What are your thoughts regarding the suggestion that 'pragmatists and feminists are necessary partners'? (see my underline below) — Amity

I'm not sure what it means, exactly. I'm not sure what a feminist-pragmatist or a pragmatist-feminist might be. I know of a pragmatist I admire who is a woman. She's Susan Haack, a valiant defender of pragmatism from the vagaries of such as Rorty, who thinks Dewey was a postmodernist before postmodernism became popular. I don't know if she qualifies as a feminist.

Dewey felt that philosophy, and specifically the process of inquiry as he described it, should be applied to social problems. If that's what feminists do, I suppose that has an association with pragmatism.

For me, the word "arena" refers to the arena where the Roman ludi took place. Combat by gladiators or the killing of wild beasts for the entertainment of the public. The "man in the arena" is properly a slave engaging in blood sports to amuse others, not the romantic hero portrayed by Roosevelt. TR certainly killed his share of wild beasts for his own amusement, of course, but if he thought of himself as "the man in the arena" I wonder if he understood what it implied.

gravitas — frank

Always been an important word to me, yes.

The nasty version of "Man in the Arena" is the quote from Steinbeck: "Critics are like eunuchs gathered around the marriage bed to watch a whole man perform the act of creation." Jesus.

The one change I would make to The Man in the Arena is that I don't see any need to denigrate the weak and the timid. I get the sentiment, and I've tried to teach my kids, both the boys and the girls, that life ought to be an adventure. But there's no call to point out when anyone stumbles, whether he's strong or weak. You see what I mean? It's bad for the soul.

But there's no call to point out when anyone stumbles, whether he's strong or weak. You see what I mean? It's bad for the soul. — Srap Tasmaner

I agree. You never know what battles the people around you are fighting. I use that poem to silence the old internal critic.

For me, the word "arena" refers to the arena where the Roman ludi took place. Combat by gladiators or the killing of wild beasts for the entertainment of the public. The "man in the arena" is properly a slave engaging in blood sports to amuse others, not the romantic hero portrayed by Roosevelt. TR certainly killed his share of wild beasts for his own amusement, of course, but if he thought of himself as "the man in the arena" I wonder if he understood what it implied. — Ciceronianus

Every story has two sides.

Amen!

You never know what battles the people around you are fighting. — frank

Yeah, contrary to the story I tell over in the intuition thread, every time I see someone driving aggressively I try to tell myself they're rushing somewhere for an emergency. I'm not always convinced by my argument, but I do it all the same.

I know of a pragmatist I admire who is a woman. She's Susan Haack, a valiant defender of pragmatism from the vagaries of such as Rorty, who thinks Dewey was a postmodernist before postmodernism became popular. I don't know if she qualifies as a feminist. — Ciceronianus

Thanks for the introduction to Susan Haack. After reading an in-depth and lengthy interview of Susan Haack by Richard Carrier (2012) I can see why you would admire her and her work. I've just picked a few bits out:

Three papers she wrote involved a challenging look at her own career 'in uncomfortable ways' and speaking candidly.
1. “The Best Man for the Job may be a Woman” (1998), - her reflections on 'preferential hiring of women in our profession,' which apparently was only reviewed, appreciated and challenged a decade later.
Nobody wanted to touch it.
2. “Preposterism and Its Consequences” (1996), on her negative views of the culture of grants-and-research-projects.
3. “Out of Step” (2011) - on the erosion of academic ethics.

According to Haack, her writing represented 'something of the power of thinking things through and the value of plain speech.'

During the interview, she replies to questions as to the 'difficulties and annoyances' faced as a woman seeking an academic position and in her life of philosophy. Similar to other stories: 'the chairman opened the proceedings by assuring me that he had nothing against the employment of married women, he thought they might be quite good for the women students. I told him—vamping it up just a little—that actually I hoped to be good for the men (too). And that, naturally, was that.'

Haack also clear that any problems might not have arisen because she was female but because of her other characteristics:

For one thing, I’m very independent: rather than follow philosophical fads and fashions, I pursue questions I believe are important, and tackle them in the ways that seem most likely to yield results; I am beholden to no clique or citation cartel; I put no stock in the ranking of philosophy graduate programs over which my colleagues obsess; I accept no research or travel funds from my university; I avoid publishing in journals that insist on taking all the rights to my work; etc., etc. Naturally, this independence comes at a price; but it also earns me the freedom to do the best work I can, without self-censorship, and to communicate with a much wider audience than the usual “niche literature” does — Interview with Susan Haack - Richard Carrier blogs

Re the question of whether or no Haack was/is a feminist. Apparently, there was an incident when a (female) faculty member at another university, 'disapproving of my old-fashioned style of feminism', had encouraged graduate students to stay away from her lectures.
I get the impression that she would not label herself a feminist as such but instead puts certain principles into practice. A holistic perspective.

She expresses unease about the questioner's focus on getting more women into the profession of philosophy.

The aim should be to get the most thoughtful, creative, discriminating, honest, philosophically constructive people into the profession; and—essential to achieving this goal—to prevent such irrelevant factors as a person’s sex (or race) from distorting our judgment of the quality of his or her mind. If only we could achieve this, artificial attempts to create “diversity” would be unnecessary.

The interview is fascinating and cutting; delving into questions of what (real) philosophy is, atheism, criticisms of fragmentation and pretentious, self-important 'worldviews'.
I realise that this is getting away from the thread topic and my question re feminist pragmatists.
So, here's one BTL comment I found interesting. Shame no reply from Haack:

Susan Haack says: “the kind of feminism that appeals to me places the stress on what all of us, regardless of sex, have in common as human beings, and on the vitally important differences between one individual and another. This is why your hypothetical generic-woman-aspiring-to-be-a-philosopher strikes me a distraction at best… I am saddened to think how glacially slow our progress seems to be towards acknowledging the simple fact that, just like men, women are all different, and, as Dorothy Sayers put it many decades ago, shouldn’t be expected “to toddle along all in a flock, like sheep.”

No doubt, she’s more than right: Women are different individuals. Look at Susan Haack versus Dorothy Murdock. Reason versus fantastic beliefs. The contrast is striking.

Still, the ideal of focusing only on what “all of us…have in common as human beings”, making abstraction of all other particulars, such as, in this case, erasing the difference in sex is illusory — one of the great tenets of the fallacy of imposing PC ideology on the working of the brain.

The “human being” as such doesn’t exist. This is an abstraction conceived by the Enlightenment, in its fight agains the rules of gods. Only physical persons do exist. Those are the characteristics immediately perceived in encountering another “human being”: sex, age, ethnic markers, native environment, then friendly or hostile intentions, face, hair, dress, language, religious beliefs etc…Those are vital components of social recognition and vital to our survival.

The dream of erasing the social and biological particularities of life is the goal of political correctness, but it is a self-imposed illusion, a modern form of ideology trying to enforce an abstraction as another primary, immediate belief.

But the abstraction of the modern “human being” remains in fact the product of a long chain of rational thinking that cannot of itself erase the immediate modes of brain functions. It may with the help of sanctions and enforcement control behavior, and play a big role in political and legal theorizing, but it will not become a spontaneous belief of “fast thinking”.

So, sex, age, language, native origins do remain a factor in the formation of the self. Even John Locke would have to admit it.

And so, of course, Susan Haack does give us an excellent reminder to refresh our acquaintance with John Locke’s ” Of the Conduct of the Understanding”, and perhaps to review the whole life of John Locke as well.

If you're willing to accept that some kind of feminist analysis is helpful, especially along intersectional/postcolonial lines, and that broadly speaking anti-patriarchy politics is doing Good Things (tm), then there's room to talk about what's to be done. If you're on the "we should be concerned about nothing but international class based geo-politics" boat, that is fair enough. It is a respectable boat. There's another boat, which is the "international class based geo politics would be swell, and so would emancipatory politics in political north countries"... I assume you are also in that boat. — fdrake

For sure, an analysis of the tools of oppression is going to be incomplete without examining patriarchy, but that doesn't always cash out well into anti-patriarchy politics doing good things, and I think the reason for that is that analysis can be quite compartmentalised, but politics can't be. Politics gets nowhere if it just swaps around who has the power, or just re-arranges the deckchairs of the institutions. So it has to be more holistic than the analysis that might inform it. Identity politics pushes in the opposite direction, seeks to divide rather than unify, so the politics is often intergroup, not class struggle (see terfs vs trans, the tension between anti-islamophobia and antisemitism), a political position has to hold power to account from a position of equal power for it to work. Theirs comes from capital; ours comes from solidarity. That's how it's always been for me. Recognising the patriarchy as a tool of oppression helps that by giving us a target. Recognising 'women' as the victims of oppression doesn't help. It sets up divisions and refocuses the fight on to reparation-based objectives, not structural ones.

there's a type of social concept which is required to understand and work on these things. Like a demographic. Trying to understand why people act the way they do. As men and women. Around relationships, cohabitation, sex and all that. There're problems. And they're not all addressed by throwing money at them.

If those problems are simultaneously interpersonal and systemic - which they seem to be - then you end up looking at norms and what enables people to act in accordance with them. That's the space this discussion operates in. — fdrake

That makes a lot of sense. I wouldn't want to be read as a 'throw money at it' type. I see the problems, even of poverty, as structural not distributive.

Where I'm not completely sold is in the move from the value of identifying structural problems themselves, to the value of identifying some statistical cluster of such problems.

FGM is a structural problem of its own. It's to do with culture, religion, colonialism, gender inequality, even racial oppression and, yes, class, get a walk-on part...

Abortion rights are also a multifaceted structural problem at the intersection of religion, reproductive rights, inheritance (capitalism), gender inequality, poverty, class (again)...

One of the crossover points is that they both affect only women and both have patriarchal power structures as one of the causal factors. Other than taxonomy, I can't see much gain in focusing on that happenstance.

Sure, if we tackle patriarchal structures and, say, religious power structures, we'd make some progress on both FGM and abortion rights. But if we tackled FGM and abortion rights we'd make some progress on both FGM and abortion too. I don't see what's gained by the intersectional approach over just tackling each issue as it is.

To be clear, I'm not saying that awareness of the intersection is pointless, but I don't see much value in it politically, and I see a lot of potential harms in terms of damaging solidarity.

How would you flip the table and play the old one? — fdrake

I suppose I'd try to make the argument that nothing here is not useful academically. The points you raise about masculine expectations, for example, could certainly inform any strategy fighting injustices of which they were contributory factors. But I just don't think that translates well to success via a political campaign like "Hey, men! Buck up, us women have had enough". Campaigns need to build solidarity, not break it down.

There's a book of hers I have but haven't yet begun reading: Putting Philosophy to Work: Inquiry and its Place in Culture. It looks good. It may include some of the essays you mention.

Thanks again. It does indeed look good. Not sure if I want to buy it though! If you ever read it, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts. Please let me know :sparkle:

A friend just returned from Kenya. He said the Chinese come in and everyone celebrates the hope that they're going to employ Kenyans. Nobody is employed, though. The work is done by unpaid prisoners and the people in the government get a little richer.

I don't see how poo pooing the struggle of some women somewhere is helping that or anything else really.

I don't see what's gained by the intersectional approach over just tackling each issue as it is. — Isaac

Trying to see if there's any relevant interactions between the issues that present unique challenges. Eg: Glasgow knife crime, went down a lot through police intervention in the 2010s. Community education, giving people training and jobs, giving people places to go, counselling, more investment in social workers. Public health stuff. Great! Big impact. But on who? It didn't work as well for the people most at risk - poor people in the most deprived areas with domestic issues. That's a tough nut to crack. Worth thinking about that subdemographic works differently than the broader demographic.

Which is where something like an intersectional approach would be necessary? As in, looking at interlocking systems of oppression effecting people marginalised in more than one way.

Maybe that's a weak version of intersectionality though, I'm claiming that some of the time it makes sense to try it for some problems, rather than it ought to be the primary viewpoint used for formulating those problems.

Though I do imagine the majority of the time people use the word it's just lip service. Or academic paper farming. I've never seen a political act driven by an intersectional theory in the abstract. Just people working on issues in the most local fashion they can. Or designing institutional rules that allow marginalised groups to represent themselves better.

Maybe that's a weak version of intersectionality though, I'm claiming that some of the time it makes sense to try it for some problems, rather than it ought to be the primary viewpoint used for formulating those problems. — fdrake

Just to say that when you first used the word ' intersectionality' I didn't know what it meant.
I found this and emailed the link to myself for later perusal. I share it here now. Lest I forget.
https://www.vox.com/the-highlight/2019/5/20/18542843/intersectionality-conservatism-law-race-gender-discrimination

[...] In my conversations with right-wing critics of intersectionality, I’ve found that what upsets them isn’t the theory itself. Indeed, they largely agree that it accurately describes the way people from different backgrounds encounter the world. The lived experiences — and experiences of discrimination — of a black woman will be different from those of a white woman, or a black man, for example. They object to its implications, uses, and, most importantly, its consequences, what some conservatives view as the upending of racial and cultural hierarchies to create a new one.

But Crenshaw isn’t seeking to build a racial hierarchy with black women at the top. Through her work, she’s attempting to demolish racial hierarchies altogether.

[...] But Crenshaw said that contrary to her critics’ objections, intersectionality isn’t “an effort to create the world in an inverted image of what it is now.” Rather, she said, the point of intersectionality is to make room “for more advocacy and remedial practices” to create a more egalitarian system.

[...] Indeed, intersectionality is intended to ask a lot of individuals and movements alike, requiring that efforts to address one form of oppression take others into account. Efforts to fight racism would require examining other forms of prejudice (like anti-Semitism, for example); efforts to eliminate gender disparities would require examining how women of color experience gender bias differently from white women (and how nonwhite men do too, compared to white men).

Discrimination at SEP, Feminist Perspectives on Power at SEP. Both of them have intersectionality subsections.

Oh, thanks for that quick reply and links. SEP always good. :up: :smile:

Going back through the thread to pick up some parts that still seem relevant, that I haven't responded to, and make something of a synthesis at this point --

A good question then would be: What is left out when we dismiss both feminine and masculine traits of a human?

I think far too many human characters are defined as either masculine or feminine. Things like compassion, logical reasoning, basic feelings aren’t masculine or feminine. — ssu

For me nothing is left out, because I don't think the masculine or the feminine are defined by traits. I've been saying "the expression of traits" -- or a way of expression.

Masculinity and femininity nowadays are seen as traits present in both men and women, but when discussing the so-called 'darker side' of masculinity the discussion is always about men. Not about masculinity, and (obviously(?)) not about women.

Even still, it's unhealthy to associate these essential traits with inherently negative things. The message it sends to boys and young men is that there's something wrong with them. Sadly, I think that's a message many of them have already taken to heart.

What this reminds me of is how certain religious groups like to label the woman as inherently flawed and sinful. Forgive me for being skeptical when such a group claims to be taking an open-minded, balanced approach to things. — Tzeentch

In an attempt to bring you back, I agree with you here -- though I'll note that the discussion started as masculinity so it's worth noting the darker side, even if that's not my focus. I don't think most men are on some dark path! (obviously I'm a Feminist, but I hope to give a demonstration that this doesn't mean I hate my own masculinity, or masculine gender identities)

Especially with respect to boys and young men. One of the reasons I think it's important for men to talk about masculinity is that currently there are many people who aren't getting positive messages about the masculine, or themselves, and in fact there are positive aspects of one's masculine identity. It's important to be who you are, in my opinion, and growing men don't have a lot to look up to in this world.

To reiterate, though the primary beneficiaries of a patriarchal society are men, they are not men in general. As@180 Proof pointed out, patriarchy (as I conceive it, simply a society dominated by masculine values) funnels wealth and power to a small cadre of a particular type who happen to be men, but theoretically could be of either sex. And the solution is not to eliminate competition or demonize men or masculine values but to recognize that the way we understand our interrelationships is infused with an arbitrary self-justifying way of looking at things that, I would argue, is deficient and in some senses destructive. ( — Baden

I've been going back through the thread and this is a gem.

Here's a classic statement, from Raymond Chandler's "The Simple Art of Murder," published in The Atlantic in 1944, a defense of hard-boiled detective fiction and particularly of Hammett. — Srap Tasmaner

Raymond Chandler, and the whole hard boiled detective genre really, is a writer who knew how to appeal to men.

I love the stuff.

Did you ever see the first Sin City? I'd say that's a masculine movie, if you look at the male protagonist as a hero.

masculinity as a kind of archetype has been around for thousands of years in multiple cultures. — frank

Can you or do you care to say more on this kind of archetype?

Any other guys feel that way? — Srap Tasmaner

Oh yeah. How else to explain what amounts to a thirst for justice?

Having thought about it more, I guess I would expect courage to tend to manifest differently in men and women. — wonderer1

I agree, given that expression, rather than traits, is what makes a gender. Care to say more?

Campaigns need to build solidarity, not break it down. — Isaac

Yup.

I'm no longer active, but these are some thoughts attempting to build solidarity across common division lines.

Having thought about it more, I guess I would expect courage to tend to manifest differently in men and women.
— wonderer1

I agree, given that expression, rather than traits, is what makes a gender. Care to say more? — Moliere

Sure. A significant element of my thinking is related to evolutionary psychology, and I see it as naive to think that humans are born blank slates. I know there is a tendency to antipathy towards evolutionary psychology among humanities types, so I won't be surprised if there are negative reactions to this sort of thinking from some on TPF, but this is where the evidence strongly points.

Having looked into the social behavior of chimpanzees a bit, I see us as sharing similar social impulses, human behavior is not determined by instincts to the same degree as is the behavior of chimps. Furthermore, homo sapiens is a sexually dimorphic species and it is unrealistic to think that human sexual dimorphism doesn't effect our mentality as well as our physicality.

An aspect of this is that I would expect the courage of women to tend to show up most strongly in defense of their offspring (and perhaps children in general). I think the trope of the human 'mama bear' fits well with this. Men I would expect to be more inclined to band together with other men, in defense of the whole social group.

The sexual dimorphism in humans (and chimps) is not as clear as in the case of gorillas. So like not all men are taller than all women, it's unsurprising from an evolutionary psychology perspective that the mental characteristics of men and women show a degree of overlap. So as I said, "*tend* to manifest differently".

BTW, there is a four part documentary available on Netflix called Chimp Empire. It focuses on a band of chimps that shows typical sexual dimorphism of behavior. However, one of the neighboring bands of chimps is a particularly small band, and the females and males of this other group go on raids together. So it seems that even chimps show a degree of flexibility when it comes to such aspects of behavior. But see https://news.yale.edu/2023/06/08/conflicted-opinion-yale-chimpanzee-expert-weighs-chimp-empire.

looking at interlocking systems of oppression effecting people marginalised in more than one way. — fdrake

Looking at, sure. I'm trying (but clearly not doing a good job) to draw distinctions between the data which informs a strategy, and the strategy itself. The risk factors for oppression, and the actual groups oppressed.

So yes, look at interlocking systems of oppression affecting the marginalised. See that race and gender (masculine expectation this time), and are drivers of knife crime but then, design a strategy using that information to tackle knife crime. Not to to tackle racism (which inevitability alienates the white working class), or tackle masculinity (which would alienate females caught up in gangs), or tackle any of the other single issues. If knife crime is truly intersectional, then it will only be solved as an issue. The victims aren't blacks, or men, they're anyone caught up in gang culture. We don't need proxies to identify them because we have access to the real thing, the actual measure of victim-hood.

The sort of target I took my initial swipe at (the Helen Mirren quote, was the (now near ubiquitous) generic lumpen attack on the specific oppression happening to affect a specific group (and the guilt/victim-hood appropriated by association). Mirren's target was 'men' (not the people who did the property theft, the people who do the circumcision, the people who abuse, etc...) and her victims were 'women' (not the people who had their property stolen, the people who had been circumcised, the people who had been abused, etc..) - it's "Women have had to suffer this...!" not "People have had to suffer this and one of the causal factors (among many) is patriarchal structures..."

To be more concrete, I'll try to use your example of knife crime (thou 'victim' here is a difficult one to define - I'm going to assume it's both attackers and the attacked who are 'victims' of knife culture). So a good thing to do, something I think capable of achieving Good Things, might be to look at how race and racism play a part in that (say community police techniques). It would be helpful to any strategy to know that role. A bad thing to do would be for some black celebrity, whose closest brush with a knife came from slicing the porchetta, to start talking about the problems 'the black community' have to face regarding knife crime, for campaign to be launched about how 'black youth' is being drawn into knife crime... etc (the equivalent of both have happened, this isn't hypothetical). Those two responses may arise from a generally positive academic investigation, but they themselves as political acts are toxic. Not only do they alienate other victim groups in knife crime by underplaying their stories, but they shift focus from where it should be, since most involved in the campaign (and certainly the black celebrity) are totally complicit in the other factors driving knife crime (such as poverty), and far from feeling guilty about their role, they get to feel, not only exculpated, but a little bit of reflected victim-hood ("I'm black too, so...").

I guess a more solid way to to look at it would be to say if you're going to take an intersectional approach, then don't abuse it to exculpate whichever group you don't happen to be investigating, use it include more groups in the blame. If both poverty and race turn out to be involved then that means the black celebrity needs to be apologising (for his role in perpetuating poverty) as much as chastising others (for their implicit racism). That - coming from Helen Mirren - would have impressed me. "I can feel something of the plight of disenfranchised women, having suffered a small part of that myself, but I'm as much a perpetrator of economic disenfranchisement because of my wealth, so sorry about that, I'll donate more to charity in future...".

How many of these 'big speeches' and identity-based campaigns are about the campaigners themselves? How many admit their own part in the intersectional factors? I'm willing to be proven wrong, but it's difficult in the absolutely black-and-white rhetoric employed, not to see them as nothing but attempts to shift blame. Rich westerners trying to focus blame on literally anyone but themselves so they don't have to feel guilty about the fact that their new trainers have been made by 11 year-olds in squalor and they just fucking bought them anyway.

I don't see how poo pooing the struggle of some women somewhere is helping that or anything else really. — frank

Fortunate then that your lack of acumen isn't my problem.

To reiterate, though the primary beneficiaries of a patriarchal society are men, they are not men in general. As@180 Proof pointed out, patriarchy (as I conceive it, simply a society dominated by masculine values) funnels wealth and power to a small cadre of a particular type who happen to be men, but theoretically could be of either sex. And the solution is not to eliminate competition or demonize men or masculine values but to recognize that the way we understand our interrelationships is infused with an arbitrary self-justifying way of looking at things that, I would argue, is deficient and in some senses destructive. — Baden

As I've posted before, I think competition is much better understood as a result of the dynamics of power, something which all living beings are subjected to as a result of a basic drive for survival.

Why is it so important that this human flaw be labeled as 'masculine'?

OK, I read about 'intersectionality' and thought I had a grasp. However, this moving 18 min video is powerful in its presentation and its graphics. Understanding and awareness increased by :100:

A TED talk - The urgency of intersectionality | Kimberlé Crenshaw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=akOe5-UsQ2o

Now more than ever, it's important to look boldly at the reality of race and gender bias -- and understand how the two can combine to create even more harm. Kimberlé Crenshaw uses the term "intersectionality" to describe this phenomenon; as she says, if you're standing in the path of multiple forms of exclusion, you're likely to get hit by both. In this moving talk, she calls on us to bear witness to this reality and speak up for victims of prejudice.

An aspect of this is that I would expect the courage of women to tend to show up most strongly in defense of their offspring (and perhaps children in general). I think the trope of the human 'mama bear' fits well with this. Men I would expect to be more inclined to band together with other men, in defense of the whole social group. — wonderer1

This seems to be quite a narrow expectation of where 'courage' shows up. Especially, if we are talking about increasing social awareness of gender issues and the like. Of course, people will look to their own first and foremost. Survival of the fittest comes into it.
However, many women and men do not have or even desire offspring. Also, it's difficult to band together to deal with holistic and systemic structural inequalities and problems. Important issues perhaps not even recognised as undermining people's circumstances and abilities to progress. To fitness and wellbeing.

It takes courage to stand up for change. But even then, when a 'movement' [*] like #MeToo starts up, it can exclude significant others. The media tend to focus on prominent white women. Fair enough if it draws immediate attention but not good enough for those women who stand up but whose voices are unheard.

Overall, the #MeToo movement has raised consciousness of women’s sexual objectification on a global scale. But we still have a lot to learn. That is, we need to be more intersectional. We need to listen to all women which includes listening to women of colour, working class women, trans women, disabled women and the list can go on. We need to acknowledge the various forms of inequality and how they operate, intersect and reinforce each other. We must stand with each other, understand each other and speak out against all inequality in order to build a brighter and more equal society. As Kimberlé Crenshaw put it, “if we aren’t intersectional, some of us, the most vulnerable, are going to fall through the cracks”. — The #MeToo Movement: Intersectionality - Glasgow Women's Library

[*]

Sarah J Jackson, a professor of communication studies at Northeastern University, believes context is the key to anchoring Me Too.
"I wouldn't call hashtag 'Me Too' a movement at all," she says. "I would call it a campaign that is part of a larger movement. So I would call women's rights the movement, and feminism the movement. And I would say #MeToo is one indication of the sort of conversations that need to happen.

"The next step is, OK so now we know the problem - how do we as a global community expand this conversation?" — What has #MeToo actually changed? - BBC News

Other aspects and questions related to the #MeToo Movement

Regarding Hollywood's power structure:

On 15 October, actress Alyssa Milano suggested on Twitter that anyone who had been "sexually harassed or assaulted" should reply to her Tweet with "Me Too", to demonstrate the scale of the problem. Half a million people responded in the first 24 hours.
A barrage of allegations has since emerged against high-profile men in entertainment, the media, politics, and tech. Many deny any wrongdoing. The repercussions are still in flux, but Hollywood's power dynamics have undoubtedly shifted.

That's less obviously true in the world beyond, and begs the question: What's different for the millions of ordinary people who shared their own #MeToo stories? Are the currents of the movement visible in their lives too? How far has the rallying cry been converted into real-world change?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-44045291

Another relevant question to consider
#MeToo or #MenToo?
What are the implications of #MeToo for understanding current expressions of backlash and masculinity politics?

Since #MeToo took the Internet by storm in 2017, it has had transnational social and legal ramifications. However, there has been little research on the repercussions of this movement for the ways in which masculinity has been politicized as questions around its meaning and place in gender relations were brought to the forefront of public discussions. Thirteen semi-structured interviews were conducted with participants from two Western Anglophone men’s groups, one embracing and one opposing feminist ideas. Our findings demonstrate a qualitative shift in contemporary expressions of “backlash” and “masculinity politics” in the #MeToo era compared to their initial formulations in the wake of the women’s and men’s movements of the 1960s to 1980s, shaped by novel tropes and tactics.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/10608265211035794

we need to be more intersectional. We need to listen to all women which includes listening to women of colour, working class women, trans women, disabled women and the list can go on. — The #MeToo

The list can indeed go on. So the question is, why doesn't it? Are there no oppressed men? Why does the list feel incomplete when it only contains the burdens of white women, but somehow complete once it's exhausted 'women' as a group? Once it's included intersections of race, class, sexuality and ability with women, we're apparently done with the list?

No. So we expand it out, to include men of colour, working class men, trans men, disabled men.

But then not all in these groups are oppressed, otherwise our list is just 'everyone on the planet' (the concatenation of those lists includes all people). So we say we're talking about oppressed women of colour, oppressed working class women, oppressed trans women, oppressed disabled women plus oppressed men of colour, oppressed working class men, oppressed trans men, oppressed disabled men.

That's a big group if we are to, as the author implores...

stand with each other — The #MeToo

So all we've done with our efforts to expand out our intersectionality, is rediscovered that the true common thread here is oppression - not gender, not race, not sexuality, not ability, not even class, but the mere act of oppression, the exercise of power over another to remove their opportunities or freedoms.

That last part is crucial. "...to remove their opportunities or freedoms". It means that victims of oppression will have neither in relation to non-victims. It means that victims of oppression are not hard to spot, they don't need proxy identifiers, they're the ones with less opportunity and freedom than most. Does that describe Helen Mirren? Someone who has less opportunity and freedom than most? Does that describe any of the Hollywood actresses in #MeToo? Does that describe, in fact, anyone living in the wealth and comfort of the western world's middle classes? People who have less freedom and opportunity than most? I don't see how anyone can honestly say it does.

What it does describe is people who have less opportunity or freedom than some.

What's interesting about that, from the point of view of the OP is that it relates to what said earlier. If we're not using egalitarian assessments as a guide, then it's a matter of competition. If Helen Mirren is 'oppressed' simply because she has less freedom and opportunity as a rich white woman than a rich white man would, then how is that not the exact base competitive move being associated with masculinity. How is it not just "I want what he's got"?

If she was genuinely concerned about the unequal distribution of 'freedom and opportunity' across the globe - intersectionally - then she could, with the stroke of pen on checkbook, do more to equal things out than any speech could. But she wants to keep all of her currently accumulated 'freedom and opportunity' but just wants, in addition, the extra freedom and opportunity that her rich white male counterparts enjoy. That's not an egalitarian move, it's a competitive one.

masculinity as a kind of archetype has been around for thousands of years in multiple cultures.
— frank

Can you or do you care to say more on this kind of archetype? — Moliere

They show up in the stories we tell. In our world they'll be in formulaic movies. In the ancient world there would be a central epic tale in which various divinities would influence events, some male and some female.

Christianity is kind of odd in that the central figure doesn't really demonstrate characteristics we'd think of a masculine. Jesus is a pacifist. He's compassionate. He's a son, not a father. Maybe he represented some kind of shift? Not sure.

An aspect of this is that I would expect the courage of women to tend to show up most strongly in defense of their offspring (and perhaps children in general). I think the trope of the human 'mama bear' fits well with this. Men I would expect to be more inclined to band together with other men, in defense of the whole social group.
— wonderer1

This seems to be quite a narrow expectation of where 'courage' shows up. Especially, if we are talking about increasing social awareness of gender issues and the like. — Amity

As I said, "An aspect of this..." I was pointing out one factor (or more accurately complex of factors) out of a great many factors, that I would expect to play a role in the courage of people manifesting differently. If you want to look at an illustration of other factors see here.

Given how common lack of recognition that we are all social primates is, I see it as a significant aspect of increasing social awareness of gender issues.

Do you think that we humans having more accurate understanding of what we are is likely to improve social awareness generally?

Christianity is kind of odd in that the central figure doesn't really demonstrate characteristics we'd think of a masculine. — frank

I agree, but consider the "muscular christianity" movement in Victorian England and beyond. Thomas Hughes, the author of Tom Brown's School Days, is credited with popularizing it. Muscular Christianity is characterized by "manliness" and "masculinity of character." Team sports figure in its development; scouting (as in boy scouts) with its emphasis on vigor and health became popular around the same time. God made men to be manly, as that is necessary to subdue the earth and protect women and the weak, you see. TR was a big fan of it, in fact.

Tom Brown's School Days at least served to inspire the marvelous Flashman series of novels by George MacDonald Frasier (Flashman was the villainous cheater and bully who was the chief opponent of the heroic Tom Brown).

It's amazing what purposes Christianity can be made to serve.

Interesting. I wasn't aware of that stuff. It reminds me of the shift in fashion associated with Beau Brummel. Rich men stopped wearing wigs, make-up, and ornate dress. They adopted the appearance we now think of as masculine.

TR's interest in being physically fit is related to the fact that he had severe asthma as a child. Childhood asthma is still potentially lethal, and since it's often exercise induced, it can be debilitating. I think for TR, when he went overboard sleeping out on the range with cowboys and spending extended periods of time out in the wilderness alone, he was proving to himself that he wasn't weak.

So later, when he sent federal troops to protect striking workers from physical abuse at the hands of their employers, he was manifesting pure optimism. Can you tell I'm a fan?