We’re All In This Together
In short, why aren’t we asking that our society come to “have it all” together? Isn’t that the only way it would work? Is what we’re looking at simply a calcified failure of empathy and of imagination — the sad legacy of the Me Generation, which held that “self-realization” was the goal of life? How can we realize ourselves alone? How can we realize ourselves without one another?
The lovely and talented Maria Bustillos reviewed Hanna Rosin’s The End of Men for The Los Angeles Review of Books, and, well, she wasn’t a fan—mostly because it shoves equality out the window. “Society gains when the injustices against men are addressed equally with the injustices against women,” Bustillos says. “Surely it would be wrong to hold one kind of progress hostage to the other.” Indeed. Obviously, the injustices against women have been greater in a patriarchal society, but, yes, we want everyone to be able to succeed. We’re all in this together, right?
I was really enjoying this review until Bustillos stated that arguments like Rosin’s are what drive her away from describing herself as a ‘feminist’. Everything else Bustillos said until that point was so wonderfully thoughtful that I’m so disappointed that she assumes Rosin’s book is representative of ‘feminism’ generally. Rosin’s book sounds awful, but misandry is not the same as feminism.
@EmmaG I came here to say the exact same thing.
“It is the exact reason why I have never been able to call myself a feminist; it transgresses against my deepest conviction, namely, a belief in universal human equality.” – The Hairpin linked to an article yesterday about coverage of gender issues in The Atlantic (also at the Los Angeles Review of Books here) and calls out Rosin (and Anne Marie Slaughter, and Kate Bolick) for this same sort of blanket statement.
The author points to the OED definition, as well as Wikipedia’s: feminism as “a collection of movements aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, and social rights for women.” Isn’t that exactly what Bustillos does believe in?
@EmmaG Well, it’s a toughie, but the overall message I took from Bustillos’ statement is that we have to rely on each other in the day-to-day. Women rely on men, men rely on women, all for different reasons. The problems start when people don’t recognize that we are all interdependent, and we all have to figure out how to live with each other.
That said, I am a card-carrying feminist because there are way too many men (and women, alas) out there who haven’t figured out how to live with me.
@EmmaG This! How someone with such an otherwise considered view of justice issues can still be carrying around this feminism=manhating trope is beyond me.
Ugh. Young women who benefit HUGELY from the feminist movement and come out with this “I’m a humanist” crap really need to just stop. You know what? You can be a “humanist” when everyone who is actively working to take away your only-recently-won civil rights is dead. Feminism isn’t about shoving men down to raise women up — no one with half a brain swallows that nonsense — and the word matters because sexism is still real and needs addressing specifically.
@City_Dater reminds me of an article we were discussing elsewhere that differentiates also between Feminism (associating yourself with the history of the movement) and feminism (saying the history of the movement is problematic and you don’t want to be a part of that but you agree with equal rights/feminist beliefs).
I agree that there are problems in the history of the feminist movement (some of which affect me more directly than others) but isn’t that the whole point? You learn from the mistakes that have been made in the past and you try to improve the movement to be more inclusive of women of colour (make that people of colour), trans*, people of lower SES, men, etc.
Saying you’re a humanist is a huge cop-out in my opinion. Capital-F feminism please (although I’ve never heard that distinction before).
@redheaded&crazy ugh I hesitate to even post this comment because I’m not sure that I necessarily have a firm grasp on feminist history/theory. But I find the Feminist/feminist/humanist topic fascinating to talk about in any case.
Oh my god, I’ve been avoiding anything and everything Hannah Rosin because this book just drives me crazy. Feminism is not about women kicking men’s ass in retribution for the wrongs we were done. It’s about basic things that most sane people believe in: women’s right to choose what to do with their bodies, equal pay for equal work, protecting the rights of marginalized groups. Basically everybody I know is a feminist! Hannah Rosin, why are you perpetuating this ridiculous belief that feminism is about the supremacy of women?!
If I had a penny for every time I had to explain to a straight white man that he’s actually a feminist I would have a lot of dollars (or maybe just about one dollar).
Hello all, Maria here. I loved reading these interesting comments a lot. I am not opposed to the egalitarian goals of feminism (far from it.) Right now, though, Rosin’s book is the #1 Amazon-ranked Feminist Theory book, and this is a real problem for anyone with egalitarian convictions. My job was to review this book, which has received many (MANY) positive reviews and a very great deal of attention in NYT, NY Mag, etc.
It is not enough to be telling people, read Valenti! Real feminism means equality! Not while the Rosins of the world own a substantial piece of the intellectual real estate of feminism.
(I will add also that I am insanely, horrifically old, and my views are somewhat colored by second-wave authors who were less egalitarian than many feminist writers of today. But I’m not alone in that. It will take more activism to change those perceptions.)