|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Male feminism
|
argona
Shipmate
# 14037
|
Posted
And apologies to all for sounding a bit flouncy a few posts back. OP'ing a thread doesn't give ownership. I am going to bed now. Cyall tomorrow.
Posts: 327 | From: Oriental dill patch? (4,7) | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
By 'petitfogging crap' I meant the original dictionary reference and request for 'authoritative' backup, not its discussion.
The only reason Dave W. beat me to objecting to TSA's definition of "feminist" to include "speaking for women" is because "the hub of the solar system" is three hours ahead of "La La Land." And the only reason anyone gave for disagreeing with Dave W. was that he is male. I find it especially interesting that you are arguing with me about what feminism is, considering that you posted this:
quote:
Once men are called feminists, men will start trying to define what feminism is allowed to be.
By this logic, you shouldn't be discussing this at all! And of course I think you damn well should be discussing this.
quote:
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
TSA isn't introducing a new definition. Most of the other men I know who try to be feminist allies would not describe themselves as feminists, though they would probably describe themselves in relation to feminism and/or feminists (as I did with the phrase 'feminist allies').
Most of the men I know whom you would call "feminist allies" are people who call themselves feminists. A few of them call themselves feminists because I told them that's what they are.
So there you go. Your anecdote vs. mine. I think Jezebel has a good take:
quote:
Most men, even if they are progressive in every other way, balk at calling themselves feminist, and plenty of men who support equal pay and reproductive rights still think feminism itself is ugly, "strident," or lame. So what a man calls himself probably doesn't matter too much — as long as he's capable of confronting a problem that he might be a part of.
{Aside: Ages on this forum and I still can't figure out how to get an extra line break where I want one to break stuff up.}
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
The experience of racism or sexism is the experience of women, or black people, or whichever other group is being discriminated against, certainly. But if we are discussing how to reduce racism in the US, then it is "about" white people in the sense that they are the people who have to do the changing. Similarly, to fix sexism, you have to make men not be sexist.
No, that's not the whole story - there are a whole set of ingrained societal attitudes about the role of men and women that are held by "everyone", but at least as far as direct sexism or racism goes, to fix it, you have to change the people who are being sexist and/or racist.
The difference is that women aren't a minority. The perpetuation of those sexist attitudes depends heavily on women buying into them in a way that the perpetuation of racism doesn't depend on members of racial minorities buying in. So I'm with Kelly on the existence of misogynistic women.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
The difference is that women aren't a minority. The perpetuation of those sexist attitudes depends heavily on women buying into them in a way that the perpetuation of racism doesn't depend on members of racial minorities buying in. So I'm with Kelly on the existence of misogynistic women.
I won't dispute that there are plenty of women who have bought in to the sexist structure - and there are also examples of direct sexism perpetrated by women (eg. women who won't hire an attractive woman for the family business because they're afraid that the husband will find her attractive).
But I don't think not being a minority matters so much. Black people were a significant majority in apartheid-era South Africa, and it wasn't sustained by a load of black people being racist against other black people. It was sustained because the minority white population controlled the government, the police, the law and all the weapons.
I would find it rather difficult to place any of the blame for apartheid on those black South Africans who lived under the racist regime and did not join one of the resistance movements.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
Yes, you're right of course, but I don't think it means I'm wrong ... the perpetuation of racism doesn't depend on the oppressed buying into racist attitudes, whether the oppressed are a minority or a majority. Sexism does, I think, depend heavily on women buying into sexist attitudes. Sexist social structures exist to keep women "in their place," but that place is never as separate as the separate places produced by racism -- if only because sexist men want to get laid.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
Honest Ron, Kelly, seriously we got it on the hosting thing.
Yes'm. My bad.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
I think Jezebel has a good take:
quote:
Most men, even if they are progressive in every other way, balk at calling themselves feminist, and plenty of men who support equal pay and reproductive rights still think feminism itself is ugly, "strident," or lame. So what a man calls himself probably doesn't matter too much — as long as he's capable of confronting a problem that he might be a part of.
This is a neat way to address argona's most recent post, as well as responding to this: quote:
Originally posted by argona:
Don't know quite what I've started here.
A really exciting discussion! Thank you! ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Sexist social structures exist to keep women "in their place," but that place is never as separate as the separate places produced by racism -- if only because sexist men want to get laid.
Yes, that does make a difference, agreed, but I'm not sure that it's enough of a difference.
Maintaining a sexist society certainly requires the acquiescence of the female population, but I don't think that's as strong as buying-in to sexist attitudes (although we agree that that happens).
I think we're back to the relative power thing. If we take as the starting point a completely male-dominated, sexist society: men in all positions of power, nobody will hire a woman for any job except cleaning, nursing and elementary school teaching, and won't hire a married woman at all, then it's hard to place blame on a woman who goes along with it - she has few other options.
Now alter the society to make it more like what we have today, where women have many more opportunities, and are represented in politics, the boardroom and so on, and maybe we're less able to say of a woman "well, she's just going along with it - she doesn't have any choice." But until men and women have equal power (which I think implies we've at least largely eliminated sexism) I don't think you can say that all women have the same agency as their male counterparts, so a woman incurs less blame for "going along" with a sexist setup than her brother would.
For individual acts of overt sexism (as opposed to just going along with sexist structures) she gets her full share of blame, though.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
Girls are coached pretty much from the time they can read or write that nothing they accomplish in life will be quite as important as getting a boyfriend. This sets girls/ women up to view each other primarily as rivals rather than allies--- which is a great way for a patriarchal society to divide and conquer.
I'm not saying women don't get other, more positive messages, and that all women buy into the frenemy thing, but the pull is powerful, especially for young girls. This is why 70's feminism had such trouble getting off the ground-- young women were reluctant to render themselves undateable by associating themselves with something perceived as "unfeminine."
All this just to say it's just as important (to me) to get women on the solidarity page as it is to challenge sexist men.
[ 27. August 2013, 05:51: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
I think we're back to the relative power thing. If we take as the starting point a completely male-dominated, sexist society: men in all positions of power, nobody will hire a woman for any job except cleaning, nursing and elementary school teaching, and won't hire a married woman at all, then it's hard to place blame on a woman who goes along with it - she has few other options.
Picking up on Kelly's solidarity thing, though, I keep thinking of Lysistrata.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Girls are coached pretty much from the time they can read or write that nothing they accomplish in life will be quite as important as getting a boyfriend.
No.
Many girls are coached that way, but others are not. I grew up thinking that if I found a nice man to marry, that would be good. However, if I didn't find a nice man, it would be much better to stay single.
I think one problem with this thread is the sweeping generalizations.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
argona
Shipmate
# 14037
|
Posted
I think there's been a tendency, over the last few decades, for people to insist on the singularity of their own perceived identity. In effect to fence it off and put up a sign saying "You'll never understand. Keep out and shut the fuck up." I'd say it's too strong to say that anyone thereby becomes complicit in their own oppression but I do think it's simply wrong, and no way forward for anyone.
Posts: 327 | From: Oriental dill patch? (4,7) | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
That's a very good point. People are amazingly heterogeneous - and that's another generalization.
Working as a therapist, you learn to let go of the stuff you have been trained in, as people just are too big and spill out beyond the dictates of all the text-books and theories. And this is brilliant.
As soon as I see 'men are ...' and 'women are ...', I reach for my gun, metaphorically.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Sorry, that was a reply to Moo's previous post. Damn this short editing time.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by argona:
I think there's been a tendency, over the last few decades, for people to insist on the singularity of their own perceived identity. In effect to fence it off and put up a sign saying "You'll never understand. Keep out and shut the fuck up." I'd say it's too strong to say that anyone thereby becomes complicit in their own oppression but I do think it's simply wrong, and no way forward for anyone.
I remember Marxists in the 70s and 80s who argued that heavy metal celebrated the degradation and alienation of young people. What fucking rubbish.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
quetzalcoatl: As soon as I see 'men are ...' and 'women are ...', I reach for my gun, metaphorically.
Tssk, typical male reaction.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
quetzalcoatl: As soon as I see 'men are ...' and 'women are ...', I reach for my gun, metaphorically.
Tssk, typical male reaction.
That would be my dick, wouldn't it? Oh hang on, gun = dick, acc. to Sigismund.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
alienfromzog
Ship's Alien
# 5327
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
I think one problem with this thread is the sweeping generalizations.
Moo
Yep.
Remember, all sweeping generalisations are false. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
AFZ
--------------------
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
[Sen. D.P.Moynihan]
An Alien's View of Earth - my blog (or vanity exercise...)
Posts: 2150 | From: Zog, obviously! Straight past Alpha Centauri, 2nd planet on the left... | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
argona
Shipmate
# 14037
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
slight tangent/
The role of the drill sergeant in An Officer and a Gentleman was originally offered to Jack Nicholson. When Louis Gossett Jr. was cast, the intent was to do a rewrite of the character. He informed the writers this was not necessary. My point? Whilst there are certainly characters with whom it is correct to alter the portrayal depending on race, gender, etc., much of what is done is more a twisted perception than a necessity. /slight tangent
That's a very good point. And there can be a huge gap between a writer's intention and a reader's understanding. As I've realised, quite depressingly on one occasion, when I've heard an actor read my work! But that's how it is. You throw what you've written into the arena and after that, it's really nothing to do with you. Although now, successful writers are required to jump in and market their product. Must be a nightmare.
Posts: 327 | From: Oriental dill patch? (4,7) | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Plique-à-jour
Shipmate
# 17717
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
Plique, Fëanor, that is more than enough on the personal attacks. Play the ball not the man, or head to Hell.
I was the one under attack. Why am I to be treated as though my posts were no better than a troll's interference?
[ 27. August 2013, 17:28: Message edited by: Plique-à-jour ]
--------------------
-
-
Posts: 333 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Jun 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Girls are coached pretty much from the time they can read or write that nothing they accomplish in life will be quite as important as getting a boyfriend.
No.
Many girls are coached that way, but others are not. I grew up thinking that if I found a nice man to marry, that would be good. However, if I didn't find a nice man, it would be much better to stay single.
I think one problem with this thread is the sweeping generalizations.
Moo
I would say "yes" in terms of the kind of images of themselves they see in the media, in popular youth books, in TV and movies. That's what all girls get form society.
I did allow for other, more positive influence in the post I made-- the part you edited out:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
I'm not saying women don't get other, more positive messages, and that all women buy into the frenemy thing, but the pull is powerful.
So I hope the references to "sweeping statements" and "metaphorical guns" were general ones (especially the latter), and not prompted by my post, because i feel I make a big effort to avoid sweeping statements-- that was the whole point of me adding the qualifier (that was removed.)
I work with young people and the influences I see on them give me a different perspective and heightened anxiety about certain trends. I stand by my statement, because that is what I see. People who have had sensible adults in their lives to counteract such stuff as I described are very lucky-- some girls do not have those influences. Or have people in their lives that perpetuate the lies. Or have parents that are so overtaxed they can't see a lot of what is going on.The matter deserves attention.
[ 27. August 2013, 18:42: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
I agree, Kelly.
All I would wish to add is that there is also peer group pressure, which can be particularly troublesome during teen years especially.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
I would echo what Kelly is saying here.
Parents and upbringing can only do so much to counteract the societal feminine model girls are moulded to fit. Those girls are also influenced by peer pressure, films, magazines, books. From puberty onwards parents have less impact.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
I agree, Kelly.
All I would wish to add is that there is also peer group pressure, which can be particularly troublesome during teen years especially.
Yeah,that might be the worst-- because it can often railroad even very good modeling from sensible adults.
One older role model of mine is hugely competitive with other women, and after hearing enough of her story I am convinced that she didn't necessarily get this from the very strong, solid women in her family life, but from her years in sorority. Her particular sorority, if you need clarification.
Maybe what I am suggesting (as I process ) is that we wise old crones need to actively get involved with young women who are not necessarily just relatives, and be aware of ourselves as models of female solidarity wherever we are.
[ 27. August 2013, 19:16: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
quote:
Honest Ron, Kelly, seriously we got it on the hosting thing.
Sorry about the way that came over Gwai - it wasn't intended that way at all.
<autoflagellation icon>
[ 27. August 2013, 19:05: Message edited by: Honest Ron Bacardi ]
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
The conversation thus far:
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
Men are the perpetrators of rape. Men cut women's genitalia as a form of sexual control. They deny women the vote. Men prohibit girls and women from education. Men deny women the freedom to work and hold their own capital. Men insist that a woman always be tended by a her father, her husband, or her son. Men restrict a woman's right to control her fertility. Men perpetrate sexual slavery over women in sex trafficking.
MT and others of both sexes: Not all men do those things and not all those things are done exclusively by men.
Plique-à-jour: Why do men always make it about themselves when somebody gives a laundry list of evil things men do?
Plique-à-jour: I'm not telling anybody what to say, but here's an article slamming people hard for saying things I find analogous to things being said here.
[ 27. August 2013, 20:03: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
I have spent my entire working career as a high school teacher. Was I wrong during all that time in my attempt to teach Math to boys and girls in the same room? Was I wrong to attempt to refuse to accept sexist joking, rude commentary and putdowns (in either direction)?
Was I wrong to marry a doctor? We have two daughters both of whom will not accept demeaning statements> Was I wrong to inculcate that attitude?
Does this make me a bad person, that I strove for equality for males and females?
...
I thought not. So why can I not be called a male who wants equal treatment for all? Would you (TSA) prefer that I had maintained the male-supremacist ideas that I was exposed in my youth?
How the Hell else could I have helped in the endeavour?
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
Kelly Alves wrote: quote:
Maybe what I am suggesting (as I process [Big Grin] ) is that we wise old crones need to actively get involved with young women who are not necessarily just relatives, and be aware of ourselves as models of female solidarity wherever we are.
I think all children and adolescents benefit from regular interaction with inspiring people of all ages.
Don't underestimate the powerful effect that could have on the boys too - an interesting and engaging mature woman can help head off the build up of negative stereotypes in their minds too. In this case I am thinking of the beneficial effect that could have on their future interactions with the girls in addition to the direct inspiration of the girls. And of course the boys benefit directly too, not in competition but as well as. It seems silly to ignore the potential for a win-win-win scenario - they come along pretty infrequently.
Things get more complex once they become young women I'm sure. As a parent of two girls, I would have to say that's the stage when they need to be able to fly free, so a parent's insight is less use even though they need to know you are still there. But wise voices in their new circles of acquaintances could surely have a part to play here.
Just thinking about it, historically many of these things would have been easier in less-mobile times with more extended families. Though of course it's the same route that derelict behaviour patterns can infiltrate themselves in by. I doubt if you can pursue the one without the risk of the other, though.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
Quite right about all of that-- my statement was in reference to the thread of conversation specifically involving young women learning to see each other as resources. That really needs modeling from other women.
I only directed the phrase "wise old crones" at you because 1. At the glorious age of 44 I can claim the title and 2. I mistook you for Lamb Chopped. ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
[ 27. August 2013, 23:14: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
I'm not really up in crone-ology, but aren't you a bit young for that title?
To head back towards the original subject. I would still say I don't think what men call themselves is wildly important. I hear the opposing view, but surely feminism by now has a sufficiently strong identity to survive the inevitable few men who might call themselves feminists but have deleterious intent. The future of feminism isn't going to depend on what men call themselves.
It will depend on what future women do and call themselves, though that's another matter entirely.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
I would still say I don't think what men call themselves is wildly important. I hear the opposing view, but surely feminism by now has a sufficiently strong identity to survive the inevitable few men who might call themselves feminists but have deleterious intent. The future of feminism isn't going to depend on what men call themselves.
It will depend on what future women do and call themselves, though that's another matter entirely.
![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif) YES.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
It's like letting the fox in among the chickens.
Men are the perpetrators of rape. Men cut women's genitalia as a form of sexual control. They deny women the vote. Men prohibit girls and women from education. Men deny women the freedom to work and hold their own capital. Men insist that a woman always be tended by a her father, her husband, or her son. Men restrict a woman's right to control her fertility. Men perpetrate sexual slavery over women in sex trafficking.
To let a man declare himself able to speak for women in overturning these systems of masculinist control over women would be farcical were not an outrage against justice.
Negate the oppression in my second paragraph and we might be able to talk about this odd phantasy, the male feminist.
I know this is going back a bit, but... thank goodness some white folk decided they could speak up and abolish slavery, eh?
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
jbohn
Shipmate
# 8753
|
Posted
Well, yes - but they weren't "abolitionists" by my twisted definition. They were "abolition allies". Anyway, it's not possible for whites to be abolitionists because:
• Whites enslaved blacks;
• Whites murdered blacks;
• Whites denied blacks the right to vote;
etc.
(BTW - today is the 50th anniversary of the Poor People's March on Washington, D.C. - I see white faces in that crowd. There's a parallel here...)
photo
--------------------
We are punished by our sins, not for them.
--Elbert Hubbard
Posts: 989 | From: East of Eden, west of St. Paul | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
And the more I think about it, the more I think your view is complete crap -- you are telling people what they can and cannot say based solely on whether they are male or female. Can't get much more sexist than that.
Bingo.
The most interesting and memorable encounter with feminism I've ever had was when I worked in human rights, and got to attend a talk by a visiting academic (? - fairly sure it was an academic, I sadly don't recall her exact field) about having a feminist perspective on the budget and on government programs.
The two of us there FROM the government happened to be male. And I say happened because it pretty much was sheer chance. Our branch was split evenly by gender at every level as far as possible. At different times as we shuffled between sections, it would have been different people who went.
The notion that we couldn't participate in the discussion, or be interested in it, or take lessons from it back to our work, or advocate for those insights with other parts of government just because we were male is completely preposterous. We could listen as well as the women in the room. We could be as interested as they were - that's why we chose to be there (or maybe why our (then) male branch head sent us there).
The implications of saying 'you can only say stuff about a group you yourself are a member of' would have been excruciating for the human rights branch. No white Anglo-Celtic folk in the racial discrimination section... well, there goes the best bloke that section ever had. The disability discrimination section is now badly understaffed as we've given all the work to the woman with a hearing impairment, dismissed her colleagues and told her she's not allowed to rotate into other areas of the branch. Sex discrimination must be staffed by women... well, I'm in trouble, but it's okay, I can still work on the sexuality discrimination bit that was in the same section (NB I'm in the closet at this point)... but I can't work on the transgender issues... quick, we need to hire a cross-dresser! And I'm far too young to work on the age discrimination stuff any more.
The proposition that you can't speak unless you're part of the group is effectively ordering everybody to only ever speak from a position of self-interest. That's no way at all to make progress. In fact, the entire aim of all that kind of anti-discrimination work is to encourage people to have MORE insight about people unlike themselves. How the hell is that going to happen if anyone who succeeds in stepping outside themselves a bit and 'getting it' is ordered not to speak?
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
In fact, the entire aim of all that kind of anti-discrimination work is to encourage people to have MORE insight about people unlike themselves.
Without this, there will always be division and strife.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
orfeo
Good post. Yes, it seems to lead to a strange kind of solipsism, or narcissism. Behind that seems to lurk a fear of difference itself.
As if only a homogeneous grouping can come up with worthwhile ideas and arguments and actions. This forum seems to directly contradict that.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Very much so.
Well, if you'll excuse me, I best go to bed. Tomorrow morning I have a meeting of the local branch of Gay Male Anglo-Celtic Anglicans Who Are Enneagram Type Fours With A Five Wing (Artistic and Analytical Personality) And Who Attempted Ex-Gay Therapy Before Coming Out In Their Thirties To Their Parents (One Christian, One Atheist) Who Were Fine With It. It's not often I can find a bunch of people like them who really understand what my life is like.
The other gay male Anglo-Celtic Anglicans who attempted ex-gay therapy simply have no clue at all, it's enraging to see them attempt to speak as if their views have any relevance to my experience.
[ 28. August 2013, 14:28: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Stop the warm and fuzzy! Stop it right this instant!
I shall need to revise my view simply to maintain balance.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Yes, last week I attended the Northern Working Class Ex-Macho but Hey Fucking Sensitive Football-Loving but also Like Show Tunes (Feminine Side), Men's Group. Well, it was rowdy, but once we'd sung a few Barry Manilow tunes, we calmed down, and had a circle jerk. Bliss.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Well, that certainly stopped the warm and fuzzy for me! Off to wash my brain in the sink.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
The expectation that we are perfectly free to think and speak as we wish is just another imposition of patriarchal culture. Furthermore, men have been privileged by patriarchy whether they have sexist attitudes or not, and it is patriarchy again that makes men think they can escape complicity in that. Thus, we have all these rather unseemly denials of personally participating in rape and abuse, when precisely zero accusations have been issued against any person here.
In reality, patriarchy shapes and determines male wills just as much as female ones, and both have their own work to free themselves of it. We've see hints of this fact when we talked about female genital mutilation. "Women are forced to accept aspects of patriarchy for themselves to survive male dominated culture," or something like that. There is no problem with accepting that women can be robbed of agency in patriarchy. In what ways, then, are the voices of men shaped and limited? In what ways do these limitations continue to diminish female voices?
If you want to simplify the word "feminist" down to simply "support for equal rights for women," then sure, whatever. Men can be feminists in this way and should be feminists in this way. But the feeling here is that such a definition goes from simple to simplistic. There are much deeper issues at play, and the freedom of both men and women is at stake.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
The expectation that we are perfectly free to think and speak as we wish is just another imposition of patriarchal culture. Furthermore, men have been privileged by patriarchy whether they have sexist attitudes or not, and it is patriarchy again that makes men think they can escape complicity in that. Thus, we have all these rather unseemly denials of personally participating in rape and abuse, when precisely zero accusations have been issued against any person here.
In reality, patriarchy shapes and determines male wills just as much as female ones, and both have their own work to free themselves of it. We've see hints of this fact when we talked about female genital mutilation. "Women are forced to accept aspects of patriarchy for themselves to survive male dominated culture," or something like that. There is no problem with accepting that women can be robbed of agency in patriarchy. In what ways, then, are the voices of men shaped and limited? In what ways do these limitations continue to diminish female voices?
As many feminists say, "patriarchy hurts men too." It can be manifested in sexism but can also be manifested in male-on-male interactions. For example, the way that weaker, "effeminate" boys tend to be bullied and larger "masculine" boys tend not to be. The way that masculinity is in itself defined has many negative consequences on people of both genders. We all know that calling a man something feminine - back in the old days it was sissy, now it's the must cruder b*tch or p*ssy - that it's an insult.
I think when some men lash out against accusations that men-as-a-group are responsible for sexism, it's because for many of them are on the wrong side of patriarchy themselves. What I don't understand is why they don't ally themselves with the women's rights campaigners, whose work will generally make things better for these "less masculine" men." What I have seen happen many times is these men go towards the misogynistic "men's rights" position, blaming women for every single problem in their personal lives and society in general. As if, maybe acting uber-sexist will get them points with the alpha males around them.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
seekingsister
Very good points. I have seen this stuff thrashed out a lot in men's groups, and also in gender studies, where 'masculinity in crisis' is a perennial topic. Or as a friend of mine says, masculinity is a crisis.
I think you are right that historically more feminine men, however one describes them, have tended to side with the macho element. This is after all part of the ideological loading of patriarchy, isn't it? The alpha male will protect you - 'The Wire' was full of this stuff, also the British series, 'Top Boy'.
However, I think the success of gay rights gives us an inkling of a change - for gays and lesbians are also pathologized by patriarchy. So their relative depathologization seems to show that the old structures are not as stable, and that therefore men can find allies among women, and not just among the alpha males.
Hence some of the chagrin with which such men might view those feminists who see them as not welcome.
[ 28. August 2013, 16:32: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
I think when some men lash out against accusations that men-as-a-group are responsible for sexism, it's because for many of them are on the wrong side of patriarchy themselves. What I don't understand is why they don't ally themselves with the women's rights campaigners, whose work will generally make things better for these "less masculine" men."
We'd like to, but we're told to STFU by people like TSA and Zach82.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Dat true.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
seekingsister wrote: quote:
What I don't understand is why they don't ally themselves with the women's rights campaigners, whose work will generally make things better for these "less masculine" men." What I have seen happen many times is these men go towards the misogynistic "men's rights" position, blaming women for every single problem in their personal lives and society in general. As if, maybe acting uber-sexist will get them points with the alpha males around them.
I could venture an explanation - even if only a partial one - on that, because I have seen it happen.
Which is to say that it depends on what kind of feminism, and how the issue is delivered. There is no good thing under the sun that someone, somewhere, has not rendered profoundly unattractive. Attack someone head-on and what you get is defensiveness and resentment. It's a reliable human response. Naturally, that approach is great for getting something off your chest, but counter-productive if you want something done. Treating other humans as humans may be difficult if you feel they have not accorded you the same rights, but raising the bar usually impresses someone. It's not time wasted. The only exception I can think of is when an injustice is perpetrated by a small power clique. That's not the case here - "The Patriarchy" does not have a central politburo that can be assassinated. It's a hearts and minds job, a change of embedded culture.
If you* call yourself a feminist, you immediately become an ambassador for feminism. If the purpose of feminism is to get things sorted and the best you can achieve is to make it worse, then the best advice I can offer is to withdraw for a spell and review why you are having the effect that you are, before re-engaging. Surely it is a good thing to turn from a liability to an asset?
There again, some people are just boneheaded idiots. You'll have to work your way round them.
We can all screw up this way, of course. It's not a specifically feminist thing at all.
(* - generic "you")
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
I think when some men lash out against accusations that men-as-a-group are responsible for sexism, it's because for many of them are on the wrong side of patriarchy themselves. What I don't understand is why they don't ally themselves with the women's rights campaigners, whose work will generally make things better for these "less masculine" men."
We'd like to, but we're told to STFU by people like TSA and Zach82.
I was remembering an article I read on .. io9? I think- a male Scifi writer was expressing hope that the scifi/ fantasy genre (comics books and movies) would evolve beyond stereotypical female characters whose activity mainly revolved around making the hero look brilliant in some way-- whether by being a trophy for him, a victim for him to rescue, or a badass sidekick that was never quite badass enough to have her own agenda.
The writer (can't remember his name, but my geek friends who passed the article on uniformly oohed and ahhed at his cred) was immediately challenged by, like two of the usual idiots who said "the fantasy genre was created as soft core porn for teenage boys, and if girls don't like that, they have to accept that it wasn't written for them."
The next-- I'd say, four to six posts shouted down that argument, in detailed, obviously well-thought out ways.
And then I saw the first post by a woman.
Here's what the guys were saying(in a nutshell)-- soft-core porn does not really compensate for tired-ass, predictable characters and storylines, because in the genres of scifi and fantasy, words like "tired-ass" and "predictable" should not be even entering your mind. If all you care about is wet dream material, pick up Hustler. The evolution of complex, multi-dimensional female characters in scifi/ fantasy, with motives and functions other than what (presumably) the "average" 14 year-old boy would want them to have), could only improve the genres all around.
This is what the guys were saying! And they also said they were insulted by the first couple posters' assumption that all men liked their women inferior. Or that all men viewed scifi/ fantasy as exclusively man- serving genres.
So my observation is-- once upon a time you might see one guy making a comment like that, with six geek women trying their best to say the same thing, but getting laughed at by a group of self-supporting idiots. That one guy who tried gave another guy permission to speak up- now more guys who might agree are seeing that example. After years of watching this kind of discussion evolve, particularly in the "geek" community, the trend I spot is that, when more guys feel comfortable expressing what they think, the dialogue becomes more balanced.
Because all women are not alike and all guys are not alike, and feminist challenge helps highlight those facts. And this benefits both men and women.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
The slasher film has been analyzed in a rather similar way - it often ends up with a female heroine, often called now the Final Girl - who is the only one who can deal with the serial killer. See also the Alien films, with the heroine, Ripley.
Often traditional males are shown as useless also.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
