"ΕΝΗΜΕΡΩΤΗΣ"
ΔΗΜΟΣΙΕΥΜΑ Νο [ 01575 ] [ 2010.07.11 00:00 ]
"THE LiNK": MATRIARCHY OR BUST
March 2, 2010 Special Issue
Time for The Link’s brand of feminism to become fully inclusive by DAVE WEATHERALLALEX DOBROTA (the linkmarch 82005)
Welcome back to 2005. It was a different time: there was a Bush in the White House, Stephen Harper hadn’t yet seized power and “Change” meant more than just a political slogan. Until 2008, men were generally excluded from the Women’s issue brainstorming process and were often banished from The Link office during its production. What follows is a letter of protest against this outdated tyrannical practice.
Each year around International Women’s Day, The Link publishes an issue dedicated entirely to women. Only The Link does it with a twist. In the name of empowerment and progress, men are excluded from the final part of the production of this issue: those who do not self-identify as women are kicked out of the office at 6 p.m.
As socially progressive-minded men, we denounce this practice as reactionary and inefficient. Though it might momentarily empower the women taking part in this action, excluding men from production night once a year will not bring an end to the patriarchy that dominates mainstream journalism, which was one of the original goals of the initiative.
Men don’t disrupt the production of a socially progressive newspaper. In fact, we greatly aid it. A quick overview of some of the stories we’ve contributed demonstrates that we place an impetus on covering women’s rights issues and abhor the violation of them.
Neither of us dispute the need for women-only space. Shelters for battered women and gyms where women can exercise away from the ogling eyes of men are good, clear examples where a male presence would disrupt the purpose of the space. But The Link is not one of these spaces. Making The Link a women-only space, even temporarily, not only diminishes the significance of where the concept is applied elsewhere, it drives a wedge between the men and women who work at the newspaper.
We’re not alone in this vein of thinking. Feminist and cultural theorist Trinh T. Minh-ha says, “You cannot dismantle the master’s house using the master’s tools.” This notion is applicable in The Link women’s special issue policy: you cannot progress gender equality by creating further division.
As Concordia’s independent student newspaper, The Link enjoys a healthy reputation as a socially progressive publication that, by its nature, either attracts socially progressive-minded men, or forces those who aren’t to behave while they’re in the office.
There is even a list of guidelines posted on the wall titled, “Tools for White Guys Who are Working for Social Change.”
As men working for The Link, we are subject to the ethical guidelines laid down in our constitution with regards to sexism and we willingly abide by those rules. All, it would seem, for naught, because in the eyes of the women at The Link, we are still instruments of oppression come 6 p.m. on the women’s issue production night. If women who work at The Link feel oppressed, there exists mechanisms for dealing with this kind of problem that don’t involve kicking all the men out. Grievance committees are an integral conflict resolution tool at The Link and women who feel oppressed by men at The Link should feel fully justified in employing it to combat sexism in the office.
But herein lies another problem. To our knowledge, no sexist complaints have been lodged in recent memory. No women have fingered any of the men at The Link during the year as oppressive. In fact, five of the last seven editors-in-chief have been women. Women occupy the majority of positions on masthead and have done so, more or less, for the past four years.
On the other hand, this year, men at The Link have encountered overtly sexist attitudes from members of The Link Publication Society. From story suggestions about what a world without men would be like, to the insinuation that if there were an international men’s day, it would be a celebration of big cars and beer.
These are grossly stereotyped depictions that we believe do not represent us. In the absence of concrete examples of male oppression at the office, men who question why they are thrown out of the office at 6 p.m. are traditionally presented with two arguments. “Well, you know, it’s just different when there are only girls in the office,” and that “it offers women who don’t usually have a chance to do production to engage in it.”
To the first argument, of course it is different. But if none of the men at The Link are oppressive, then it’s just as oppression-free as before the men left. If the men are oppressive and have not been told about it, then the oppression returns the following production night and nothing has been permanently resolved. No sustainable, healthy model to be exported to mainstream journalism has been created. As socially progressive men, we want to be a part of creating that model and view the Women’s issue as a prime opportunity to do so. By excluding us based on our sex we are denied this opportunity. The second argument, regarding production, is a non-issue. The production manager this year was a woman. After she left The Link, her position has been competently filled by our female editor-in-chief and four of the seven section editors are female and do their own production work. So there is ample opportunity for women to be involved in production without the need to kick all the men out.
Equally, the reality of being excluded from our jobs because of our sex would be easier to reconcile if it were not grossly hypocritical. The Link also prepares special issues like the Culture & Diversity and Queer issues that attempt to tackle social inequalities members of those communities face. The attitude of The Link when preparing these issues is inclusive. We don’t kick all the non-visible minorities out of the office during production of the Culture & Diversity special issue and we don’t kick all the straight people out of the office for the Queer issue, even though these two groups are vastly more marginalized in the professional world of journalism than women.
There’s a reason the attitude towards the other special issues is adopted and it’s because, with the goal of creating social change, everybody has to be included in the process. Ditto for women’s rights.
To go back to Minh-ha, “For the master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house. They may allow us temporarily to beat him at his own game, but they will never enable us to bring genuine change.” The idea is that using gender as a basis for exclusion—in this case women excluding men to empower women—just further entrenches essentialist ideas about sex and gender. This is inappropriate and, we feel, tragically misguided.
http://thelinknewspaper.ca/articles/2368
