Trust

Originally published: 13.03.14

Imagine if a large group of people have been constantly arriving at your house, to throw flammable objects at it, set it on fire, almost burning it down.

You, and many others who share the house, have been struggling to rebuild and get things back in order, over and over again, for a long, long time. A certain group of you realises exactly what is going on, and form a team to defend the house.

One day, some people in that group decide that setting your house on fire isn’t really a good thing to do. They come to your house, apologise for their group’s actions, and pledge to you that they will support your team from now on, and stand with you to defend the house from their group members’ attacks.

At first, you trust them, because they really do appear to be sincere, and mean well.


Read more Trust

When Bad Allies Get “Good Guy” Awards by @MMASammich

(Cross-posted from )

When Bad Allies Get “Good Guy” Awards

Clymerquote3A while back I wrote about fake allies—specifically, Charles Clymer, a cis white dude who used to run a popular Facebook page called “Equality for Women” but shut it down amidst accusations that, among other things, he was deleting comments from and banning women who questioned his views or the way he ran the page. And then there was his abusive verbal flaying of Stephanie Kay in a private conversation that went public a year or so ago and revealed the dude beneath the Perfect Feminist Ally act. It didn’t help that when called on that tirade, Clymer basically stood by his remarks and went on to admit—almost proudly—that his goal is to become a professional Feminist Leader. And he dug himself in deeper when, following the many accusations leveled at him directly and via the #StopClymer hashtag (by nearly every woman who had been a moderator at the EFW Facebook page, among others), he tweeted promising to address his “mistakes” with an apology and dropped off the Internet for several weeks. When he reappeared, he deleted the aforementioned tweet and went back to promoting the “Charles Clymer: Feminist Ally” brand.

As more people become aware of this behavior and lack of accountability, you would think his stock would plummet. And it has taken a hit: PolicyMic (now Mic) first deleted him from a listicle of male feminists and then further distanced themselves from him, explaining that he is a “freelancer” and promised to investigate. Activist Millennials recently removed him from their advisory council. But he apparently still serves on the Board of Poetic Change, “an organization dedicated to empowering the next generation of social justice leaders.” He has retained a large following on Twitter (which he grows by taking up more space than most women in any feminist hashtag he can appropriate and saying all the right things) and on his personal Facebook page. He gets speaking gigs at feminist rallies. The frakking BBC had him on to comment on Emma Watson’s UN speech, for heaven’s sake.clymerquote1

Now the National Women’s Political Caucus hasannounced that Clymer will receive their 2014 “Good Guy” award for being “vocal” on behalf of women.

“We salute men who stand up for women’s rights, especially men like Charles who are so vocal about feminism,” stated NWPC President Linda Young. —NWPC press release

This news upset me in a way that surprised me a little. I mean, I get angry about stuff. But this has been…deeply upsetting, I guess is the best way to put it. When I first learned the truth about Clymer, I was pretty shaken up by everything I saw: the abusive and/or manipulative language he used when women challenged him, the creepy chats with his moderators, his use of EFW to hit on women, and the arrogant ambition to get paid to do the thing that most of us do purely out of passion and need, just to get through this misogynistic world. Just to survive it. I realized that this guy who said, “I think I do a pretty good job of standing with women, not in front of them,” was indeed standing directly in front of women and anyone who isn’t a cis white male. Now he’s getting AN AWARD from a NATIONAL WOMEN’S POLITICAL ORGANIZATION? I’m just…

4811836+_b5cc0717c7b1b2fd763ab77adbaac28e

I spent most of a day emailing and tweeting about it, my stomach in knots, heart pounding, hands shaking. Others had been tweeting about it for several days. None of us, to my knowledge, has received a response from NWPC.

NWPC gives Good Guy Awards to men who have proven, through their actions and words, to be strong advocates for women. Past recipients of the award include exceptional men such as Martin Abzug, President William Jefferson Clinton, and Julian Bond. —NWPC press release

clymerquote2Emphasis mine because NO and HOLY SHIT NO.

My first question was, “Did they not Google his name?” It’s almost impossible to miss that he’s a controversial figure, at best. The second result is apetition to have him removed as a Huffington Post contributor. Due diligence is a thing, people.

My second question was, “Did they Google him and decide to ignore what they found?” I mean, that petition has under 200 signatures—that’s a mere 200 people who think this guy is an abusive fake ally who needs to NOT take up space in feminism at the expense of women and nonbinary people. And maybe it’s easy to write #StopClymer off as just a few angry people (of which I am one) at this point, but back in the spring I saw plenty of testimony (again, much of it from women who had been EFW mods) and other compelling evidence that Clymer is not nearly the ally he pretends to be. And it’s also not difficult to confirm that he has failed to address most of the accusations against him—to discover that, in fact, he tends to label criticism as “abuse” and “bullying” and even “hate speech” and bans or blocks those who challenge him in any way. These are not the actions of a “Good Guy.”

Look, I shuffled my feet for weeks before I finally wrote about this the first time, and even then I never participated in the #StopClymer hashtag. I really didn’t want to go all torches and pitchforks on his ass. But this straw broke the camel’s back, and I am done pussyfooting around. You do not get to dismiss, silence, manipulate, and abuse women; you don’t get to privilege yourself above women again and again with your words and actions; you don’t get to do these things in the name of feminism, utterly fail to hold yourself accountable or do any work to reach out and rebuild trust, and then get a “Good Guy” award for being a feminist ally. Not without a fight from me. Charles Clymer needs to get his house in order before he pretends to be anything other than part of the problem.

clymerquote4I have tweeted and emailed the NWPC via their website. I have sent separate messages to several board members and to my local chapter. I have emailed my U.S. Senators, Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell because I assume they are NWCP members. I have tweeted several other congresswomen and will continue to email and tweet this week. I’m also reaching out to some friends and acquaintances who may have ideas as to how to get a response from the NWCP, which currently seems to have its fingers in its ears while it sings “La la la I can’t hear you.”

I will make them hear me. Enough is enough. clymerquote5

Feel free to join me (contact links below) in letting the NWPC know that to give this man an award like this is to ignore the women who spoke out for this story and the ones who have spoken out on #StopClymer to say that this man’s behavior toward them (us) has not been that of an ally but that of an opportunist, a manipulator, and an abuser. I’ll be tweeting at members of congress and the media and anyone else I think might listen. I’m not shutting up until I get a response.

Giving Clymer this award sends the message that a man can use his privilege to silence and berate women and still be a celebrated feminist: a “Good Guy.” And that’s just not ok with me.


Contact NWPC:

Via Twitter: NWPC_updates

Via Email: Use NWPC’s General Contact Page or the one that purports to email theirboard members directly.

Find and contact your local chapter.


Note: Images have been altered from their original state. All quotes are directly from Charles Clymer via this story.


Update: I am tweeting under #NoGoodGuy as well as #StopClymer. Join me.

Also, I received a reply from the NWPC Washington State chapter president. She has granted permission to post it here:

Thanks for your email and information about Mr. Clymer. As you noted, NWPC-WA is the local chapter and we operate fairly independently from the national organization. We do not have a representative from Washington state who serves on the National Executive Committee. They made the decision to honor Mr. Clymer. I am happy to pass your comments onto the national office. No one from Washington state plans to make the trip out to New York for these awards due to the distance. 
I read the stories with great interest and appreciate you contacting us. As an advocate for women’s issues, I would love to engage you more in our work locally. 
Best,
Liz Berry
President
NWCP-WA
Rosie blogs at Make Me a Sammich, a ranty, funny, dead-serious blog about being a woman. Follow her on Twitter at .

If you were a feminist. by The Real Thunder Child

(Cross-posted from The Real Thunder Child)

If you were a feminist, you would not feel the need to tell us. Your actions and what you say to other males would mark you out.

If you were a feminist, you would see misogyny for what it is, everywhere it is, neither feeling personally hurt or blamed for the often unconscious actions and words of yourself, and other males. You’d be watchful,mindful. And try.

If you were a feminist you wouldn’t expect thanks for common courtesy, for simply not being a douche.

If you were a feminist you wouldn’t deify choice. Nor would you condemn it. You’d view the choices that women make through the prism of still overarching patriarchy. Whether it be prostitution, sex selective abortion, or the niqab, and question what forces that choice, rather than punishing women for the choices forced upon them by men , and that said overarching patriarchy.

If you were a feminist you’d realise that internalised misogyny is a thing. That females aren’t born hating other females or themselves. That this is a beyond Pavlovian defence mechanism. That this “competition” exists purely as control, with patriarchy handing out the prizes. Prizes such as “good marriages”, which in themselves are gilded cages. Control.
And you’d realise how you, even you, benefit from this, instead of using it as tool for attacking women.

If you were a feminist you’d rest the responsibility for sexual violence where it belongs, with the perpetrator.
You’d be mindful when opining how such violence could be avoided.
You’d realise that it can’t.
You’d know how “advice” on attire , for instance, quickly becomes “what was she wearing”, and why.

If you were a feminist You’d realise that females know it isn’t all men, but that the men who it is, don’t wear badges, so for us , it may as well be “all men”… And you wouldn’t take that personally. Furthermore, if you really are a “good guy”, you’d trust us to work it out for ourselves.

If you were a feminist you’d not question or discuss a female’s medical decisions. You’d know a female’s rights over her own medical decisions are for her and her conscience, and not within your gift to either discuss or endow.

If you were a feminist you’d not opine on her “empowerment”. You’d not require a willingness to comply with men’s fantasies as proof. You’d not regard refusing to as signs that a female is frigid, a prude, or lesbian.
You’d recognise true empowerment not as the obligation to say yes, but as the power to say no.

If you were a feminist you’d recognise that how you choose to live , what you wear, how you define yourself or shape your subjective reality, does not become an obligation for females to accept you.
You’d respect their fears as based on millennia of reality, not “hate speech”designed to deprive you of your “rights”.
You’d realise that being female isn’t a political or lifestyle choice, that being female isn’t an identity, or construct. But rather a material fact upon which the rest are attached, and upon which the oppression of females is excused.

If you were a feminist You’d recognise her sex veto, and not insist that the labels you give yourself, either define your feelings as reality or her sexuality as bigotry.
You’d not require her to affirm your feelings or identity, least of all by opening her legs.
Or accepting your catcalls, or enduring your gaze. Lower YOUR eyes, if needs must.

If you were a feminist you would not feel the need to explain to females how they’re thinking, what they feel , and why. You’d listen to them explaining that for themselves.
Neither would you expect females to educate you. If you truly wish to know, listen. Read. It’s out there, it’s neither obscure or arcane, or akin to “dabbling with the occult”.

This and so much more besides, you would, at least, try.
If you were a feminist.

Thanks and all, but no thanks: I don’t want men in my feminism

Cross-posted with permission from Karen Ingala Smith

Yes, I’m one of those feminists who doesn’t want men in feminism, the type who doesn’t think men can be feminists.  I’m quite happy to talk with you, work in partnership with or alongside you, even count a select bunch of you amongst my friends, but call you feminists: “Nah.”

Men – you’ve had since time immemorial to get your shit together.  For the sake of argument, let’s start from the assumption that as a species we’ve been around for about 200,000 years.  Evidence suggests that early societies were egalitarian but that with the development of agriculture and domestication around 11,700 years ago, came the emergence of patriarchy, of men’s domination of women.  What we refer to as first wave feminism gained prominence from the late 19th and early twentieth centuries, though this is western-centric and writes out women’s earlier struggles in Europe from the 15th century.  Even if we take  Mary Wollstonecraft’s  A Vindication of the Rights of Woman published in 1792 as the start of women’s fight for our rights, men had eleven and a half thousand years to do something about sex inequality – if only a) you had wanted to and b) you weren’t too busy enjoying the benefits.  What’s suddenly happened for you to want to get in on the act?

Feminism is more than the demand for rights for women or equality between women and men. For me, feminism is the fight for the liberation of all women as a class from subjugation under patriarchy.  Loose the structural analysis and feminism gets lost in the rights of the individual, in identity led politics and notions of choice and agency fail to take sufficient account of context and impact.  Get men in and feminism is almost inevitably reduced to the problem of inequality and usually it isn’t so long before the ‘men suffer under patriarchy too’ line is trotted out.

Men, revolutionaries,  when you fight for equality you’re too quick betray your sisters.  Women were fighting for the rights of women as a class, as well as the overthrow of totalitarian regimes in the Arab Spring, but women’s status has been seriously threated in the countries that achieved changes of government.  The end of communism in Eastern Europe, and with it the rise of choice and consumerism furthered the commodification of women and men’s right’s to choose to profit and purchase. In the UK,  the Socialist Workers Party handling of rape shows that misogyny, sexism and sexual violence were seen as equality issues of lesser importance.

Men, you take up too much public space.  This post by End Victimisation and Blaming cites Dale Spender:

“Present at the discussion, which was a workshop on sexism and education in London, were thirty-two women and five men. Apart from the fact that the tape revealed that the men talked for over 50 per cent of the time, it also revealed that what the men wanted to talk about – and the way in which they wanted to talk – was given precedence.”     […]

“There is no doubt in my mind that in this context at least (and I do not think it was an atypical one) it was the five males and not the thirty-two females who were defining the parameters of the talk. I suspect that neither the women nor the men were conscious of this. There was no overt hostility displayed towards the females who ‘strayed from the point’, but considerable pressure was applied by the males – and accepted without comment from the females – to confine the discussion to the male definition of the topic.”

Spender is absolutely right if my experience is anything to go by, the situation she described was not atypical. In the media men dominate, they take up disproportionate space. In politics men dominate, they take up disproportionate space.  Even on public transport men dominate, you take up disproportionate space as illustrated by this blog and this.  Seriously fellas, we know that your balls aren’t that big.

This piece by Glosswitch on the vitriol directed towards a twitter hashtag #sharedgirlhood and its protagonist Victoria Brownworth (@VABOX) explores the importance of a collective approach to women’s oppression.   Too few women get to know the joy of mass women-only spaces. It’s increasingly rare to find even a feminist event that is women only, and those that seek to provide this, increasingly face challenges.  Bullying from men’s rights extremists led to the London Irish Centre cancelling a booking for the women-only radical feminist conference Rad Fem 2013 for safeguarding reasons and because the venue could not handle the volume of complaints, though the conference went ahead peacefully elsewhere.  What’s the big threat?  Are you afraid that we’re plotting to overthrow male privilege or something?

Men, how about you prioritise taking responsibility for your violence above asking ‘What about the men?’  Services for women who have experienced sexual and domestic violence are increasingly required by commissioners to offer services to men too, despite evidence that this is not what women want, despite women being overwhelmingly the victims and men being overwhelmingly the perpetrators of sexual and domestic violence. Despite even the recognition of this by the government in its strategy to end (male) violence against women and girls. Incidentally men, if you focussed on ending male violence, you’d be helping a whole lot more men – and women – than you are by overstating your victimisation by women.

Men, how about you challenge the pornography tastes of some of your brethren?  Other men and boys listen to you, use their sexism for the greater good.  How about you challenge the sexual objectification of women without needing to call yourselves feminists to do so. Just do it because you recognise that objectification is damaging to women, a cause and consequence of inequality that upholds patriarchy.

Men, how about you sort out the rest of society – that in which you dominate – and make that more equitable and safer for women before you insist on occupying our space?  There is a role for you, plenty that you can do,  and I really hope that you will be influenced by feminism but in my experience, it is the men who exclude themselves from identifying as a feminist, who instead see themselves as allies, supporters or pro-feminist who have the more sophisticated analysis.  Men who realise that feminism is not about or for them, not about what they think.

The silencing of women by men in the public sphere is deafening; the habit of overlooking and failing to respond to women’s subordination is entrenched, structural and serves men as a class. By insist on inclusion in feminism, once again, men’s wants and needs are prioritised over women’s and women’s subordination is reinforced.

 

Karen Ingala Smith can also be found on twitter: @K_IngalaSmith

She also runs the Counting Dead Women campaign: @CountDeadWomen

The petition is here.