March 2, 2010 Special
Issue
Matriarchy or bust
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follows is a letter of protest against this outdated tyrannical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