When I first read our syllabus I was excited- I’m a feminist, and eager to learn more about feminism in university, so when I saw we’d be studying mansplaining I was looking forward to it, though quickly deflated once I saw that the required reading was written by Stephen Marche. It seems ironic that men could be applauded for denouncing the very tool they use to pat themselves on the back and patronize women, feeling like an encroachment upon a topic that doesn’t pander to men, like Marche found the one space that didn’t cater to him and forced his way in anyways. Marche has never lived as a woman, thus his understanding of gender roles is from women’s second hand accounts, plus his experience as the “dominant” sex. I believe this makes him unqualified to speak on gender relations because he, as a man, is an oppressive force against women, whether purposefully …show more content…
The whining of girls.”. I read this and was immediately disgusted. I read the full article and confirmed my disgust. That he would have the audacity to publish even a single paragraph of it is unsettling, but in conjunction with the supposedly pro-women image he’s now trying to cultivate with The Unmade Bed it’s downright disturbing. I’m aware that we never stop learning, there’s always room for betterment upon skewed viewpoints, and while it’s nice Marche has apparently improved, I still believe that he hasn’t fully moved past his misogyny. The article does all it can to denounce women who speak their minds, but it also focuses very heavily on men, as does his other notably sexist article, The Case For Filth. This continues in our assigned novel, where he spends an enormous amount of time discussing men, as if even as his quasi-feminist persona he still can’t stop himself from applying a patriarchal gaze and paying his male comrades excessive