Is it OK for a man to disagree with specific claims of some Feminists?

nb:  re: the above ; To be accurate the are many interpretations of feminism just as there are many interpretations of socialism ;  But I would like to think a feminism which sees equality and mutual respect as its aim will prevail ;  I don't intend to write about gender all the time ; But I've been thinking on these issues for a while and would appreciate some respectful discussion

Dr Tristan Ewins

If feminism was defined today as the pursuit of equality in the home, in public life, in sport, in popular culture, and in the labour market then personally I would undoubtedly support feminism.  (and in so far as this is true, I DO support feminism) In addition to that I would agree that going back millennia most societies have involved an exploitative mode of production (currently it is manifest with capitalism) ; but that nested within this (or maybe intersecting with that) there was also a regime of patriarchy. Where women were seen as ‘the second sex’ ; treated at times as property ; restricted in their aspirations ; socialised to be ‘submissive’,  and more recently ‘disciplined’ under capitalism by the separation of the labour market from unpaid domestic labour ; and with the exploitation of that domestic labour.  (ie: as part of the sexual division of labour) I would also agree that men benefited from that gender regime at various levels.

Arguably we’re in the midst of a feminist revolution across the ‘Western’ world. This is reflected in popular culture with a plethora of strong women characters in everything from Star Wars to DC Comics inspired TV series.  The ‘Male Gaze’ is also increasingly challenged with the representation of women’s perspectives. Affirmative action is challenging male ascendancy in public life – with systems of quotas and growing acceptance of women in high office.  Also there is growing popular impatience with the failure of Conservative parties to ‘come into the 21^st century’ with regard the promotion of talented women.  In Australia women are making inroads into sports traditionally seen as male dominated. Australian Rules, Rugby, Soccer, Cricket and so on.  Corporate Australia is not ‘catching up’ ; but in any case we should be more interested with how ordinary women and men lead their lives than with the ambitions of ‘the one per cent’ – regardless of whether we are talking of women or men.

With regard this ‘forward march’ I am overwhelmingly sympathetic.  But as with most revolutions there are sometimes elements which take things too far.  The goal of liberation sometimes gets mixed up with desire for revenge, or to turn the old arrangements on their head.  Or just to gain an advantage. 

What do I mean specifically?   I’ll provide a number of examples , and hope readers will bear with me. 

Firstly ; sometimes analytical concepts are applied inappropriately to silence political rivals.  The term ‘man-splaining’ has been widely popularised, and refers to the tendency amongst some men to ‘condescend’ to women on account of their gender.  This is a genuine problem. But the term can also be misdirected so that in any debate a man disagreeing with a woman might be labelled in this way ; and not merely silenced, but judged harshly at a moral level as well.  And what if on a specific occasion a man is well-informed in that context? The consequence is sometimes men becoming relatively passive in the face of the threat of moral judgement and the stigma that goes with it.  This is not a ‘general problem with feminism’.  It is just to say there is the temptation for some to misuse such concepts for short-term or tactical advantage.   Although there are probably some (by no means all) feminists who would like to reconstruct masculinity in a way which is subordinate ; for those concerned with equality there is  still the imperative of rolling back the institutions of ‘structural’ economic and cultural gender disadvantage.  This is still overwhelmingly a question of women’s liberation from patriarchy. But also there is a concern that long-term we not replace the tyranny of patriarchy with a different kind of tyranny.  Where men know they cannot get away with habitually speaking over women, it is good to have that consideration ; But that must translate as mutual consideration.

Also there is sometimes a blurring of the lines as to what comprises abuse or harassment. Increasingly the act of a man looking at a woman where that attention is unwanted is endowed with the gravity of sexual harassment.  In response, most people – men or women – could probably agree that they have received unwanted sexual attention.  Indeed ‘no means no’ ; and persistently staring at a person can cause discomfort.  But ‘where to draw the line?’ ; and ‘what are the power relations’ underscoring this problem?  Men and women are generally attracted to one another, or same-sex-attracted. This is a natural given.  And often they express this (visual) attraction by looking at each other.  Here it is good to have such emotional intelligence to pick up on visual cues (like body language) ; and to try and not cause discomfort.  But this issue intersects with questions of body image, appearance and self-confidence.  Of course many of us enjoy the attention of those we also find attractive ; but tend to discourage attention from those we do not find attractive.  So all this has consequences for those facing social disadvantage  because of dominant perceptions of ‘beauty’ and ‘attractiveness’ ; where some people may feel relaxed expressing sexual attraction ; but others may retreat into themselves ; and avoid demonstrating attraction for others.  It is compounded by unreal body image expectations ; and it is contestable that increasingly expectations for men are the most unrealistic.  (mesomorphic, muscular, athletic, ‘six pack’ and so on)   The question is: How do we provide the right social cues without emotionally crushing a person who is attracted to us ; but who we are not attracted to in return?    Here we must again be careful not to have double standards.  ‘Power’ can be subtle ; and it is not just a ‘uni-directional’ question of male dominance and privilege.  Finally, to have such a broad definition of sexual harassment probably distracts from the gravity of more serious harassment. Hence when measuring the prevalence of that kind of behaviour we need a transparent methodology.

Continuing ; while Affirmative Action is justified in order to challenge ‘ground in exclusion of women’ in public life, what should be contested is the specific model of affirmative action ,  and how far it seeks to go. If affirmative action seeks a ‘minimum 50 per cent’ women’s representation that could turn into a fixed structural advantage. To be fair, therefore, a ‘40/40/20’ model is probably more realistically accommodating.  Also perhaps it makes more sense to reserve specific seats for women so as to reach the 40/40/20 target.  This is better than to have Affirmative Action leading to a situation where a person gaining a majority does not get the job ; and therefore where voters in democratic organisations do not get the policies which they voted for.  Here democracy should be the ascendant regime. But there is even the danger of affirmative action sometimes being manipulated so as to ‘bypass’ the principle of modern democracy – where one person equals one vote.  Reserved seats for women would over-come this problem while also promoting equality in public life.

It is also interesting to observe that gender tends to be privileged, here, over, say, disability, body type, social class, cultural identity and so on.  As the feminist revolution consolidates there is the question of whether it will satisfy itself with women’s liberation.  Or will it only be satisfied with turning patriarchy on its head?  To expand: Class relations can (at least theoretically) be abolished under a regime of mutual liberation.  Theoretically capitalists can cease to be AS CAPITALISTS ; that is following some theoretical expropriation ; with the abolition of the social relation of capital to labour.  The social relation can be undone without destroying the people concerned as human beings.  But ‘men are men’ (biologically AND according to social-construction) , and any settlement needs to take account of that.  We can get rid of patriarchal social relations but the question of men’s social position and the construction of 'masculinity' will remain.  Equality, mutual consideration, mutual respect – needs to be the aim.

Also, will the feminist revolution be the prelude to a much broader liberation struggle? Or will its proponents be satisfied once they have achieved their own distinct ends?   The allies of women’s liberation should be agitating at this point to broaden the struggle on a multitude of fronts.  The privilege, dominance and power of the capitalist class is ‘the hardest nut to crack’ ; but must be prioritised ; not left in ‘the too-hard basket’.

In some areas there is even arising the scenario of systemic male disadvantage. For instance when it comes to participation levels of men in higher education, and the performance of boys in secondary education. Were it the other way around there would be no patience for this.  But instead there is the spectre of a new ‘gender essentialism’.   There is always the old argument of ‘nature versus nurture’.  And where as I have tended to see nurture as the dominant influence, there is the problem of explaining falling male academic performance.  I struggle with this philosophically. Also, I disagree fundamentally with Education Commentator Kevin Donnelly when it comes to his Ideology, and with his prescriptions for ‘educational reform’ ; but the figures regarding boy’s educational performance speak for themselves.  This needs to be taken seriously as a social problem ; as a site of structural inequality.

Finally: what about ‘men’s rights’?  Mostly on the Left we would summarily dismiss ‘men’s rights’. After all – MRAs are all misogynists, right?  But just consider what’s going on here for a second.  The proposition that men have rights as men is also being rendered marginal by this characterisation of an extreme and hateful social movement.  But 30 years ago people were saying the same kind of thing about feminism.  There may be ‘really-existing’ men’s rights activists who are truly appalling human beings. Who want to ‘turn the clock back’ – and worse.  But what we should not be doing is invalidating the notion that ‘men have rights as men’ just as ‘women have rights as women’ ; but even more so – human beings have rights as human beings.   We have to be open to the notion that a ‘men’s rights’ movement is possible which is an ally – and not the enemy – of a feminism which seeks liberation, and equality in public life, sport, the labour market, the home, popular culture and so on.  A men’s rights movement is possible – which seeks mutual liberation and mutual respect.  But individuals in such a movement may have occasional disagreements or reservations with specific expressions of feminism.  (Such as I have raised here) That does not deserve to be lumped in the same basket with the proponents of gender hate and revenge – as exemplified by the MRAs we always hear about.  And people of a broadly sympathetic kind of thinking (towards feminism), but potentially with specific differences, do not deserve to be vilified.

I hope readers will take the concerns I raise here seriously.  As a person sympathetic towards Feminism ; but who has some differences with some of its specific expressions.  It is well for women to continue making gains: in popular culture, public life, work, sport and in the home.  But let’s be guided by principles of mutual consideration and respect as this transition continues.

Unpublished Progressive letters to The Age and the Herald-Sun over recent months

Above:  Hawke's policies of 'Consensus' and 'the Accords' were popular vote winners - But not all of those policies' long term ramifications were positive


What follows are another series of letters - sent by myself (Tristan Ewins) to The Age, The Herald Sun, and QandA over the past few months.  Again: none were published.

Dr Tristan Ewins

Is a new ‘Hawke-ian’ Consensus ‘The Way Forward’ in Australia?

“Mark Kenny (11/7) looks forward to a new, ‘Hawke-style’ consensus – nutted out between employers, unions, welfare groups.  As opposed to the “partisanship” and “populism” recently on-show. But the Accord Era was in some ways only made possible by a particular conjuncture of union coverage, mobilisation and capacity to deliver. In any case, the wage restraint that was delivered by organised labour was rewarded only with modest social wage measures. (not with transition to some Swedish model)  Employers won-big under Hawke and Keating. Their support was of assistance in Hawke’s assumption of power. But as industrial demobilisation took hold, union militancy became  reviled.  The hope of union policy influence was steadily quashed as demobilisation meant unions had not-enough to bargain with.  Today organised labour still declines slowly; and many employers see no interest in multi-lateral compromises which offer unions a meaningful ‘seat at the table’.  We are left with ‘convergence politics’ based on neo-liberalism, technocracy, cosmopolitanism and globalism. What we really NEED is deep pluralism and authenticity in politics.  Where democratic conflict is an accepted feature of liberal/social democracy. Where labour, welfare, environmental and other movements join together in solidarity with a broad ‘counter-culture’ or 'counter-hegemonic historic bloc'.”

What are our priorities on gender equality?

Jessica Irvine (‘The Age’, 24/7) argues advancing women’s interests and the economy involves making men feel “less confident” and to “sense…their…limitations”.   She sees men’s competitiveness and over-confidence as shutting women out, helping precipitate disasters like the Global Financial Crisis.  Women’s and men’s learned behaviour may be a factor: so long as we don’t resort to ‘attributing a bad essence’.  But perhaps more importantly capitalism involves instability, waste, crisis, painful ‘corrections’.   Is the ascent of women to positions of power within capitalism an answer to this?  Or is it a problem with the dynamics and resultant priorities of the capitalist system itself?  It is right to elevate women’s position in the labour market, public life, in sport – with the aim of ‘flux’ around the point of equality. If our principle is equality, though, we should also be concerned with the decline of men’s participation and performance in education. Also, for most women, labour market regulation and social wage enhancement could be more substantial than ‘a woman in the US Federal Reserve’. That is: “lift up” and respect ‘traditional women’s vocations’ in nursing, aged care, retail, hospitality, tourism, teaching, cleaning, child-care.  We need solidarity between women and men to  ‘lift us all up’, and not leave anyone behind.

 

Economic Inequality in Australia

Social research by the ‘McKrindle Group’ (Herald-Sun, early August  2016) observes increasing inequality between Australians. The top 20% have 12 times the income of the bottom 20%. And the top 20% have 71 times the wealth of the bottom 20%. There are many causes.  The impact of labour market deregulation on the lower end.  Threadbare, punitive welfare.  A weaker labour movement.  Prevalence of part-time, insecure work.  Retirements are pushed back until 70 ; and for some the intensity of work increases to increase profits, and expand markets and purchasing power - which prolongs the viability of capitalism.  Outcomes we get from labour markets and the inheritance of private wealth are not always fair.  Some skilled workers (eg: aged care nurses, child care workers) are exploited because private labour markets cannot sustain more without government subsidy. Some do unpleasant work, perhaps with unsocial hours. (eg: cleaners) – But this is not factored in where ‘demand and supply’ for skills rules. This unfairness shows why we need a ‘social wage’,  ‘social insurance’ and welfare state – financed through progressive taxes.  And also labour market regulation and labour union rights - to prevent unfair outcomes.  Hence the centrality of the principle: “from each according to ability, to each according to need”.

 

Loneliness amongst the Aged ; and Aged Care Priotiries

James Bartholomew (‘The Age’, 29/7) identifies the scourge of loneliness amongst the elderly: and the responsibility of family to ameliorate that.  But this is not solely a private responsibility. Just as charity cannot replace welfare for want of resources, neither can all families manage alone without assistance.  A National Aged Care Insurance Scheme would surpass ‘user pays’ for Aged Care, improving the quality of care, while provided from an egalitarian Levy.  There would be ratios for Registered Aged Care Nurses, as well as for other Aged Care workers. Standards would be upheld not only in areas like food quality, but in resident health, satisfaction and happiness, and access to communications and information services and technology.  To tackle isolation, social interaction would be facilitated for a variety of interests -  both for those in care, and those at home.   And combatting the trend to suicide—which mainly affects men. There would be home visits, and greater mobility ; with social outings, travel vouchers and associated services. Finally, pensions must be increased to end deprivation– and financial support given when dealing with unforeseen emergencies. (eg: a broken washing machine)   Yet all this would require billions ; so is undoable without tax reform.

 

From a Discussion in Facebook on Choice in Disability Services and Aged Care

I'm potentially well-disposed towards allowing Not-for-Profits to offer services alongside the public sector. IF they do a good job. (but the public sector must be a viable choice also) The problem is - a) that ALL the providers need enough funding to provide the services at a very good level of quality ; and b) that aged people and their families benefiting from the Scheme need the flexibility to move between providers without significant disadvantage. That is: if there's a strong element of user pays that neutralises the very 'choice' schemes like NDIS are supposed to provide. It means people with limited means have no 'practical choice' in reality where user-pays mechanisms are onerous..... So what we're talking about is getting rid of the old user pays mechanisms - which could run into the tens or even hundreds of thousands. Perhaps there could be a small co-payment just to encourage people to think carefully about their choices. And progressively scaled to capacity to pay.  But that would have to be utterly negligible when compared with the existing system. To be acceptable the new system would have to overwhelmingly rid itself of user-pays mechanisms ; leaving nothing but a 'functional co-payment' - whose role is not to FUND the system ; but only to encourage careful choices.

 

On the issue of Debt in the Economy

Ron Fischer (Herald-Sun Letters, 3/8) points out that without mechanisms of debt the economy would no longer function.  To elaborate: debt is often necessary to get a concern started. And certain kinds of investment (sourced from debt) have a multiplier effect on productivity. Take investment in certain kinds of software (eg: accounting, word processing) – or investment in skills-development– with improvements in the pace and quality of production thus ensuing. ‘Priming the pumps’ in various ways: direct payments to consumers; government fiscal policy including investment in infrastructure and services – can also have a stimulatory effect, boosting confidence of investors and consumers alike.  Welfare itself can contribute as those thus-dependent spend a greater portion of their incomes on necessities. Austerity on the other hand (cutting spending, services, welfare, infrastructure investment) can have a deflationary and contractionary impact.  That said: debt cannot expand forever – though the real problem in Australia is household debt rather than government debt.  The economy needs structural change so we are able to address household debt without declining living standards. Industry policy to create high wage jobs with a ‘flow on’ or ‘multiplier’ effect which creates additional work based on the ensuing consumption.  And re-establishment of ‘natural public monopolies’ and other investments in areas like socialised medicine – which actually improve consumption power through more-efficient service provision.   For example the social democratic Nordic economies contain health costs to about 9 per cent of GDP . While In the US private sector coverage is 40% - but health costs make up 18% GDP!  (Lyons, McAuley, 2015)  Australia is ‘in the middle’ here – but can definitely do better!

 

Refuting the claim of ‘Mediscare’ : ie: Why the Liberals really are about privatising Medicare

(to ‘The Age’ and the ‘Herald-Sun’)  The message from much of the media approaching the Federal election was that the erosion of universal healthcare in Australia did not comprise ‘privatisation’. Privatisation was narrowly defined as ‘selling an asset off’. Labor’s message was therefore deemed a ‘scare’. Yet upon reflection Labor’s implicit definition of privatisation is legitimate. Medicare is a relatively modest scheme of socialized medicine by some international comparisons:  providing for the costs of a variety of consultative services and procedures publicly.  Nonetheless, Medicare contains national health costs radically compared with the overwhelming dependence on private health cover in the United States. The danger, though, is that we are developing into a ‘two tiered’ health system in health as in education. With increasing degeneration into Galbraith’s ‘private affluence, public squalor’. This - accompanied by growing out-of-pocket expenses - would be both inefficient and unfair: an expression of the principle of privatisation as opposed to socialisation.  But Medicare must be extended as well as defended. Medicare does not include dental and physiotherapy , or medical aids like glasses, hearing aids or prostheses.  We need a reforming government which provides for this through the progressive reform and extension of the popular Medicare Levy without austerity elsewhere.

Hanson’s Pitch: as ‘an Ordinary Australian’ against ‘Left Elites’

Watching QandA it appears to be a deliberate strategy from Pauline Hanson to appear inarticulate;  'kind of naive';  an ‘outsider’ amidst so-called ‘elites’.- There are people who can identify with that ; and when we attack Hanson in some ways they just identify with her even more.  It makes her look like 'the victim'. Pauline Hanson’s 'comeback' was stirred up in sections of the media ; appearances on morning television etc.  Thankfully, her party is not strongly organized. It is built around a 'personality' and will fade again when she leaves the political scene. Also, thankfully her organization perhaps detracts from the 'United Patriots Front' and similar extreme-right groups... Perhaps it detracts from a full-on ideologically-committed and violent fascist organization.  But the fear and disrespect she sows nonetheless disrupt the cohesion of our society.  The best place to start for progressives is to acknowledge and address the insecurities that Hanson and other Right-wing forces take advantage of.  Exploitation of foreign workers undercutting local jobs. Confusion in the wake of the erosion of ‘traditional’ Australian identity and communities.  Pockets of isolation, insecurity, and exclusion.  A failure to engage with those affected; dismissed casually as ‘bogans’. (perhaps itself a ‘class-based put-down’)

A Question to QandA for Sam Dastyari that was not Used

Senator Sam Dastyari ; You are on record identifying $31 Billion yearly in Corporate Tax Avoidance. But earlier this year Bill Shorten announced policies which would wind back only $2 billion of this over four years. Why has no political party moved to wind back a significant proportion of Corporate Tax Avoidance? ALSO: With US Company Taxes up to 39% - would Labor reverse Company Tax cuts so business 'pays their fair share' for infrastructure and services they benefit from?