Between feminism and counter-feminism: Where does a Men's Centre sit?

By Ernest Velasquez

Last Monday saw the opening of Toronto's first Men's Centre - the Canadian Centre for Men and Families (CCMF). Run by the Canadian Association for Equality (CAFE), the CCMF is billed as a place for "research, outreach and public education dedicated to men’s issues." A place focusing on counselling for men and boys, but open to men and women both, with the goal of "mutual understanding and compassion" across the divide of gender.

But, while the CAFE's rhetoric is apparently noble, its history and associations are a little more troubled.

You may recognize CAFE from its increasing campus presence in places like U of T, York, and Guelph. Or, more likely, you may have heard of them earlier this year when the group was barred from marching in Pride.

The most problematic of these associations are with speakers like Warren Farrell and organizations like A Voice for Men (AVFM) - the latter being an explicitly anti-feminist organization. And while the recent relationship between these two organizations has been tense they can still both be placed broadly within the 'Men's Rights Movement.'

But why bring up these associations at all when discussing the centre? Especially since it looks like CAFE has made some effort to distance itself from what they vaguely described as radicals? Aren't CAFE's projects - things like coping with men's suicide in the wake of Robin William's death or addressing the sexual exploitation of young men - deserving of some grudging acknowledgement?

Even if we can take for granted the distance between moderate and radical MRAs, between CAFE and AVFM (and it may be that we shouldn't take it for granted), and accept many of the issues that the men's right movement and CAFE are trying to address are real, it's still necessary to look at CAFE and the opening of the men's centre with a critical eye. While moderate MRAs like CAFE set themselves apart from AVFM and redpillers through their focus on providing services like counselling and their non-feminist rather than explicitly anti-feminist language, the rhetorical 'silence' of this moderation still implicitly supports the same kind of assumptions that are explicitly - and vitriolically - expressed by groups like AVFM. Namely, that the advancement of feminism has come at the expense of men, and therefore an authentic men's politics must either be articulated either outside or against feminism.

This is not a political project of dismantling patriarchy or hegemonic masculinity - though it does involved shades of critiquing the latter. The discourse of even the moderate MRA's is , if not anti-feminist, then counter-feminist. It assumes that taking men's experiences seriously requires setting up an unconvincing equivalency between men and women's experiences; a misandry to mirror misogyny; a neutered language that talks about 'gender equity' by avoiding discussions of patriarchy; that treats critique of hegemonic or traditional masculinity as evidence for feminist misandry even while acknowledging how these traditional gender roles are damaging to men as well.

So while the new CCMF is ostensibly focused around some very real issues – issues that do need to be addressed – and while CAFE is, in some ways, rhetorically distinct and moderate compared to groups like AVFM, the framing of this ‘moderate’ and counselling focused work still reinforces a serious problem with the men’s rights movement: a tendency to dismiss feminism politics and theory as ‘misandry’.

Violence, survivor-blaming, and sex work in Newfoundland

By E. A.

Reports of gang rapes and sexual assaults have been reported by sex workers in St John's, Newfoundland since October. As early as October 2, there have been reports of sex workers being called into and then abducted in hotel rooms with as many as 20 men. Although there have been multiple reports, it is feared that there could be a much greater rate of violent incidents that have not been reported because sex trade workers face a high degree of stigma.  The alarmingly large number of these attacks has created controversy, not just from the repulsion of such vicious acts, but also from the lack of legal retribution. The reports of, and subsequent warnings against, the sexual assaults stem from an outreach group (S.H.O.P) that provides social assistance to the sex work community. As of now, there is nothing more than word of mouth and personal warnings that protect the community in St John’s from these incidents.  

Worth noting is the lack of response from law enforcement. They defend their inactivity by stating that no incidents have been reported to them by survivors. It has been reported that the rift of communication between the two parties is based on social stigma. In a small community like St John's, workers find themselves open to exposure and shame. The problem is compounded by the common misconception (stemming from both law enforcement and common discourse) that sees the issue as the fault of the survivors.  Workers complain that when they do go to police to report incidents of this nature (assaults or robberies) they are often seen as responsible for the assaults, creating understandable tension and mistrust. 

Although the survivors include both women and men, we can see that there is a strong objectification of femininity at the cause of these issues. Firstly, those who engage in the horrific acts against sex workers may see it as a thrill or an act of violence. Regardless, sex trade workers are targeted due to the perceived stigma that they are beneath attackers either socially, economically, or both. This reinforces the archaic dichotomy that sees women as objects, a conception furthered by the socio-economic conditions surrounding sex work. Women (and men) who are engaged in prostitution or other fields of sex work are stigmatized; there is a stereotype that sees them as destitute, wayward, poor, or unable to assimilate into society. These conceptions are dehumanizing and are furthered by patriarchal notions that define women as disposable tools for the gratification of male selfish desires (whether they be violent, sexual, or anything else). The women who engage in sex work, through no fault of their own, become a vehicle for the reinforcement of dominant, masculine ideology.

Secondly, the reaction from law enforcement reflects broader social attitudes: victim-blaming and a lack of response point to a belief that such crimes are to some degree justified. The insidious "she was asking for it" motif underlines these conceptions. There is still an institutional acceptance that the appearance and attire of an individual (specifically women) can create a legitimate justification for the sordid violence perpetrated by predatory individuals (typically men). 

The issues outlined in St John's are as complex as they are disconcerting and speak to broader social attitudes that simultaneously legitimize the objectification of women and blame survivors of sexual violence for its perpetration. In order to create a society that is safe for women of all occupations, we need to acknowledge just how deeply-rooted these patriarchal beliefs are. Sexual violence is not a problem instigated by women ever, regardless of appearance or occupation. It is a problem endemic to a society that tacitly legitimizes the objectification and dehumanization of women.

Gender and Halloween: Costumes for men

By Christopher Ford and Nathan Kalman-Lamb 

 

As you’ve already read in part one – and if you haven’t read part one, you can find it here – mainstream Halloween costumes marketed towards young women and women can be very problematic in that they normalize the hyper-sexualization of women and perpetuate a gendered division of labour. However, what about the male experience when it comes to Halloween costumes?

Well, let’s begin by doing a brief background discussion on masculinity (and we would recommend checking out this video of a poet discussing masculinity through poetry).

According to more traditional (read ‘patriarchal’) conceptions of masculinity, being a man means being aggressive, dominant, strong (both physically and mentally), and self-sufficient. It also means being sexually-attracted to women (that is, not homosexual), seldom displaying emotion, and never being a victim of physical and/or sexual violence or abuse.

More broadly, to be a man under this ideology is simply to not be a woman.

This is why many of the more popular slurs that men (and women) use to insult other men are words and phrases that compare them to a woman or her anatomy – for example, ‘so-and-so is a [insert derogatory epithet for vagina],’ or ‘so-and-so does that like a girl.’ Indeed, for many men, there is no worse insult than to be compared to a woman.

Does this sound like a healthy culture to you?

So, now, let’s talk Halloween costumes. When it comes to costumes for men, there are almost no rules. Wear whatever you want, so long as it’s not offensive.

However, the only thing that is absolutely forbidden for a man unless he wants to have his ‘manhood’ seriously questioned is that he should not attempt to dress up in a ‘feminine’ costume.

Take the following example: a few years ago, a story emerged in the New York Times about a woman from Kansas whose five year old son had wanted to dress up as Daphne from Scooby Doo. He was a big fan of Scooby Doo, and, having already dressed up as the mystery-solving pooch the year before, Daphne had seemed like the next logical choice for him.

And so his mother, blogger and writer Sarah Manley, agreed and ordered the costume for him.

When he showed up at school for the annual Halloween party, all of the other children, the young boy’s friends and classmates, loved his costume!

But, the other moms did not. Many of them made their displeasure known to Manley, and this led to her taking to her blog to write an article that has since accumulated well over two million views and 47 000 comments.

The article begins with the title “My Son is Gay,” a clever bit of misdirection she follows with, “[o]r he’s not. I don’t care.”

The point here is that she was incredibly displeased with how some of the other mothers were criticizing her for allowing her son to wear the Daphne costume. Some suggested that she was simply asking for him to be bullied (even though the only people who were bullying her son and herself were the other parents). Others suggested that she might somehow affect her son’s sexuality (i.e. cause him to become gay) by allowing him to dress like that.

“If you think that me allowing my son to be a female character for Halloween is somehow going to ‘make’ him gay then you are an idiot,” said Manley in her post

“Firstly, what a ridiculous concept. Secondly, if my son is gay, OK. I will love him no less. Thirdly, I am not worried that your son will grow up to be an actual ninja so back off.”

The final point is perhaps the most important, for it gestures to the fluid and flexible nature of identity. Children experiment with different performances of identity precisely because human beings are not essentially bound to any particular identity category. Gender is one form of identity among many and it is something that children should be free to play with (just as they are free to play at being pirates and vampires and princesses).

It is also something that adults should be free to play with. Yet, conventional masculinity tells us that men (and boys, as we saw in the above example) are only allowed to dress and act in very particular ways that conform to the characteristics described earlier. This is something that actually hurts men because it crams them into an identity box that may (indeed, almost certainly does) feel uncomfortable and constraining.

The fact that men are not allowed* to portray femininity in their Halloween costume attire is simply symptomatic of the fact that they are not allowed to enact traits associated with femininity in their everyday lives.

Halloween is a socially-sanctioned opportunity to perform different identities from those we typically inhabit. Gender should be no exception. If we are interested in deconstructing masculinity and its norms, we need to start encouraging boys and men interested in exploring non-masculine costumes of all sorts rather than holding them back.

We need to act like Sarah Manley.

*There are exceptions to this rule. In fact, men are allowed to perform femininity on Halloween as long as it is in a manner that clearly ridicules the feminine. In certain hyper-masculine contexts, cross-dressing does occur, and is permissible on Halloween, as long as it is clearly designed to reveal that women and femininity are absurd, or simply that men acting in a feminine way are worthy of mockery and disdain. Such costumes do not attempt to recreate the feminine carefully and appreciatively, but instead signify it in sloppy, broad strokes. This is in stark contrast to cross-dressing in other contexts, which seeks to celebrate femininity by reproducing it in loving and meticulous detail.

Gender and Halloween: Costumes for women

Christopher Ford

It’s that time of year again.

The leaves have already begun to change colour and fall, the temperature has been dropping steadily (maybe even a little too much – could you give it a rest, winter?!?), and mid-term season has hit many of us like a tonne of bricks. However, most importantly, we will all very soon be dressing up to celebrate Halloween – a day that is, for many university students, one of the best days of the year.

I mean, what’s not to like about Halloween? There’s sugary food, pumpkin carving, horror movie marathons, parties, and, of course, costumes.

Now, I love Halloween as much as the next person. But there’s one thing that I don’t like about it, and it has to do primarily with last thing I mentioned in the previous sentence: Costumes.

Let me explain. It’s not that I don’t like the dressing up part of Halloween – I think it’s great! People can get super creative with their costumes (especially super-scary ones like these), and I think that’s all part of the magic of the holiday.

However, what I don’t like is how mainstream, ready-made costumes – like the ones sold at your local Party City, Value Village, et cetera – perpetuate problematic beliefs about what it means to be male and female, and how we should act as a man or a woman.

In this post, which will function as the first in a two-part series, I will examine costumes that are marketed towards women and girls. In part two, which will be published shortly after, I we shift my attention to costumes marketed towards men and boys.

So let’s say, for the sake of argument, that you are a woman who wants to dress up as a firefighter for Halloween. If you look under the women’s section in your local costume store’s flyer or catalogue, what do you think you will see?

Probably something like this:

Still with me? Okay, now let’s say that you are going to be doing a joint costume with a male friend, and he is also looking to dress up like a firefighter. If he looks under the men’s section in the same store’s flyer, he is most likely to see something like this:

Now, I know some of you may be thinking: what’s the problem? 

Well, let me ask you: which one seems more realistic? Have you ever met any firefighter, male or female, who wears skin-tight shorts, knee-high stiletto boots, and a low-cut shirt while they’re at work?

I highly doubt it.

For me, and for many other feminist writers, the over-sexualization of women that manifests through the costume industry is the problem. The costumes that are marketed towards women often have little (or nothing) to do with what they are aiming to portray. In the example above, other than the colour red and the hat, what does the woman’s costume have to do with being a firefighter?

This is not an isolated example. A recent story in the CBC recounted a British Columbia woman’s frustrations while trying to find a firefighter costume for her daughter, and this led to her making some of the same observations that I have made above.

This photo, created by Raina Delisle, compares costumes marketed towards young girls with those marketed to young boys.

“There’s a girl’s version and a boy’s version. Now, the boy’s version looks like the real thing. The model on the package has a hardhat, a jacket and even an axe,” the woman, Raina Delisle, told the CBC. “The girl’s version, on the other hand, looks absolutely nothing like a firefighter. It’s a skin-tight, black, shiny dress. It doesn’t even have a helmet.”

“What those costumes tell me is that the boys can wear the real thing. They can be a real firefighter. The girls, on the other hand, can’t. They can dress up pretty and pretend to be a firefighter, but they could never aspire to be the real thing,” she said.

This is pretty profound, and, I think, 100% correct. Our current society, which markets extremely sexualized costumes to women, is perpetuating the belief that certain jobs are reserved for men and only men. Companies, by creating ‘sexy’ costumes like this without a normal alternative – which, I might add, they do for men – are assisting in the maintenance of an unfair, gendered division of labour.

Now, I was discussing this topic with a friend of mine the other day, and he confessed to me that he was confused. He asked me, “Why are we saying that women’s costumes are overly-sexualized, and condemning the over-sexualization of these costumes, while at the same time repeating the refrain that women have the right to dress however they want and to wear costumes like these? Isn’t that contradictory?”

Well, no, it’s not. Women should not be criticized for wearing a ‘sexy’ costume, because they should be able to wear them if they so choose. However, we should be critical of companies who produce costumes that are blatantly sexualized and market them to women and girls as the only choice. In the case of men’s costumes, a costume like this:

is labelled “police officer,” while a costume like this: 

is labelled “sexy police officer.” Do the same for women and girls, so that they may choose what they want to wear, rather than telling them that they have to wear a costume that is overly sexualized. And if they choose to wear something ‘sexy,’ that’s their choice, and their right.

Oh, and whether it’s a male, female, transgender, or otherwise gender-queer person wearing a ‘sexy’ costume, let me remind everyone that ‘sexy’ does not equal consent.

What about costumes marketed for men and boys, you ask? Stay tuned for part two!