{"id":1235,"date":"2016-08-04T14:13:40","date_gmt":"2016-08-04T12:13:40","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.uab.cat\/saramartinalegre\/?p=1235"},"modified":"2016-08-04T14:13:40","modified_gmt":"2016-08-04T12:13:40","slug":"working-for-mens-change-ii-lessons-from-john-stoltenberg","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/webs.uab.cat\/saramartinalegre\/2016\/08\/04\/working-for-mens-change-ii-lessons-from-john-stoltenberg\/","title":{"rendered":"WORKING FOR MEN\u2019S CHANGE (II): LESSONS FROM JOHN STOLTENBERG <\/strong>"},"content":{"rendered":"

John Stoltenberg calls himself a \u2018radical feminist\u2019 activist, though in my view he appears to be one of the few genuine anti-patriarchal male fighters. There are two reasons, however, why he prefers using \u2018feminist\u2019, as I deduce. <\/p>\n

One is that feminism made him aware of patriarchal injustice. As he writes in his main work, Refusing to Be a Man<\/em> (1989)\u2013the volume on which I\u2019ll comment here\u2013\u201cIn various ways, feminism has blown like a gust of fresh air through a lifetime spent agonizing and anguishing about the place of other men in our lives\u201d. I\u2019m hesitating to provide this piece of information but the case is that Stoltenberg, who identifies as gay, learned his feminism from Andrea Dworkin, his partner and wife for a total 31 years. His is, then, a classic case of a man learning to defend anti-patriarchal justice from a woman he loves, though I\u2019d rather leave aside the gossip about the actual arrangements in their marriage (I assume everyone knows that Dworkin was a leading American radical feminist). On the other hand, unlike hooks (and myself), Stoltenberg prefers calling the enemy \u2018male supremacy\u2019 rather than \u2018patriarchy\u2019. For him, all masculinity is tainted by patriarchy, which is why he calls for men to reject being a man and embrace feminism; likewise, he believes that racism can only be eliminated if white people reject whiteness. Now, if you\u2019re a white man and you are wondering what you can call yourself if you reject these main features in your identity, the answer is \u2018person\u2019.<\/p>\n

Reading Stoltenberg\u2019s complaints against how Elizabeth Badinter misrepresented his position as \u2018male self-hate\u2019 in her book XY: On Masculine Identity<\/em> (1992), I realised that she may have prejudiced me against his work, which is why I have taken so long to read him. However, I have found Refusing to Be a Man<\/em> (which is actually a collection of essays), an extremely lucid, well-argued and sensible book, deserving to be much better known. Badinter, of course, is not to be blamed for Stoltenberg\u2019s marginal position as an author but, rather, the immense resistance which his critique of male supremacy elicited from patriarchal men\u2013as it was to be expected. Stoltenberg refers to \u201ca mass retrenchment, a counter-refusal, as it were, refusing to refuse to be a man\u201d including the \u201cearnestly liberal academics\u201d in Masculinities Studies. In his view, which I share in part, this discipline \u201cdoes not get at the problem\u201d of how the blatant lies upholding male supremacy survive from generation to generation. He claims that our academic approach \u201cserves theoretically only to deceive another generation yet one more time\u201d though I\u2019d argue that progress is slow because there is not a male anti-patriarchal civil rights movement similar to feminism. Unlike Stoltenberg, I don\u2019t believe that men should join feminism: rather, my view is that both women feminists and men in need of liberation should join in their common anti-patriarchal fight.<\/p>\n

\u201cMale supremacy\u201d, Stoltenberg explains, \u201cis the honest term for what is sometimes hedgingly called patriarchy\u201d (which he limits, rather, to the father). Stoltenberg places the material penis rather than the symbolic phallus at the centre of male supremacy, complicating in this way women\u2019s contribution to this noxious social system (see bell hooks). The biology of sex is, thus, central in his view although he stresses that both the sex itself and male supremacy are constructions. For Stoltenberg even penile sensations are socially constructed, that is to say, men do not feel during sex anything we might call natural but what male supremacists tell them they should feel (mainly, the pleasure of domination). He even denies that sex exists as a class of individuals: \u201cThe penises exist; the male sex does not\u201d. Of course, he worries that the \u2018male sex\u2019 does exist for those who maintain it as a social construction, since this is \u201ca political entity that flourishes only through acts of force and sexual terrorism\u201d. In Stoltenberg\u2019s view of male supremacy, individuals accept the \u201cvalues and interests of the class\u201d, for which the \u201chabit\u201d of \u201csexual objectification\u201d of women is essential: \u201cMale sexual objectifying is not simply a response to male supremacy; it functions to enforce male supremacy as well\u201d. What perhaps surprised me most in his argumentation is the idea that \u201cmale supremacy requires homophobia in order to keep men safe from the sexual aggression of men\u201d; without homophobia, he claims, men would be raped as often as women (think of what happens in jails).<\/p>\n

Stoltenberg\u2019s volume is so varied in the topics it touches that it\u2019s truly hard to summarize his main points. I\u2019ll have to skip, then, aspects as important as how male supremacist fathers terrorize their boys into accepting the rules of patriarchal manhood. Also the shocking idea (for me) that the penile erection which confirms male supremacy is not limited to sexual arousal but to many other mundane experiences like feeling danger. I left unfinished a complicated article in which I tried to explain terrorist bombings (including Hiroshima and Nagasaki) as the ultimate patriarchal orgasms but, if I credit Stoltenberg, I was not really wide off the mark\u2026 Let me turn then to two central topics in Refusing to Be a Man<\/em>: pornography and, of course, change.<\/p>\n

It comes as no surprise that Stoltenberg\u2019s views on pornography are very close to those of Andrea Dworkin in her best-known volume Pornography: Men Possessing Women<\/em> (1981). Dworkin, together with Catharine MacKinnon, defended the view that pornography should be outlawed not depending on vague obscenity legislation but because it attacks women\u2019s civil rights. Dworkin\u2019s views generated a massive confrontation between feminists who decried pornography and those who defended women\u2019s rights to choose in any matter connected with sex. She and Stoltenberg describe in their works the kind of hard-core pornography based on humiliating women that any right-thinking feminist should reject; they do not even contemplate, however, the possibility now defended by many young feminists that women may create and enjoy their own kind of pro-feminist porn. When Stoltenberg claims that \u201cPornography is the theory, and rape the practice\u201d or that \u201cPornography tells lies about women. But pornography tells the truth about men\u201d I tend to agree simply because like him I don\u2019t believe that real sexual freedom, accompanied by what he calls sexual justice, exists. \u201cEssentially\u201d, he writes, \u201csexual freedom has been about preserving a sexuality that preserves male supremacy\u201d and in which porn is central. With true equality, if that ever comes, sex will not be at the service of male supremacy and only then will we find out whether porn can be dissociated from domination, humiliation and hatred. In the meantime, yes, by all means, let\u2019s persecute abusive porn which infringes civil and human rights. And let\u2019s question whether we need porn at all, pro-feminist or otherwise.<\/p>\n

Another very important point which Stoltenberg also disputes is the widespread idea that men can\u2019t express their feelings. As a \u201cclass\u201d, men \u201chave always expressed their feelings, eloquently and extensively\u201d, he observes, through religion, nationalism, militarism, the diverse social institutions and even sciences such as psychiatry: \u201cwhether or not a particular man is feeling the feeling at a particular time, the feeling is being expressed through the institutions men have made\u201d. Logically, only if the number of \u201cmen of conscience\u201d ready to face these institutions rises can we hope male supremacy to be shaken to its foundations. Stoltenberg, is, however, quite pessimistic about the \u2018man of conscience\u2019, for \u201che won\u2019t do anything until it is clear to him how it affects him and his brethren as men\u201d. Thinking of the men of the 1990s (the men in the decade after the book\u2019s publication), Stoltenberg makes a series of very negative predictions, which can be summarised this way: they will do nothing but will claim this is because they don\u2019t know what is politically correct, and will feel good nonetheless for at last discussing their feelings. I\u2019m sorry to say that this describes very well Masculinities Studies\u2026 though to be fair the current men of conscience are still facing an extremely recalcitrant male supremacy (see my post of 27 March).<\/p>\n

I am currently reading an excellent book by American historian Adam Hochschild focused on WWI: To End All Wars: A Story of Loyalty and Rebellion, 1914-1918<\/em> (2011). In this volume Hochschild examines how a variety of male and female activists opposed this brutal war in Britain (feminist Emmeline Pankhurst, let\u2019s recall this, sided with the Government). Hochschild gives very many examples of how the patriarchal institutions behind the war were opposed at a very high personal cost, and thus pays homage to the individuals who changed the private and public view of the Great War. When Stoltenberg writes that \u201cThe core of one\u2019s being must love justice more than manhood\u201d or that \u201cThe pride to which we aspire is not in being men but in being men who\u2026\u2014men who are living their lives in a way that will make a difference. We must be transformers of selfhood\u2014our own and others\u201d, then, what is missing is a specific programme of acts of resistance that can bring about this transformation, in imitation of other movements in other historical periods. <\/p>\n

We might argue that the liberation movements that crystallized around the time of WWI (feminism, pacifism, anti-imperialism, communism) have failed in many ways but at least they have succeeded in others. The same can be said about the anti-racist civil rights movement of the 1950s. 27 years after the publication of Stoltenberg\u2019s denunciation of \u2018male supremacy\u2019, however, there is not yet a visible public movement engaged in its destruction with men\u2019s massive participation\u2013the very existence of male supremacy or of patriarchy is still denied on a daily basis despite the evidence that links couple-related abuse and widespread military terrorism. Women are certainly divided between feminists and patriarchal collaborators but at least feminism has made us aware of the division and of who our enemy is. In men\u2019s case, patriarchy totally prevails thanks to having convinced men that there is no possible collective action against it; I even suspect that the figure of the outsider has been glamourised to pre-empt, precisely, any collective anti-patriarchal reaction. Patriarchy tolerates the partial erosion of some of its main tenets (misogyny, homophobia, racism, slavery, militarism, capitalism) at particular points but has so far managed to survive by pretending it\u2019s not open to change because it is basic human nature. How long for we are going to accept this appalling lie is really up to us. <\/p>\n

Refuse being a man, and refuse being a woman. Let\u2019s all be persons.<\/p>\n

Comments are very welcome! (Thanks!) Just remember that I check them for spam; it might take a few days for yours to be available. Follow on Twitter the blog updates: @SaraMartinUAB. You may download the yearly volumes from http:\/\/ddd.uab.cat\/record\/116328. See my publications and activities on my personal web http:\/\/gent.uab.cat\/saramartinalegre\/
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

John Stoltenberg calls himself a \u2018radical feminist\u2019 activist, though in my view he appears to be one of the few genuine anti-patriarchal male fighters. There are two reasons, however, why he prefers using \u2018feminist\u2019, as I deduce. One is that feminism made him aware of patriarchal injustice. As he writes in his main work, Refusing […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":98,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[212],"class_list":["post-1235","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-sin-categoria","tag-gender-studies"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/webs.uab.cat\/saramartinalegre\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1235","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/webs.uab.cat\/saramartinalegre\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/webs.uab.cat\/saramartinalegre\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/webs.uab.cat\/saramartinalegre\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/98"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/webs.uab.cat\/saramartinalegre\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1235"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/webs.uab.cat\/saramartinalegre\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1235\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/webs.uab.cat\/saramartinalegre\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1235"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/webs.uab.cat\/saramartinalegre\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1235"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/webs.uab.cat\/saramartinalegre\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1235"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}