindset among many Australian MPs that a woman's place is in the home, even if she is working as a politician. In a Parliamentary debate, MP Andrew Fraser told Small Business Minister Sandra Nori in Parliament: "Go and wash up!"

Union leader Martin Ferguson described women campaigning for paid maternity leave as "hairy-legged femocrats".

Mind you, former Labour leader Mark Latham does not confine his insults in the debating chamber to women.

On one occasion, he told the Immigration Minister Philip Ruddock: "Hand in your badge, Adolf."
Despite the increased venom in recent weeks in our own Houses of Parliament, one can't easily imagine David Cameron saying such a thing to Hazel Blears.

The judiciary come in for criticism in the book, too, not least retired judge Roddy Meagher who insulted one of Britain's best-known Aussies when he said: "Looking at the shrivelled old parsnip Germaine Greer has now become, I can hardly believe she was the comparatively beautiful young woman I once knew."

Miss Greer has also become the target of radio announcer Ray Hadley, according to the book. On her 63rd birthday, Hadley told his listeners: "I bet she's now sorry she burnt her bra all those years ago."

And it's not just Nigella and Germaine who attract attention on account of their shape. Here's fashion designer Wayne Cooper's blunt assessment of Australian models: "Compared to the runways in Europe," he says, "they're porky".

Aboriginal runner Cathy Freeman was an Olympic hero, but her coach Nick Bideau seemed to think he was being generous when he once declared: "I never turned away from Cathy, no matter how fat she was."
Will the book have its desired effect? Will it finally shame the uncultivated, boorish Australian male - the ocker, as he is known - into apology and silence?

As Miss Burgmann says, she is campaigning against attitudes that have incensed women for decades yet remain firmly entrenched - attitudes such as "using semi-naked women to advertise products, saying career women can't be good mothers and regarding anyone over 40 as unattractive and past it".

"We can't bear it when Australian men blame their mummies for their unreconstructed views and it drives us insane when any professional disagreement between two women is described as a catfight," she says.

But change will be hard to come by if Mr Latham has his way. He is not going to give up the traditional sexist insult without a fight.

After all, the former Labour leader says: "The Aussie bloke is in crisis and in danger of being replaced by nervous wrecks, metrosexuals, knobs and tossbags because Leftwing feminists have sanitised public culture."

Among the comments posted under the above article, were these. I'll comment as we go along, in brackets and in bold.

Being born and bred in Australia, I know the type of "bogan" male this book is referring to. But for every male like that theres just as many female "bogans" of the species which are just as uneducated and sexist. It's a bit worrying when a book full of quotes by certain individuals get taken out of context and is then used to reinforce a stereotype that all Australian men are like that.
Don't let your way of life be ruined by political correctness as it has here.

[Now this next comment got me thinking. It is a thought that was born when I read the piece and I was really happy to see it spoken more about below, because otherwise it would have left my mind.]
_____________

"The world has always known that Australians speak their mind and do not seem overly burdened by political correctness. Where others aspire to rapier wit, they use a blunderbuss."

I'm afraid I simply don't get it. Your problem is NOT the way they THINK about women, but the way they SPEAK their mind. So, it is fine with you to THINK that, as long as you don't say it, or as long as you say the same thing but wrapped up nicely in a 'civilized and educated' package.

Between a man who thinks that but doesn't say it, and a man who thinks that and says it, I know who I would choose, at least one of them is GENUINE.

Unfortunately, the 'civilized' world is such a fake, we have advanced so much in the way we behave with each other, but NOT in the way we think and feel about each other. And it should have been the other way round. That's why people have so many problems. If your thoughts and feelings are decent, your behaviour and words are decent too.
Absolutely brilliant. Britain needs a role model, and Australia is it. No wonder the Brits are all emigrating there. I dearly wish I could too. Australia, especially the feminists, should look to Britain as an example of what not to do, and be careful what they wish for - they might just get it.
The link to the article in full, above, is here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-493055/1-000-terrible-things-Australian-men-said-women.html#ixzz0WWGuRn7c

Tuesday, November 10, 2009

Women can't depend on liberals for equality. We need radical action now!


[image is from here] 
What follows is from here.

Women can't depend on liberals for equality. We need radical action now

Gender quotas in politics and the boardroom are the best way to shake our powerful men out of their cosy assumptions
Last week a couple of hundred policy wonks, public executives, charity bosses and politicians gathered in a large room in London to hear the liberal thinktank Demos's exciting new ­vision. Five speakers from the cabinet, the shadow cabinet and Demos's advisory council made stirring addresses. Power must be radically devolved. People must have more freedom and autonomy in their lives. Real social change was necessary, and Demos, with its new and fashionable cross-party council, was the thinktank with the ­radicalism necessary to imagine it.

As I stood listening, I began to feel a rising tide of outrage. There was just one problem with this message of transformation and innovation – which was that every single one of the five speakers arguing for change was a man (white, at that). That every name mentioned as a new Demos adviser was that of a man. That no one mentioned women's ­existence once. And that when we were shown a brief video about how power must be shared with the people, every silhouette and every symbol on the screen was – quite unselfconsciously – that of a man.

In the last few months, the reality of the male hold on power has been ­brutally hammered home. The Equality and Human Rights Commission reports that the numbers of top female judges, newspaper editors, MPs, public appointees and chief executives have all fallen in the past year. The proportion of women on FTSE 100 boards stands at a pitiful 11.7%. David Cameron is pictured at his spring conference surrounded by his shadow cabinet, and every one of the dozen faces behind him is male. The Damian McBride disaster reminds us that the inner circle around Gordon Brown is completely dominated by ­frequently thuggish men. The financial crisis hits, and suddenly women are almost absent from the airwaves, as practically everyone who is thought to matter – whether as player, villain or commentator – turns out to be a man.

This level of invisibility, of not ­mattering, is beginning to cause ­con­sternation among the women I come across. But at least we know these power structures are hard to break. It's the Tory party, for God's sake; it's an inadequate, socially uneasy prime minister in his late 50s; it's the ­testosterone and lapdancing City. What really hits home is when a modern organisation, newly reshaped and with a self-avowed mission to redistribute power, is happy not to include a single representative of half the population in its launch. We're meant to be in an age of diversity; we've just had an equality bill. But if even liberals are oblivious to the absence of women on their ­platforms, then we really are losing the ­battle to be taken seriously. So what's going wrong?

It's not deliberate discrimination. Powerful people everywhere say and believe that they don't care about ­gender; they're just looking for the best people for the job. The trouble is that women are fatally handicapped in their attempts to match the CVs of men. That's not just because, in most households, women are the ones rushing back to argue with the teenager and do the washing up, as men signally fail to step up to the plate at home. In the workplace and in public life, research shows there's something much more powerful and insidious going on. And that's a whole level of quite unconscious ­prejudice that fails to give women the same credit for achievement or potential that men get. Those tiny differences in treatment add up, very quickly, to big differences in men's and women's ­status, achievement, self-confidence, public standing and pay.

No one believes they are prejudiced. Yet one tiny example from much fascinating research shows how far it's true. People shown pictures of men and women standing in doorways and against desks are asked to estimate their height. In fact, every man has been matched for height with a female pair. But the answers overwhelmingly conclude that the men must be taller. Why? Because the respondents know that men are normally taller than women. They don't see what's in front of their eyes; they give men credit for something that isn't there.

That, as work by writers like the ­psychologist Virginia Valian has shown, is a phenomenon repeated endlessly at work. Men fit the existing role models for power and authority in society, so they're consistently assumed to be right for those roles in a way that women never are. They're given opportunities and public platforms that women don't get. The glacial pace of change – at this rate, women will have equal representation in Britain's ­boardrooms in 2225 – means that all the assumptions about women's inadequacy are endlessly reinforced.
There are two choices here. Either we resign ourselves to decades, if not centuries, of being underrated. Or we look to radical action, and I don't mean ­Harriet Harman's personally courageous but politically timid equalities bill. I mean something like the bold action taken by Norway or Spain. There, they've decided to cut through all the prejudice and simply change society by putting women where they haven't been before. As of February last year, 40% of all positions on Norwegian company boards have had to be held by women. The initial public outcry, with stark warnings that investors would panic and flee, has been followed by a realisation that nothing's gone wrong; women are good at the job. In Spain, the prime minister has appointed women to half his cabinet, announced that women must make up 40% of all political candidates, and set boards the same 40% target as Norway. The argument is simple. In a competitive world, countries can't afford to ignore the talent and potential of half their people. Change the representation of women at the top, give them chances, and real social change will follow.

There's never been a better moment for reform. All the old arguments in ­favour of chaps who know how the world works have been blown away in the revelations about how group-think in politics, business, finance and journalism created the financial catastrophe. The World Economic Forum, itself the embodiment of male dominance, now says it is vital there should be more women at the top of financial institutions and government – not just to find solutions to the current problems, but to stave off such crises in the future. We know that diverse boards deliver higher profits than homogenous ones; now we know that reforming them might help countries and companies survive.

Britain's powerful men, both in and out of politics, need to be shaken out of their complacent assumption that the world is best served by promoting and presenting people like themselves. Pretending they inhabit a meritocracy while remaining blind to their own power and prejudice won't do. They should heed the words of the Spanish prime minister, José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, speaking after his election in 2004. "One thing that really awakens my rebellious streak is 20 centuries of one sex dominating the other," he said. "We talk of slavery, feudalism, exploitation – but the most unjust domination is that of one half of the human race over the other."

Thoughts for the Day: Three of Derrick Jensen's Premises of Civilisation



[images are from here]
What follows if from the first book above and from this web page. If these premises are true, what does it mean to act "responsibly" and "humanely"?

Premise Three: Our way of living—industrial civilization—is based on, requires, and would collapse very quickly without persistent and widespread violence.

Premise Four: Civilization is based on a clearly defined and widely accepted yet often unarticulated hierarchy. Violence done by those higher on the hierarchy to those lower is nearly always invisible, that is, unnoticed. When it is noticed, it is fully rationalized. Violence done by those lower on the hierarchy to those higher is unthinkable, and when it does occur is regarded with shock, horror, and the fetishization of the victims.

Premise Five: The property of those higher on the hierarchy is more valuable than the lives of those below. It is acceptable for those above to increase the amount of property they control—in everyday language, to make money—by destroying or taking the lives of those below. This is called production. If those below damage the property of those above, those above may kill or otherwise destroy the lives of those below. This is called justice.

Notes on Man-Loving: a gay radical profeminist's reflections


[image of David Cassidy is from here]

When I was young I had crushes on boys, knowing very well that society wasn't going to applaud that fact. Probably my biggest celebrity crush was on David Cassidy, aka Keith Partridge of The Partridge Family. (I mean look at him. Come on. He's beautiful! And it's not JUST physical beauty either. For me it never is just that.) There's a sweetness to the man. A gentleness. I grew up at a time when men who were understood to be cute or handsome were not bulky with muscles or heavily masculinist. There was a sense of gentleness about men back then, at least the ones I drawn to. Those have always been the kind of men I've been attracted to. Without exception. If someone tells me about a man and says "he's really sweet and caring" that's my cue to take interest. Even better if "and he's really emotionally available and is able to talk about his feelings". Yeah, that's my guy. But he has yet to appear in my life.

When a teenager I had a boyfriend. I was in love with him but his self-esteem was so poor and my communication skills so non-existent that he never knew it. He never knew I loved him. Until decades later when we reconnected, and I told him how strong my feelings were for him back then. We were never sexual, out of fear. But we were close, physically. His step-dad walked into his bedroom, where I was sitting with my arms around him, and yelled at my boyfriend. The look in his eyes said "flee!". So I just left, wondering how much yelling my boyfriend would have to endure for letting a boy his age put his arms around him in affection and love. The step-dad then moved him far away in order to break us up. It worked, against our best efforts to not let the distance destroy what we had... for way too short a period of time.

As a man I've had a few love relationships with men. Almost all of them with profeminist men.

But far more than those profeminists, I've loved many, many other men too. Of many ethnicities, sexualities, and classes. A good deal of diversity in those areas can be found in my extended family alone. Except, oddly, I am the only gay man and the only Jewish person. All the other Jews in my family are dead. And as for others who might be lesbian or gay, there is one cousin who may have been gay, had he not grown up in such an anti-gay white, working class culture. (I was raised middle class, for the most part, but the homophobia was just as threatening.) He is strong enough to take care of himself in a physical fight, but no matter what, if a group of whiteboys wants to take you out, they can do it. So he's closeted, and is maybe bisexual inside, and heterosexual outside. Only heterosexual outside. Except for those few years with me, which I've written about elsewhere on this blog. Incest was a theme in our family, much the way alcoholism is in other's families.

I posted about this at the MacKenzie Phillips thread because I wanted people to understand that incest is often very emotionally complicated, but even in its complexity the abuse of it doesn't disappear. The erosion of needed boundaries, the confusion, the experience of knowing people are getting needs met in ways that are destructive to souls and bodies is all there. The turning of children into adults through sexual abuse, is a devastating thing. What has not been written about much is how children who are sexually abused by adults tend to find one another, and bond, not always in healthy ways. My cousin and I were, unbeknown to each  other, sexually assaulted by the same man. Me at twelve, him more like at nine. And he and I were both abused by other males as well. Later we'd learn of this commonality in our past. But he's never spoken about it except to confirm that it happened. He's never spoken about it and so it lives in him doing damage to this day. Not that talking about it makes the damage go away. But it can at least take away some of the shame. Talking about it with caring people can at least do that.

As fully grown adults, over the age of thirty, he and I used each other. Years earlier I had engaged him in a sexual relationship, not a romantic one. He was open to it, but upon closer and more honest self-reflection my bringing it to him was abusive in and of itself, regardless of what he was open to doing.

As grown adults we'd meet in motel rooms he'd paid for in order to have a place in which we could secretely have sex. Having sex came from his need, my lack of boundaries, and my wish for some connection to and affection from a man I loved (I loved him, but not romantically). He gave me connection, but not affection. Beyond the secretive world he and I participated in I felt like there'd be little chance of me ever finding "true love". When I say true love what I mean is what I saw today in a repeat on Oprah, with guests Ellen DeGeneres and her wife, Portia de Rossi. It's "that look" that they have when they see each other. It's about the most beautiful love I've seen on TV, and thank you Oprah for having them both on your show and having a segment on their wedding. It was beautiful.



[image of Ellen and Portia is from here]


My cousin's life has been a mess of pot-smoking, too much drinking, using and abusing women, and neglecting children he's had with several women, none of whom he supports in any way. And I love him but I don't like what he's done with his life, to himself, and especially to other people--those women and children.

After a few years of struggling to figure out how to say no to him, I finally figured out that if I simply didn't answer his calls, which always came out of the blue, to meet him in motels--if I didn't answer the phone when he called, time would pass before he'd call again. And then more time would pass. And it's a good thing I figured out that what I needed to do was not answer the phone. Because I was becoming increasingly despondent about meeting him for sex. He smoked and I hate cigarette smoke. I'd tell him not to smoke inside but he'd smoke in the bathroom with the door closed, and then would leave it open when he'd put out his cigarette. He needed the cigarettes to ease his panic about wanting sex with men. As far as I know I'm the only man he's been sexual with "consensually", in his adult life.

What he wanted me for was sexual satisfaction. What I wanted from him was affection. I've never been that into sex, probably because of my abuse history as a child. I've seen sexually abused children have their lives altered in many ways, thrown off some unknowable non-abused course along another trajectory: some of us become compulsive about getting sex, to try and turn it into love, or we give it freely or for money because we think that's what we're for and what we're worth. Others of us shy away from sex.

Others figure out how to live lives that outwardly appear as though there were no damaging effects at all of the incest, child molestation, child sexual assault, or child rape. But the damage is there. And I hear all about it: the dissociation, the not being able to be present during sex with one's partner or spouse, the use of pornography to keep oneself focused on anything other than what was is most feeling deep down: the fear, the sorrow, the pain. Using drugs and alcohol to do the same, to numb out or get into an altered state.

And then there are people who play power games with one another or get into rough scenes, because mutuality and really being seen, and treated with respect is too terrifying or just too foreign, to unfamiliar. So better to put on costumes, internally or externally. Or have emotionally unhealthy dynamics to serve as a distraction from that old buried pain. Or better have one's power manipulated, because it seems like what sex is supposed to be, because power was never shared appropriately or respectfully during the abuses of the past.

Most of my loving of men has not been sexual, however. Mostly it has been directed into non-sexual friendships with gay and heterosexual men. I have a surrogate nephew for example. He was raped as a little boy by an older white boy. His childhood was atrocious: he had an abusive mom who didn't know how to love, and suffered physical and emotional abuse from many men. His father, who is American Indian, left his life early. He tells me I'm the first grown man he met he felt completely safe with. I think he knew I understood what it meant, viscerally, to be sexually abused as child, and how trust not betrayed is so very important in every relationship after that.

Gay men have tended to be the men he feels safer with I suspect because we know what feeling shamed, denigrated, and despised is like, and tend to be more sensitive to those who feel similarly, even if for different reasons. Not that there aren't callous-as-hell gay men, but I've honestly never known one. My "nephew" is married to a woman and they have a child. He's reasonably happy, now that the flaskbacks have stopped being a nightly intrusion into his dreams. He's been suicidal often during the many years I've known him. I've had to talk him through it a lot. Bring him to some sense of himself as not totally damaged, as worthwhile, as lovable. I love him. Sometimes saying that to him does him a lot of good. I think knowing you are loved when you feel such deep self-hatred is healing. It seems that way between us, anyway.

There are even more times I've talked him through being so triggered he didn't know what reality he was in--the then or the now. They are fused when he is triggered and he needs help untangling the past from the present at those times.

I have a heterosexual male friend, in his twenties, who is like a little brother to me. I adore him. He knows to call me with any emotional distress. If he's able to reach out, he reaches out to me and I feel lucky about that, to know him and to have his trust. A trust not betrayed. He's heterosexual, white, and from a family without much spare money.

I hold a general love of male survivors of sexual assault. And for gay men. And for men who are gentle, sweet, and emotionally vulnerable. It's the men who seem always to have a guard up that worry me. And the men who really do play into the stereotypes of only being able to talk sports and cars and "women" as if women were something to conquer and possess, take, use, abuse, and cast off like dirty laundry.

My cousin has done with that with women. He has that attitude about women more often than not. But I love him, now as a cousin with lots of boundaries in place. I am not close with him, though, due to his abuses of women.

Every heterosexual woman I know well has stories like this, of loving men who treat women well, of loving men who don't show much respect for women at all. This is also true for most of the lesbian women I know. Maybe it was loving their fathers or brothers. Almost all of the women I know have tried hard to love men who didn't know how to love with vulnerability and honesty. And those women have been very hurt. And they often try again with someone else who seems like he won't be like the last guy. And too often he is like the last guy.

The women I know personally do not hate men. Not one woman I know well hates men. What they and I hate is what men do that hurts women. We hate the hatred men show towards women in so many ways. And the disrespect, and the indignities that men too often claim as "my right". My right to access images of raped women. My right to not grow emotionally. My right to speak however I want to, no matter how it affects the woman I'm with. My right to not be accountable. It's this stuff I hate. And the institutions that keep misogyny and sexism, white supremacy and contempt for people of color by whites in place. And I hate that my white and male dominated society makes vulnerability in all of us an interpersonal liability rather than something to cherish and respect.

Some men tell me about how girls get to cry and boys don't. My male cousin's sisters got made fun of by him each and every time they cried. They were shamed for crying. So I'm not sure what world those men are talking about, but it's not the one I grew up in.

I know a lot about men, having tried to relate to so many men in so many ways over the years. I know we have protective walls up. I know we feel frightened and insecure much more than we often let on to other men. I know we selfishly need women because without women we would never get to know ourselves at all. I know we project our own self-hatred, and our contempt for our vulnerability onto women and some of us punish women for being vulnerable to men. And some men are kind to women. Some men do respect women. A few are accountable and honest. But not enough.

I love men. But I hate what men do that hurts women. So I hate rape and I hate battery and I hate incest and male-created and male-run economic systems which keep women poor. I hate the institutions and systems which keep that all in place. So that's a lot to hate, I guess. But there's also a lot to love: all the men who refuse to be hard and cold and distant. All the men who refuse to put down women as a form of entertainment among buddies. All the men who refuse to misuse our entitlements of access to get what we want even when a woman doesn't want it. And I'm not just referring to sex here. I'm talking about time, energy, and attention. Care, compassion, and concern. I see men, including myself, get quite upset at times when women do not show what is supposed to be "requisite care" for us men.

One difference between me and most men I know is that I give to women, emotionally, in support, in encouragement, in validation. I give most days to this. (So who has time for a boyfriend?!) (And, this is nothing compared to what women give men and boys. But it is what I have to offer, and I do it with as much love as I can find each day.) That is the biggest difference, I think, between me and most men. And I value women's fight for liberation from male domination. I value it more than most anything else. Because I've seen what male domination has done to the women in my life. It's done things, it has injured women in ways men do not routinely injure one another. Men don't generally call one another terms that are designed to hurt and degrade someone because they are female. Men rarely rape men in environments where there are girls and women. Men do not batter each other to the point of putting one of them in the hospital, repeatedly if they live with that man under one roof. Unless it's a father beating his son. Men do horrible things to women because the women are female not male. I hate that about men.

My life is committed to loving women and to loving justice for women. To loving into being a world in which men are not cruel or callous to women. To bringing us closer to a time when misogyny isn't socially real. And for that to happen, racism and heterosexism will have to go along with patriarchy. For racism is one form of misogyny, as is heterosexism. That those two forms of oppression impact men too doesn't mean they are not misogynistic in the ways they harm women.

I recognise that women can be abusive in many ways. In almost all the ways men can be abusive. I don't believe women are, collectively, "good" any more than I believe men are, collectively, "bad". I think we are all human beings struggling in some ways, some of us more than others, some of us with more resources than others.

And what I have found out, in the last several years of my life is something white folks and men of color generally don't seem to know: Black women have to endure A LOT in the course of getting through each day. More than I can say; more than this white man could ever have imagined, even after reading a lot of very honest novels and essays by mostly African American and other Western Black women. What I have learned is Black women's lives are difficult in ways Black men's lives and white women's lives are not. And this in no way means white women or men of color have it easy. White women endure so much sexism, so systematically, and almost never get validation that what they're experiencing aren't just random acts of unkindness. Most men of color endure white supremacist racism daily. And white men's lives are not glorious. Not by a long shot. But when you consider what ELSE men of color have to endure, what ELSE white women have to endure, and what ELSE women of color have to endure that none of those other groups face, daily, it is staggering and appalling. And so damned invisibilised socially.

There are systems in place to make sure expressed rage flows only or primarily in certain directions. Husbands who work outside of the home don't beat up their bosses as much as they beat up their wives. There are many reasons for that, the most obvious being men are raised to think abusing women is ok, and knowing damn well that if you beat up your boss you'll probably be looking for work the next day.

So when men think I'm a man-hater (and many who don't know me personally do think this), I just shake my head and think "Little do you know". When men think this because of the level of support I give to women, because of the work I do to try and make this a more humane world for women, that doesn't mean I think men are not deserving of love and care. It means I hope men learn how to give it to one another, to free women up to take care of themselves. There's no hatred in that wish. Only hope.