Where are all the man-hating feminazis?

I feel this is not exactly well written or thorough, particularly since I don’t really know who my intended audience is for this. This is my rough thoughts, and I can see a few directions I make take further developments of these ideas. Input on writing, audience, focus, and of course the ideas themselves are very welcome.

It seems every discussion of feminist issues results in someone talking about feminist-extremists, but I can’t seem to find them. I've studied feminism, I have friends in Women's Studies programs, I read feminist blogs, I’ve known some pretty intense feminists who even I thought sometimes saw sexism that wasn’t there. Yet no one I've come across fits that stereotype in the slightest, having both close male friends and meaningful, long-term romantic relationships with men. I would imagine that statistically, there must be *some* feminists who dislike men for one reason or another, but I’ve never even come across them. I doubt there are many. I've met more feminists who say they don't like women! Yet given how often people equate feminism with hating men, you’d think there must be at least a few; the whole “vocal minority becoming the face of the majority” problem. But there seems to be more talk about them than talk from them; I’ve concluded “feminazis” aren’t simply a minority, but a complete fantasy.

I recently came across a comment on a feminist blog I follow that clarified the thought process that leads to the “feminazi” stereotype. The blog was criticizing a harmful aspect of Christian patriarchy, and the commenter complained that the blogger was blaming men. But she wasn’t. She was only discussing how the ideology can lead to harmful outcomes, and not eve ascribing that ideology to any particular gender. Yet the commenter seemed to be linking a male identity with social systems such patriarchy and hyper-masculinity, as though simply being male is dependent upon those systems. Criticism of social norms became criticisms of the male gender. Criticism of stereotyped gender became blaming men for having testosterone.

Men are not patriarchy; people’s identities are not a system; being biologically (or culturally!) male is not dependent upon being masculine. Criticism of a system is not criticism of a person’s identity, unless perhaps their identity is solely tied to their place in that system. After all, I don't see how someone can take criticism of a stereotype personally unless they actually identify with that stereotype.

Yet many anti-feminists indirectly claim to NOT identify with the system. MRA’s for example, complain about negative portrayals of men as dumb and childish, about potentially harsher treatment of male criminals by our justice system, about fewer men than women getting custody of their children, about the lack of recognition and support for male victims of abuse. These are legitimate concerns, but they are the result of patriarchy and gender essentialism defining men as inherently dominant (aggressive and less nuturing), natural protectors (expendable, and weak if they’re a victim), belittled by women who tell them how to do things (childish and unable to take criticism), sexual to the point of needing women to not tempt them (lacking self control). Feminists frequently address the harm these very ideas about masculinity have on men, not just women, yet feminists inexplicably get blamed for them by anti-feminists anyway.

If people opposed to feminism are serious about addressing these problems, why do they take criticisms of patriarchy personally? Why do they attack feminists for “blaming men,” when logically they should agree with feminists about the source of the problem? Why do they focus on “one-upping” feminists with men’s problems instead of just working to address those problems they care about, to get to the real root of those problems?

If they truly care about equality as many claim, have they simply only moved half-way down the path to understanding equality? They now see the harm, but are still far enough in patriarchy and gender essentialism culture to continue seeing women as the “enemy,” an “opposing force” in a zero-sum game where addressing women’s problems therefore *must* be the source of their own problems? If they care about negative cultural influences on men, such as the “dumb jock” stereotype, why do they reject that the next step, pointing out how that culture actually influences some men's behavior? Why don't they see that pointing that out isn’t the same as pointing out some “essential” fact about men (like pointing out that most rapists are men, which is almost always followed by criticism of the cultural factors that lead to that fact, is not the same as saying there is something inherently “wrong” with men,” just as saying women are more often victims of sexual violence is not the same as saying women are inherently “weak;” both ultimately point to the cultural factors that are the problem, not to some "inherent quality" of each gender). Are they still so wrapped in their privilege, the positives patriarchy has to say about men - Leaders! Strong! Intelligent! The movers of the world! - that they haven’t realized they won’t suddenly stop being those things, assuming they ever were, just because patriarchy is questioned? That they are individuals defined by their individual strengths and weaknesses, not what our society says their strengths and weaknesses “should” be? That harmful cultural influences don't just harm the immediate subject, but can lead that harmed subject to cause harm as well? Or do they simply still believe in gender essentialism, in the flawed “separate but equal,” that men and women are fundamentally different, but recognizing and rejecting the harm this concept does to men while rejecting that it even does harm to women? Why do they seem more interested in “proving” feminism is somehow opposed to equality and less interested in actually addressing the problems they claim to recognize in our society? Where is the talk about creating shelters and support for abused men? Directing men unfairly sentenced or denied custody to law programs that can assist them? Working to establish educational programs for boys at high risk of violence, drug abuse, and other societal problems?

Is that where the “feminazi” comes from? Women focusing on women’s problems instead of addressing men’s problems for them means they must hate men? Certainly, I think it’s safe to say anti-feminists reject the claim that they hate women, even while going so far as to insist women don’t even have problems or blaming feminists for their own. But if they truly thought through their positions, if they truly cared about men’s problems that arise from our societal systems, if they truly listened to what feminists have to say about the source of gendered problems, I think we’d actually be on the same page.

Violence and Dehumanizing

Why are we so quick to “otherize,” to take away the humanity of those who are responsible for violence? Is it some sort of existential denial of our own human capacity for violence? An evolutionary adaptation that allowed our ancetors to defend themselves without getting caught up in the cognitive dissonance of human ethics and our actual behavior? A rationalizing of our own vengeful desire for violence against those others? A form of revenge itself?

I don't know.

But what is the difference, then, between our own actions based on our view of those others as “less,” and their view of us as “less” based on any wrongs they perceive we have committed against them? We view our perceptions of harm as real, and so do they.

As long as we still find it acceptable to dehumanize those whose actions we don’t like, we feel hurt by, we’ve not rejected violence; we’ve only re-categorized violence as acceptable against non-humans, “inferior” humans. You can’t reject violence against yourself if you can write-off the violence you condone against others you view as inferior because they’re doing the exact same thing.

But why?

Culturally Catholic

I’ve heard it asked many times why people continue to identify as Catholic if they don’t believe the Pope is infallible, don’t agree with all the church’s teachings, don’t go to church or give money, and reject the church’s cover-up of child abuse. Honestly, it’s a good question, but the insistence from non-Catholics that you’re not a “true” Catholic is a little hurtful since they don’t seem to bother to try to actually find out the answer to this question. So here’s my take.

For people and families from certain cultures, Catholicism has been hugely influential on the history and traditions of those cultures. Even if you don’t believe in the teachings or find aspects silly, even if you recognize the terrible things done by the church and by people in it, it also positively shaped your cultural identity. It is a direct connection to your history and ancestry. It shaped the foods you grew up with, the values you have (even if they disagree with the actual religious teachings), the traditions you celebrate, who your family is and what they experienced.

I can’t appreciate Italian Renaissance art without recognizing the immense influence the religion had on it, and more than that, that is part of how I identify with it. For good or bad, that is MY culture. I appreciated Asian art – I love Japanese textiles and fabrics – I appreciate Shinto and Buddhist influences on traditional patterns and artistic ideas, but that is not my culture. Understanding a religion is a way to understand the culture in influenced, but I cannot personally identify with a culture through means I have not experienced.

I’ve heard it said that perhaps we need new secular traditions to replace the religious ones to make it easier for people who don’t actually believe in Catholic teaching to stop identifying with it. That is reasonable. But any new traditions will not have the connection to an individual’s personal history, or really, anyone’s history. People like to point out holiday traditions such as those associated with Easter or Christmas that are not really Christian as evidence that traditions can be adapted. But those traditions are still part of that same cultural history, evolving over centuries. Christmas may not have the intended religious meaning to a former Catholic who is now atheist, but they can still celebrate in the same ways just as their ancestors continued to celebrate with pagan traditions despite no longer believing those. Those traditions mattered and continued culturally, even if no longer religiously. Catholicism, I think, is like that.

Eventually, yes, I think people who no longer really believe in the Catholic form of Christianity will stop identifying it with. But that’s something that takes time – generations even – because religion is so closely linked to the cultures in which it exists and itself evolved.

In Defense of Political Correctness

It seems a lot of people object to it, but I see nothing wrong with trying to be politically correct. Communication is about sharing ideas and meaning. Words mean things and carry connotations. If I’m not trying to offend, then I’m not going to say something I know someone finds offensive because that conveys a message I didn’t intend. The meaning of words may change over time, but I can’t just decide a word means something it doesn’t or doesn’t mean something it does. When communicating effectively, how the audience perceives those words matters just as much as what those words mean to the speaker.

Unless you don’t care what others think. But if you don’t care, then why are you trying to communicate?