A Letter to All Men

I am frustrated. 

As a woman living in a sexist society, my patience has grown thin. My life is negatively impacted every day due to sexism, and will continue to be negatively impacted unless something changes. We as a society need to change. We need to examine how we interact with one another in regards to sexism and restructure our conversations. An easy step in the right direction is getting rid of the phrase “Not all men” from our collective vocabulary. Looking to tackle this issue, I wrote a letter to all men. Through the use of both personal experience as well as the data collected from my experiment and online resources, I hope to help men understand a thing they can never experience, sexism, in order to create more meaningful conversation. My goal is not to anger or offend anyone, but rather to educate and explain this complex issue and its effects. 

https://medium.com/@polechko/a-letter-to-all-men-creating-meaningful-conversation-9edf9ae8c2ac

Favorites

My favorite quote comes from Solnit’s piece.

Men explain things to me, still. And no man has ever apologized for explaining, wrongly, things that I know and they don’t. Not yet, but according to the actuarial tables, I may have another forty-something years to live, more or less, so it could happen. Though I’m not holding my breath.

Rebecca Solnit, “Men Explain Things to Me”

I found myself thinking a lot about Jennifer’s comment on my response to Solnit.

 Like how do women get criticized for calling men out after women been called animals, evil beings, and a curse upon men for thousands of years? Women are called “feminazis” or “sexist against men” because they say “I hate men” one. And I hate that there has to be such a silly divide over gender, but it’s such a divide that has followed us through history because men decided it should be that way from the beginning.

Jennifer R. Comment on “Male Mediocracy,” 03 October 2019

#NotAllMen

I’m sure we have all heard it- “not all men.”

Whether it rears its ugly head in a conversation about gendered violence or even every day microaggressions, people seem to love using this phrase as an argument against feminism. Not only am I sure we have all heard this phrase, I know we all have based on our discussion about Solnit’s writing in class. 

At first, this seems like a logical response to the horrible things said about men. Surely not all men are this terrible.

This is true.

Not all men are horrible people. In fact, most men are wonderful individuals. However, this argument misses the point entirely. Unfortunately, enough men act in these ways for these statements to apply. Kirsty S. tackles this issue head on in her article “Why Men Should Stop Saying #NotAllMen. Immediately.” 

Here, Kirsty discusses how damaging this seemingly common phrase is. As Kirsty puts it, “Yes, we KNOW that not every single man is responsible. Yes, we KNOW that you would never do that; and you’ve reminded us enough, thanks.” This addresses what I have brought up many times in class, the idea of not all but enough men. 

She then goes on to discuss how useless of an argument “not all men” is. 

“So #NotAllMen doesn’t clarify anything. It doesn’t add to the discussion or develop it in any way. All it does is derail and dismiss the lived experiences of women and girls. And what the men who leap to remind us that ‘’not all men are like that’’, are actually saying is, ‘’I’m not like that.’’ Or to put it another way, they are letting women know that discussing misogyny makes them uncomfortable, and they’d like to be absolved of any blame before they will let women continue.”

Kirsty S.

As Kirsty S. explains, yes, it is very difficult to discuss sexism and misogony. Both are heavy topics and, it is all too easy to feel like you are being accused of something awful. Instead of saying you’re “not like all men,” prove it with your words and actions and become a better ally. Unfortunately, everyone is sexist. We live in a sexist society upheld by sexist institutions. Even if you are not aware of your own aggressions, they still exist and need to be acknowledged.

Unlike Solnit’s piece, which many of my classmates decided was too aggressive to be successful, Kirsty’s piece is light and playful. She uses different memes and pictures to help lighten the mood on a very heavy topic. I think if you found Solnit’s piece to be “too much” you should really take a look at Kirsty S’s writing. She is less accusatory and more explanatory. 

A link to the article. https://medium.com/@KirstyStricklan/why-men-should-stop-saying-notallmen-immediately-f657e244f7a1

S, Kirsty. “Why Men Should Stop Saying #NotAllMen. Immediately.” Medium, Medium, 25 Oct. 2017, medium.com/@KirstyStricklan/why-men-should-stop-saying-notallmen-immediately-f657e244f7a1.\

Male Mediocracy

The praise of Male mediocrity in society is nothing new. 

Men are celebrated for achieving everything from the bare minimum to actual successes. Even for the most basic of human actions, men are constantly praised in society. They are allowed to be and expected to be confident, loud, assertive, and prideful. The same cannot be said for women, however. Male mediocrity is praised and celebrated while female achievements are downplayed and criticized. 

If a woman is confident, she is “vain.” If she is assertive, she is “bossy.” If she is a working woman, she is “selfish.” If she is a stay-at-home mother, she is “lazy.” Women are held to unattainable and insurmountable standards by society. In order to be taken seriously, they have to be the best. Unfortunately, even if they are the most qualified person in their field, as Rebecca Solnit explains in “Men Explain Things to Me,” women are still belittled and not taken seriously. 

I know there is the common argument of “not all men” and all of its variations. While this is true, not all men perpetuate these gender inequalities, however, enough men, either knowingly or unknowingly benefit from these views, creating and continuing this double standard. As Solnit puts it, her life “is well-sprinkled with lovely men, with a long succession of editors who have, since [Solnit] was young, listened and encouraged and published [Solnit],” however, her life is filled with “these other men, too,” the ones who belittle and ignore her.  

As a woman, Solnit’s article hits close to home. What shocks me is how similar the female experience is when speaking to men. This is particularly evident when she recounts a conversation she had with a man. 

“He kept us waiting while the other guests drifted out into the summer night, and then sat us down at his authentically grainy wood table and said to me, ‘So? I hear you’ve written a couple of books.’

I replied, ‘Several, actually.’

He said, in the way you encourage your friend’s seven-year-old to describe flute practice, ‘And what are they about?’

Solnit

Despite Solnit’s obvious achievements, she is still spoken to as a child. This experience is demeaning and insulting. Solnit is an adult woman with remarkable skills and successes, yet to this man, she is nothing more than a silly little girl. He then goes on to smugly explain the “very important” book he had read to Solnit.

Unfortunately for this man, what he does not realize at the time is that Solnit actually wrote this book he is trying to explain to her. As a woman, I relate to this story, as I have also fallen victim to the dreaded “mansplaining.” 

Though I agree with and relate to the majority of Solnit’s piece, I take issue with her points towards the end of the article. Here she discusses the issues of violence against women. She argues that “women women acquired the status of human beings when these kinds of acts started to be taken seriously, when the big things that stop us and kill us were addressed legally from the mid-1970s on” I, however, do not think society has reached this point yet. As made evident from countless verdicts of “not guilty” for male defendants against women (Brock Turner, for example) and the constant attacks on the reproductive rights of women, women are most certainly not seen as human beings the way men are. Like Solnit, I am hopeful that one day men and society will change to protect and support women, I am not convinced this will happen in my lifetime.

Keeping Your Attention

I hate watching videos. 

Anything longer than a ten-minute Youtube video rapidly loses my attention and never regains it. Due to this, as I am sure you can imagine, I was not exactly thrilled when I learned I had to respond to an hour-long video. Despite my initial apprehension, I tried my best to focus on the debate. Thankfully, this proved to be much easier than I assumed it would be. 

My willingness to pay attention to James Baldwin’s speech is probably due to a variety factors. For example, he speaks eloquently and clearly in a way which demands attention. However, what I find to be most compelling is Baldwin’s frequent use of the second person. 

Using the word “you” is a complex choice few writers choose to make. This is due to the power of the word. The omission of “you” allows for the audience to distance themselves from the content provided. It is easy to pretend the speaker is talking to the person next to you instead. In the beginning of his speech, Baldwin allows this to happen, as he starts his speech using the more academic “one” instead of “you.” Baldwin distances the audience by saying, “I feel has to do with one’s point of view. I have to put it that way – one’s sense, one’s system of reality.” (15:23-15:32). This way, he is able to start to gain the respect from his audience without spooking them right away.

This is a more comfortable way to live, always pretending like you have nothing to do with the content. However, in using “you,” the author (or speaker, in this case), forces the audience to live through the content. 

Baldwin does not allow for a single audience member to escape the narrative he weaves. When he says “you” he means everyone listening. This is prevalent later on in the speech. Though it is impossible to live through the racism experienced by people of color as a white person, Baldwin does his best to put you in his shoes.

“This means, in the case of an American Negro, born in that glittering republic, and the moment you are born, since you don’t know any better, every stick and stone and every face is white.And since you have not yet seen a mirror, you suppose that you are, too. It comes as a great shock around the age of 5, or 6, or 7, to discover that the flag to which you have pledged allegiance, along with everybody else, has not pledged allegiance to you. It comes as a great shock to discover that Gary Cooper killing off the Indians, when you were rooting for Gary Cooper, that the Indians were you. It comes as a great shock to discover that the country which is your birthplace and to which you owe your life and your identity, has not, in its whole system of reality, evolved any place for you. The disaffection, the demoralization, and the gap between one person and another only on the basis of the color of their skin, begins there and accelerates – accelerates throughout a whole lifetime – to the present when you realize you’re thirty and are having a terrible time managing to trust your countrymen”

(18:21-19:45).

The other positive (or danger, depending upon the person you ask) of using “you” is the type of sentences it forms. When Baldwin uses the word, he is not asking you to think about his content. Instead, he is demanding that you do so. By using “you” Baldwin forces the audience to listen, as he is the one in charge of its collective fates. This choice makes the audience into characters in his story, forcing the audience to feel the speech instead of just listening to Baldwin speak. 

So despite all of the issues stacked against Baldwin, in the past and present, he is able to methodically involve the audience through his use of “you” within his speech. This leads to an effective and memorable argument. Though his argument is clean, logical, and passionate, it is his use of “you” that takes this speech to a new level.

(For the sake of quoting, I used a transcript of Baldwin’s speech which can be found here: https://www.rimaregas.com/2015/06/07/transcript-james-baldwin-debates-william-f-buckley-1965-blog42/ )

Red is Red

Language serves as both a tool for a unification and as a means for separation. The relationships between different identities associated with language and dialects often fail to mix seamlessly, as discussed in Barbara Mellix’s piece examined in class. This leads to a confusion of identity due to the constant need to change oneself in order to fit the impossible standards set by society for that particular environment. Instead of examining the segregated nature of language identities, Min-Zhan Lu explores the areas where these language identities interact and intersect in “From Silence to Words: Writing as Struggle.” Lu discusses how language ties into education, class, and personal identity in ways which overlap and change over time. 

Growing up “as a student in China,” Lu was quick to notice the differences between her identities categorized by the languages she used for each (437). She spoke English with her immediate family and tutor, “Shanghai dialect only with the servants,” and Standard Chinese at school (438). Despite the difference in language, Lu had little difficulty flipping between identities. Instead of feeling as though she was losing a piece of herself each time she was forced to speak differently, Lu discovered an overlap in language identities. Lu’s life sits at the intersection of language and culture. Instead of a wall separating her identities, Lu’s life is more of an intersection where all of her experiences meet and interact. She explains how what she learned in her English lessons “seemed to enhance and reinforce what [Lu] was learning” while in the classroom (439). This demonstrates the link between languages, which is not always obvious at first. Though English and Chinese differ heavily from each other, both having different roots and alphabets, the two languages are undeniably woven together. As Lu explains, “red” in Chinese and in English “[correspond] to the patch of color printed next to the world” (439). Although the two languages certainly look and sound different, the core ideas are shared. The color red is called something different in different languages, yet the color remains the same. Yet again, the languages are able to intersect and coexist instead of directly contradicting each other. 

As she continued to grow, Min-Zhan Lu’s connections between her different language identities became more complicated. During this period of time, China was politically and socially uneasy. English was labelled as the language of the enemy due to tensions between the Chinese and the “American and British Imperialists” (439). The animosity between the countries lead to English being labelled as a language of the enemy for a period of time. At the same time, Lu picked up a new language, one made up of definitions taught in school. For Lu, “red” was no longer just a color. In school, “red” became “Revolution at school, ‘the Commies’ at home, and adultery in The Scarlet Letter” (441). The culture surrounding Lu resulted in a simple word carrying a variety of meanings in all of the languages making up her identity. However, despite the difference in secondary meanings, the word “red” and all of its translations still describes the same color. So despite the differences in culture, despite the differences in language, Lu’s identities were still entangled with one another, even if the threads became a bit mangled and distorted. 

Though Lu’s relationship with language and identity is complicated, especially in regards to her education, family, and personal identity, there is an undeniable intersection where all of these elements mix. Language is not as simple as different sections with rigid borders between different languages. Instead, there is a special fluidity demonstrated by Lu and her identities which connects people.

Wholeness

Hanging on the wall above my bed one will find a few different frames. All of them are different shapes and sizes. All of them contain a different memory. Though I love each photo encased within the frames, a pleasant memory frozen in time, one remains special in my heart. It sits in a square, white frame. The background is a white cloth. Woven into the cloth is a black cat. My older sister embroidered this piece for me before I left for my freshman college. She made it when she first began learning to embroider so it is not perfect, but I love it. Every time I look at it, it reminds me of my sister and how hard she tries to make me happy.

When Lambeth asks, “What is wholeness?” I am reminded of that little, uneven black cat on my wall. I feel whole when I think about my family and how much they have done for me, even if their attempts are not always perfect.

Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started