My feminist issue...THIS IS REALLY LONG

I will not be attending the Vancouver Take Back the Night march and rally on the 16th of September this year. This event is one I have been loyally attending in Saskatoon for the past four years - so what is my issue with the Vancouver march?

No men allowed.

The Vancouver rape relief and women's shelter has graciously organized and obviously committed much time and energy to hosting this event and in no way are my comments directed toward the difficult and necessary work this organization does for women from all walks of life. I have been and will continue to support resources and services for those people affected by violence, sexual assault, and social inequity (Reminder: this essentially means all of us).

Where I take issue is in the 'feminist' proclamation which seems premised on excluding men from these types of activities.

Before starting my critique of this mentality, I would like to reiterate that this is NOT A CRITIQUE OF THE ORGANIZATION ITSELF!! I will pull some clout from an institution which provides privileged 'ways of knowing' to myself and others like me - I have a university degree. I completed my Bachelor of Arts honours degree in May of 2005 with high honours. I was the "most distinguished" graduate of the Women's and Gender studies department at the University of Saskatchewan for 2005 - so there are my "credentials". Or, put another way, what the patriarchy has deemed legitimate in my knowledge base, as I attempt to refute the assertion that feminism should exclude men and that men should not attend events such as the Take Back the Night rally. All of this speaks to a larger schism in the various concepts of feminism. This schism is hurting both the women's movement and many individuals.

Upon discovering that the rally for Take Back the Night (TBTN) in Vancouver was a women-only event, I read the page explaining why. It states:

Women want a women-only event. Men are excluded from the rally and march because women want to know what it is like to do what men take for granted -- take a safe walk on a public street at night without a male protector. Instead, women make each other safe by getting together, refusing to be isolated, refusing to give up the right to travel our streets in safety and committing to helping each other in times of danger.

Women should not have to rely on men to protect us from other men -- we should simply have the freedom to walk about as we wish. Men will sometimes be annoyed or angry that they are excluded from this one night of protest. Take Back the Night points out that men enjoy an unearned level of freedom. It’s hard for men to acknowledge this because then they have to take some responsibility for the situation.

Men who want to demonstrate their support of women’s hopes and demands for safety can do many things. For starters, don’t insist on joining the rally and march for Take Back the Night. Instead, make it possible for a woman or a group of women in your life to participate without you.

Some other things men can do: stop using pornography, challenge your male friends when they tell sexist jokes or hit their wives/girlfriends, help them change their attitudes and behaviour about women, donate money to a progressive women’s group.

To begin, some women do want a women only event. This is common in my experience and not necessarily a bad thing in itself. Some women do not feel comfortable expressing themselves in front of men, nor do they feel comfortable in the presence of men. This is a sad symptom of the state of gendered affairs in the world. Some might call this system of oppression 'patriarchy', others like Michael Moore call it 'male apartheid'. Some view patriarchy as a theory about men oppressing women. And still others understand patriarchy to be a system wherein masculinity is privileged over femininity and thus 'feminine' values are deemed to be the lesser in all situations - The dichotomous 'other' to the masculine 'self'. Now for myself, I take a page from one of my wise professors Diana Relke in my understanding of patriarchy. Patriarchy defined as "the rule of the fathers".

With the 'rule of the fathers' interpretation, the implication is that we are all subject to a hierarchical system in which those qualities and things deemed 'masculine' such as being 'aggressive, active, and self reliant' are given greater value than those things deemed 'feminine' such as 'passivity, care work, and interdependence'. Now nobody actually exists in these ridged roles proscribed by the theoretical model. They are, to use sociological language, 'ideal types'. However, we are all evaluated according to these standardized gender role norms and values.

What the 'rule of the fathers' conception allows for is the understanding that men, as well as women, are oppressed under the patriarchical system. It is no more appropriate for a man to stay home from work to raise the kids, than it is for a woman to 'leave the kitchen'. Although this patriarchical system promotes those values deemed masculine and hence social mobility becomes easier for those who experience a masculine ontology - in a hierarchical system everyone is underneath someone else while we scramble like rats to try and climb to the top… BUT even the guy at the top spends all his time maintaining that position, not enjoying it. So who really benefits? Who really gains? NOBODY wins with patriarchy. It's just even more difficult to get men to understand that they too are affected by this system - this is what I would term the marker of 'third wave' feminism. The inclusion of men in the movement. (To my feminist readers: I know that third wave is still contested. Are we in the third? Have we finished the second really? How do we chronologically mark the women's movement? Etc Etc and so forth... But for me the third wave has begun as evidenced by the integration of post-modern thinking, fluid bodies, and the re-examination of second wave assumptions - like that only women can be feminist. So I call myself third wave as these are ideals I support. Thank you.)

But the point I'm gearing toward is that nobody wins with proscribed roles from the feminist camp either! We are all limited by the norms and values which isolate and separate - even when those labels are applied by the feminist cause through the labels and boxes we still call woman, man, masculine, feminine, feminist, misogynist, etc.

(Another side note - there are many many many different ideological expressions of feminism. Socialist feminism, Liberal feminism, Conservative feminism, Marxist feminism, Radical feminism, Lesbian-separatist feminism, feminist men's movements, and on and on and on...to proclaim oneself a 'feminist' is not actually expressing very much. It's kind of like saying one is conservative - what do you conserve, how do you conserve it, and where do those values take us socially? The same questions must be raised of the proclamation of being 'feminist'. I prefer the term 'feminisms' because it speaks to the multiplicity of views and participants. From feminisms one can perhaps find a particular feminism which ideologically coincides with his/her thinking or perform a 'fruitful raiding' as another wise professor of mine, Wendy Schissel, once suggested. That means taking the aspects you can agree with or disagree with and blend all together to formulate - SHOCK - YOUR OWN OPINION! That, for me is truly a feminist viewpoint...having a well thought out and considered opinion that is of your own making and not predicated on other peoples categories, rules, hierarchies, or norms. This of course requires thought and work.)

The second point listed for excluding men at this particular rally speaks to the long time problematic image of men 'protecting' women. I would like to point out that this mentality is maintained by many men - that women need protection from other men. But also include that there are many women who assume they need the protection of men. Yes this mentality is based in patriarchal assumptions of passivity and weakness in the feminine and should be countered. This is a throwback to the good ole days of ownership (also historically linked to slavery if one is up for doing the research - I suggest Gwynne Dyer as an author to start with - particularly his documentary films which are available at most local libraries) and often in our society women are at risk walking alone at night and at other times. This is unacceptable. However, it is time to broaden our scope. Men are also often victims of violence and men are made to feel responsible for women's safety if 'properly' performing their gender role. Hence, the patriarchal order guilts men into feeling responsibility in areas they should not be responsible for, while at the same time denying the autonomy and ability of women to defend themselves. There are also many 'masculinities' that promote violence as part of the masculine role. Discouraging this image is also part of preventing viotent actions. There is also an implicit assumption in this whole argument that a woman could never be a perpetrator of violence - not true. This argument against men attending reinforces many of the categories used to oppress everyone.

TBTN is asking men not to attend "this one rally" and states that it's hard for men to acknowledge the privilege of walking down the street without fear because they would have to "take responsibility". So the response is to exclude those men who have recognized this problem and who want to 'take responsibility' by attending the rally? This sounds counterproductive at best. I must also add that when my brother and three close male friends marched with me and my partner in Saskatoon last year neither they, nor I, interpreted that as a 'protective' measure. My male friends and brother were particularly offended at this suggestion, as some of them have been victimized with violence walking the streets and have been persecuted with the use of patriarchal norms and values - Being called a 'fag' because you're not 'macho enough' is one tool of patriarchy routinely utilized to call down men. The term 'fag' is considered a call down because it places men in an assumed-to-be 'feminine position', but ultimately this 'insult' is the result of dictated roles under patriarchy. The rules of gender roles result in heterosexism which leads to expressions of homophobia. Homophobia is a symptom of heterosexual norms and values which is the result of rigid sex and gender roles as presented by patriarchy. But the point of this is to demonstrate that patriarchy oppresses men too - by pressuring them to act and live within 'the masculine', as much as women are to act and live in 'the feminine'.

Finally, I must say I was sickened by the suggestions of "what men can do". Stopping pornography is something I support - but of course this must be explored with questions like what constitutes pornography? Is erotica considered pornographic? Is there room for women's autonomy in that industry? How are men represented in these materials? ETC ETC and SO FORTH! The pornography debate is a long and arduous journey and not an either/or issue. Demeaning and sexist representations should be stopped - though for myself I would prefer educated decision making to prohibition and censorship. Challenging male friends when they enact violence and tell sexist jokes is a wonderful tactic that I have been advocating for quite some time. This speaks to why it is so damn important for men to be involved! Men are half the population and for a real revolution more than half your population must participate! And finally, where I choke is in the suggestion that men can donate money to progressive women's groups. What does this say really? We'll take your money but not your participation?!? Patriarchy can pay for our date with human rights but must treat us as equal contributors? Patriarchy can hold open the door, but shouldn't believe that we can't open it for ourselves? Excuse me but you can't have your cake and eat it too! Even the justifications for excluding men speak to the necessity of having men there! But I digress...

I suppose where this issue takes me, is back to where I started in understanding the feminist camp and the process of development in the women's movement. The second wave of feminism brought it into the academy and into practical grass-roots organizations - women's studies, gender studies, and the Vancouver rape relief society among many others - are the result of perseverance and hard fought battles from feminist pioneers. Without these brave women I would never have been able to attain a University degree, vote, wear pants, earn my own income, use birth control, etc. etc and so forth! However, in the process of feminisms institutionalization we've run into the dangerous waters of loosing our principles.

Thomas O'Dea (1966) writes of the five dilemmas of institutionalization and although this is in relation to religion in secular society, these dilemmas are also plaguing the feminist academy and feminist movement.

(I originally included a lengthy descriptor of the article with comparable happenings in the feminist movement - but methinks this is getting on in length so if anyone would like the whole rant posted let me know - instead I'll try to get to the damn point! )

1. The dilemma of mixed motivation: Second wave feminism moves into the academy and other grass-roots organizations are formed which provides stability for the movement by allowing a focus for various motives and drawing a wide range of individuals. However, whether 'truly' feminist practices can be utilized from inside the patriarchal institution of the academy or happen in a bureaucracy (grass roots or not), is being questioned. O'Dea describes a similar problem with the institutionalization of religion as described in the link to him above.

2. The dilemma of objectification vs. alienation: Symbols are stated by O'Dea to be required for the continuation of collective belief. However, in using embodied symbols in ritual (such as a cross in church ceremony) the symbol loses its sacredness as that presence becomes routine. The symbol is made merely an object to those following the belief systems and the followers become alienated from the sacred intent in the object. The whole 'symbolic order' of the institution is alienated from the movement and protest often ensues. Hence the dilemma. The woman symbol for example would be applicable for feminism - as this is one object being moved from the 'sacred' to the 'profane' in the process of institutionalization if men are to be included. (Please see Emile Durkheim for clarification regarding the terms 'sacred' and 'profane' and contextual usage).

3. The dilemma of administrative order: As the organization develops it becomes a bureaucracy. This structure reflects the problems which it was developed in response to, but these mechanisms are likely not effective for new situations or problems. So back to the feminist issue - Should men be included? They are outside the initial feminist system and those of us inside the system are frustrated by their exclusion. The solution of excluding men was initially developed in response to an overtly sexist conception and order in society - is this effective for new situations and problems? Is this hindering or blocking resolutions for the future? Can women maintain solidarity as the second and third wave clash in view points? Will we alienate possible participants? We are becoming alienated from each other as feminists, and feminism will be further alienated by those who were once our allies if there is no flexibility.

4. The dilemma of delimitation: For O'Dea the dilemma here is that for the 'original religious message' to be maintained it must be preserved through concrete definition to prevent unintended inference. However, in setting a definition, the spirit of the original message is lost. The definition runs the risk of "making everyday and prosaic what was originally a call to the extraordinary" (O'Dea). Linguistic definition substitutes for spiritual understanding and this leads to literal and fundamentalist approaches. A concrete definition of feminism is at its core really counter-feminist. So in defining 'feminism' or 'feminists' as an exclusively female group for example, we are taking away from the extraodinary call for revolutionary thinking around sex and gender that was originally contained in the 'spirit' of feminism! We're losing the founding spirit of feminism by maintaining labels and casting willing participants aside. Unfortunately it seems that linguistic definition has been substituted for a conceptual understanding of this cause. (I use the term conceptual rather than spiritual for my own differentiation.)

5. The dilemma of Power: This dilemma for O'Dea is whether the power dynamics between church and state allow for individual conversion to a religious belief system, or if the culminating power of church and state in secular societies results in an inadvertent coercion of the individual into the religious belief system. O'Dea argues that when religious organization is institutionalized and "accommodates itself to the society and its values" faith is bound up in "public opinion and current ideas of respectability". So religion becomes the receptacle for the social values of a secular society. However, this causes doubt about the truth of the original religious belief system - this doubt is translated into a "vulnerability of faith" which forces religious leaders to use the state as a legitimating factor. BUT state leaders are also equally bound then into using religious systems to legitimate state values. Thus, each organization needs the other to maintain social control of the population. The non-believer is persecuted to maintain a hegemonic power of church and state on both an individual and social level. This 'consensus' of social values is only "supported by threats of force" and becomes a consensus "to which genuine adherence is gradually weakened" (O'Dea).

It seems that for the most part feminism has been 'bound up in current ideas of respectability' (amongst other feminists here) since moving into the 'legitimacy' of academic and other institutional settings. (Though I know a few individuals working to subvert the inner-workings =) ) The 'consensus' of the feminist community as to what constitutes 'a feminist', along with the popular culture understanding and image of 'the feminist', is causing the same interplay for the women's movement and those individuals involved, as the church and secular state actors have in the realm of 'genuine adherence'. Perhaps this is why the third wave is so distastefully regarded by those now drowning in the second and also why those in the third are having trouble cracking into the patriarchal structures and ideologies (Are 3rds feminist really? Are they undermining our hard won credibility?) Second wave and patriarchy have that nice little power niche all worked out, much like the church and state (however opposed they are supposed to be ) you're a feminist/pro-feminist/anti-feminist/patriarch/. The 3rds are basically fucking it up, because most are not 'genuinely adhering' to anybody's doctrine. This scares both sides of the dichotomy.

O'Dea concludes his article with the reminder that none of these dilemmas are wholly positive or negative - that's why it’s a dilemma - but states pointedly of the complex relationship between religion and society, as I will state of feminisms relationship to patriarchy and the internal battles of the feminist front; "indeed, it is ambiguous". However the necessity of a fluid and adaptive movement is more than apparent.