Digging at the confluence of culture and everything else
Tag Archives: Feminism
04/07/2015Posted by on
A week and change ago I wrote about Oisin Tymon and our tendency to devalue victims, especially male ones in favor of their high-profile abusers. And really, I’ll bet a bunch of you don’t remember who Oisin Tymon is. And that’s because we’ve disposed of him, a low status male, in favor of Jeremy Clarkson, a high status male even though Clarkson is clearly in the wrong.
One of the core insights of feminism is that we are all part of a mostly invisible destructive system of incentives and assumptions that support incumbent interests by awarding status.1 That is to say, feminism is saying that we’re all part of a destructive culture.
They’re not wrong. Not about that anyway. There is a problem though. That destructive system of status isn’t just destructive. Not every turn of vocabulary is the result of a conspiracy to harm women. Some, maybe most of the real problems they finger are emergent instead of curated. Maybe talking about male privilege at the same time men were kicked out of the economy in a culture that makes self worth exactly equal to employment is tone deaf to the point of offensiveness.2 And maybe calling the subtle systems of a mostly free and positive culture the Patriarchy at the same time very unsubtle patriarchal systems are subjugating, mutilating and murdering women is unacceptable hyperbole. I mention this mostly to point out my disagreements with feminism are occasional3 but not just with the “extremist” sorts.
This is also a good time to lay bare (another) one of my own biases. Well, more than a bias, a value. In Leah Libresco’s terms, one of the kittens I am trying to protect. I try to speak for those forgotten in debates. That is, the unintended casualties, the unexpected beneficiaries and the inconvenient victims that get in the way of the narrative. Sometimes it is the the low status victims. Sometimes it is organizations like the Straight Spouse Network.
The Straight Spouse Network is for the forgotten half of triumphant coming out stories, of men and women finally getting to marry those they really, fully love with all of their being. It’s for the man or woman who married a homosexual woman or man, unknowingly, unwittingly, and unsympathetically. And then was divorced, and left behind. Here is a 2014 article about them. There are some more articles about that organization, or just straight spouse stories in general, but nothing compared to the avalanche of sympathetic coming out stories. No media friendly campaign about it getting better. Here again, disposability rears it’s ugly head. Male straight spouses especially are failures in the traditional status markers of society. They’re the punchline to the whole of a Friends character. Here again, my complaint is not that we’re treating the plight of LGBT persons too seriously, my complaint is that we’re not treating the plight of the straight spouses seriously enough.
I don’t think it’s just about status either. It’s about narratives. Straight spouses don’t fit. They get in the way of the story where we get to choose to be on the side defending the bedrock of society from radicals or a powerless minority from reactionary prejudice. Nothing to encourage pride about. Because “both sides”4 don’t want these people to exist in the future so maybe it’s just easier if we pretend they don’t exist now.
I’m going to be doing my level best to grapple with some very difficult and divisive subjects, especially in the next few posts. I will end up with some frequency on the wrong side of an issue – defending people I ultimately disagree with. In doing so, I hope to do well by an honorable tradition and that you’ll stick with me to the end. This blog isn’t about changing people’s minds, but it is about opening them.
Wish me luck.
03/26/2015Posted by on
Several of my Facebook friends, along with the rest of the Internet, have been lamenting the death of Top Gear. Top Gear is not actually dead, but it is losing its biggest star in host Jeremy Clarkson. Why? Well, the BBC internal investigator summed it up roughly like this:
Oisin Tymon was the victim of an unprovoked physical and verbal attack [by Clarkson]. It is also clear to me that Oisin Tymon is an important creative member of the Top Gear team who is well-valued and respected. He has suffered significant personal distress as a result of this incident, through no fault of his own.
I find it a little distressing that the investigator had to go out of the way to underline Tymon’s value on top of his innocence. As if he was predicting that people would savage Tymon otherwise. Well, they did anyway. Let’s lay this out using the commonly accepted facts:
1. Clarkson and the rest of the Top gear team were out and about. A hotel was waiting for them. The kitchen staff was kept late to have hot food ready.
2. Clarkson decides to dawdle and drink at a pub for two extra hours.
3. The kitchen staff goes home.
4. Clarkson arrives at the hotel and is told there will not be any hot food and he’ll have to have a cold plate.
5. At this point he physically battered1 and verbally abused a junior producer, Oisin Tymon.
6. The physical attack lasted about 30 seconds with Tymon offering no resistance, but the verbal abused continued afterward. This included offensive language and threats to fire Tymon.
7. Tymon, ” shocked and distressed by the incident” drove himself to get medical care all the while under the impression he had just been fired.
8. Clarkson apologized.
9. Clarkson was told his contract would not be renewed. He is broadly expected to be able to find continued employment as a television presenter for a rival channel.
Aside from the death threat nuts, there are people who are focused on lamenting that Top Gear will be dead to them, or perhaps unbothered by his assault, or urging that his apology should be taken seriously. All in all, a waffling, nuanced take.
Would it have been the same if Tymon had been a woman? (Bracket the very real problem of whether or not women are believed) Look through the facts again: a popular television host batters one of his staffers for failing to procure a hot meal for him. She is verbally assaulted, and fired. The host apologizes profusely but is still fired anyway. He’s still going to have a job.
I think that provokes a different reaction in a lot of people. It provokes a different reaction in me. It shouldn’t.
As I’ve alluded before, I have a complicated and troubled relationship with feminism. I count self identified feminists among my closest friends, but I’ve never called myself a feminist and I shall not call myself a feminist. I have, however, learned a lot from them, and I owe them an intellectual debt for two concepts found in feminist theory: the Patriarchy and the disposbility of men.2 Let me explain the concepts at the rudimentary level I understand them. At the top of a society are a group of powerful, old men. The patriarchs. The fathers of fathers. And they support and are supported by a series of normative assumptions. They control women by placing them in a lower status and primarily restricting their sexual contact and fertility. They control men by controlling access to women, and thereby access to sex, and thereby access to heirs, all while making production of male heirs the path to status and power. And here is the crucial bit for our purposes they make men who have not achieved status risk their lives for it. The archtypical example is sending young men off to die for King and Country with the promise that if they kill enough of the Others, they come back to riches and a sweetheart. Until that happens, until they have the status of the Patriarchs sending people off to die in wars, they are disposable.
Now, I make fun of the capital P-Patriarchy concept a lot, because like all theoretical superstructures, it takes a core insight and quickly falls off the rails. Also, when your in-laws are part of an honest to good lower case ‘p’ patriarchy, the Patriarchy seems like a stretch. But it, along with the disposability of men, are good-enough models3 of examining how the powerful in a society are going to be invested, overtly, covertly, and unconsciously in certain normative assumptions. That, in turn should remind us that we are often invested, overtly, covertly and unconciously in normative assumptions and some of those are going to bite us in the ass. The fact is we’re not bothered by violence being done to men nearly as much as we are bothered by violence done to women, regardless of perpetrator, the disparity happens to be worse when it is cross-gender violence.
The problem is not that we make too big a deal out of violence done to women. The problem is that we do not make big enough of a deal out of violence done to men. We, and here men are the primary actors in their own maltreatment, have bought in on some level to the disposability of men. Not to the point where we fling them away to die in foregn wars for glory, thank God, but to the point where we cast aside their feelings, their dignity, and their right to hold a job without being battered. We toss their names out of the stories we write about the perpetrators, men with status.
It isn’t that it is wrong to be sad that a thing you enjoyed will no longer be the same. But you should take a moment to remember that there is a real human being, one in a vulnerable position, that was harmed. That has to matter, at least for a moment’s reflection more than your TV show. And if it doesn’t, maybe you should think about why.