Joss Whedon and Male Feminism
Joss Whedon is having a bad week. His wife wrote an article detailing his affairs while show runner of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, surgically dismantling his reputation as a strident internet feminist, and causing him great embarrassment in the process. My normal feeling when I see someone humiliated in the press “there but for the grace of God, go I.” But this time was different. What is it about male feminists that makes their downfall so enjoyable?
Maybe it’s that I’m an MRA, or a misogynist. Or maybe it’s because, as a straight white guy, I’m a relic of a less enlightened age who senses that his time at the top of the food chain is coming to an end. I hate to see one of my own kind, from their position on the cusp of extinction, giving a leg up to the enemy (women) as they clamber over us to the top of the heap.
Maybe, but I suspect not. My main attitude it feminism is a deep sense of envy. Feminists recognise that women have shared political interests. They have the energy and commitment to directly address those interests as a group (and are permitted the space to do all that). I often wish that men would get off their arses and address the issues that impact us in a more direct way. Personally, I find I only focus on issues impacting men when an overlapping issue is raised by women, and once women withdraw the issue is more often than not forgotten. A great example of this is the way that men will talk about the significance of the male suicide rate, but only when a woman implies that men have it easy. Once the implication disappears, our interest in this quite serious topic disappears with it. I think a lot of male irritation at feminism is veiled envy and guilt of the kind I’ve described, at our failure to address the issues that impact our own sex.
Similarly, I have no objection to men becoming involved in feminist issues. If as a man you want to, say, raise money for the Rape Crisis Centre, attend a rally, vote for a female candidate for President, those seem perfectly worthy things to do with your time.
“Male Feminism” is something different, a stranger, sadder creature.
I recently pointed out to someone I know, a woman, who is a vocal feminist (and often vocalises her feminism in my direction) that if I argued for the interests of people like me as vociferously as she argues for the interests of people like her we would instantly cease to be friends, and that the imbalance irritated me.
The point is not that in all situations the male perspective and the female perspectives are the same; but I’m a man – isn’t it understandable that I would take my own side in an argument? Isn’t that the default position, that we speak for our own interests, and from our own perspective? Isn’t that what politics is – the organised, civilized advancement of your own self-interest?
Women have power, can speak, organise and prioritise for themselves. Women in the first world are often in a better position to do those things than some men are. The instance of a certain type of man loudly declaring their feminist credentials feels like someone protesting a little too much, and that for them feminism is filling a hole in their psyche in a not entirely benign way. Facilitating men’s neuroses shouldn’t be a primary function of a women’s social movement. We laugh at Rachel Dolezal for believing she is transracial, but is the behaviour of someone who announces they are a dedicated male feminist – is that really so different? Why is it so crazy in one case to adopt a perspective that is not and can never truly be yours?
When these sorts of objections are raised, its often stated that what feminists want is for the world to be a little bit fairer to women, no more and no less. But logically – and this is true of not just feminism but any political movement – that’s not true. The function of politics is that it provides a civilised method by which groups can pursue their rational self-interest. Rational self-interest means making the world as good as possible for you and people like you. There is no upper limit on progress – there’s no point at which any group says “we have achieved total equality and changed the culture, let’s pack up, go home and push no further”.
It’s easily proven. Of the many areas of life where feminists have made inroads, name one where they have been so satisfied with the results that they decided to dismantle their political apparatus, and strike the goal off their list. Look at gender split in enrolment in colleges in the US, which now favours women by a small margin. I have never heard – and never expect to hear – any woman suggest that a focus on female represeation. in 3rd level education now be abandoned. Why? Because the purpose is not to achieve total equality, it is to continually advance the interests of women generally, in all areas regardless of the numbers. And I can’t say this enough – that is as it should be.
If we were living in a feminist utopia tomorrow would there be more men in positions of power than there are now, or fewer? Would men, on average, be earning more or less? Well less, obviously. It’s reasonable for men to want to help with individual tasks where they feel morally obliged, but to make it the central political commitment of your life… do you really think you’re that bad? There’s something deeply repulsive about someone who not just hates himself but boasts about it, and makes that hatred the moral cornerstone of his life.
I feel no resentment towards feminism. But I do feel exasperation at the idea that I am a member of the only group expected to either have no interests of their own that they actively and consciously pursue. As an enlightened man I am expected to recognise that having interests and wanting to pursue them as everyone else does theirs is the height of wickedness and corruption; and that I should political life around the pursuit of the advancement of other groups. In the best case you’re expected to adopt the attitude of the elves in Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings – a people who realise that their time has passed and are calmly receding into the west, leaving the world to more vital groups to forge a future free from our shadow.
Male Feminists live out this strange ideal to the hilt, confidently and at great volume, and are aggressively scornful (abusive even) of anyone who bristles at the contradiction. They have not merely internalised the perspective but acquired the hectoring, bad faith debating style common to many committed left wing people. Not only should you not stand up for yourself, but you’re a bad person for even wanting to. Let them live out that impossible ideal as they see fit – until the contradictions catch up with them, as they did Whedon – at which point I can only assume their feminist allies will provide all the support and understanding our fallen heroes need, in recognition of their contribution to the cause… right?
