…if you’re opposed to sexism — if you believe men and women should be equal, that the gender system in unjust, that our freedoms, both legal and cultural, should not be dependent on our genitals, chromosomes, or our gender presentation, that every person has a sovereign right to reproductive justice — then you’re a feminist in my book…
Daisy has been a regular contributor here in the comments, and knows us quite well. So I asked the following question:
Do you consider us, both as a blog, and as individual bloggers, to be feminists?
Daisy:
I actually asked myself that very question as I was writing this and decided not to address it. I figured it was outside the scope of the post, but maybe I made a poor choice.
It was indeed beyond the scope, and therefore a good choice. For the same reason I think it is better to bring this side discussion back here.
Feminism is a movement. I think it’s self-evident that someone who is fundamentally opposed to a movement and who is working to end it cannot be a part of that movement. One can be highly critical of the movement and/or its actions and/or its members, but as soon as one is actually working against the movement or working to end it, one is obviously no longer a member of that movement, regardless on one’s opinions about the movement’s stated ideals.
My italics, which I’ll come to shortly. As an initial matter, I understand this remark to express a general principle only, rather than as a claim that the principle necessarily applies to us.
The word “feminism” has two meaning: It is firstly a belief system (or a category of belief systems) and secondly the movement organised around this.
So, I’ll qualify my earlier statement: you’re a feminist in my book if you believe that men and women should be equal, that the gender system in unjust, that our freedoms, both legal and cultural, should not be dependent on our genitals, chromosomes, or our gender presentation, that every person has a sovereign right to reproductive justice, and if you’re not opposed to [the feminist movement]. That qualification does seem kind of obvious, but it’s clearly important.
Again, my italics. I’ve also taken the liberty of substituting “the feminist movement” for “feminism”. I think this is a reasonable clarification given the opening remark.
The two italicised fragments are particularly telling. In order to legitimately claim the word “feminist”, according to Daisy, loyalty to the institutions is more important than fidelity to the stated principles. That point of view is 1. conservative, and 2. authoritarian.. I agree that this characterises the broad feminist movement quite accurately1.
So, my answer to your question is, are the FC folks, as a blog and as individuals, opposed to feminism? I think the answer is different for each of you — I’d suspect that ballgame, for example, probably is a feminist in my book, while TS probably is not.
I think all of us2, including TS, would espouse the stated principles of feminism. I also think that all of us, including ballgame, are broadly opposed to the mainstream feminist movement. I agree that of the four of us , TS is the most hostile to the feminist movement (though by no means hostile compared to the wider contrafemisphere or even the FCB commentariat). ballgame is the most sympathetic, seeing himself as part of a gender-egalitarian wing of the movement, as opposed to the WPO (women’s point-of-view only) mainstream.
To clarify this distinction: I disagree with a lot of feminists. I think a lot of what passes as feminism is bullshit, both in the form of radical feminism and in the form of Jessica Valenti-style feminism (profoundly ignorant, racist, classist pro-straight-white-wealthy-Western-women-ism). I think feminism had a condemnable history or racism and that racism, classism, heterosexism and cissexism (is that a word? should be) continue in the movement today. I’m probably more closely aligned with Renegade Evolution, who of course does not identify as a feminist, than I am with most mainstream feminist blogger. The feminist thinker I most admire is bell hooks. Etc., etc.
I would agree with this, and would add “misandrist” to her list of -isms. It should hardly be surprising that people who express bigotry toward one class of people also do toward other classes. What distinguishes misandry from all the other -isms within feminism is that there is a fair amount of opposition within feminism to the other -isms, and next to none for its systemic misandry. Those who do vocally oppose it get drummed out of the movement3.
But at the end of the day, I do share the goals of most mainstream feminist organizations (even if I have other goals, too), and “feminist” still seems like the most useful word to describe my gender politics (for now, anyway), and, though I disagree with much or even most of contemporary (straight white wealthy) feminist writing (the afore-mentioned Valenti, Linda Hirshman, etc), I rarely find myself opposed to feminist action. Therefore, though I’m very critical of feminists and feminism, I’m not opposed to feminism.
It’s not the stated goals of feminist organisations that concern me so much as their actual effects, whether intended or not. One can certainly laud the efforts of feminist organisations to, for example, provide services for female victims of domestic violence, while simultaneously objecting to their perpetuation of cultural values which leave male victims unrecognised, unserviced, and blamed. The situation is analogous to the (historical in the west) practice of formal education for boys only. Educating boys is not objectionable. Excluding girls, not just from any particular institution, but from accessing formal education, and promoting a culture in which girls are deem not needing, or not worthy of education is the problem here. Similarly there is no objection to bus companies transporting white people. The objection is to bus companies excluding black people. And so on.
A simpler clarification: do you think feminism does more harm than good? If so, you’re probably opposed to feminism, and therefore not a feminist.
I think this is a simplistic comparison. To the extent that feminist organisations do good, they could do the same good, or better, if they weren’t feminist. A non-feminist DV organisation which didn’t exclude men could do the same good as a feminist one. Thus I do not attribute such good that feminist organisations do to their feminism.
Or, another way: if feminism does harm (and it clearly does some harm), should we end feminism or reform it? If you think we should feminism, you’re probably opposed to feminism, and therefore not a feminist.
I’d like to see a movement which genuinely adheres to the stated principles of equality, non-discrimination, and opposition to the enforcement of gender roles. Whether that is achieved by reforming the feminist movement, or by tearing it down and creating a new movement in its place is not something that concerns me in principle. I can think of a host of practical reasons for preferring the reform route.
- I do not think that either of these words characterise Daisy as an individual. Quite the contrary. I merely comment upon the implications of her words[↩]
- The currently active bloggers, which excludes Renegade Evolution, because she is not currently blogging with us. She is welcome back any time.[↩]
- Renegade Evolution is a good example.[↩]
How do you define who or what the feminist movement is? Is the current visible feminist leadership representative of the movement as a whole?
To take an analogy: if you’re against president Bush and thinks his administration should come to an end, are you anti-American? Are you anti-Republican?
If individuals do not follow those ideals, then they would not be feminist, right? So what happens when these individuals form (or take over) a movement that becomes widely accepted as “Feminism”? Shouldn’t people who espouse the stated goals be against the movement?
Feminism is meant to be a big tent isn’t it?
If you can’t be for all the different variants of feminism at the same time (because of conflicting goals between the different variants) then how is it possible to be against all of them?
It seems like another case of feminism is a single entity when it suits my argument and varied when it doesn’t.
Why did Daisy Bond need to add the statement “if you’re not opposed to [the feminist movement]?”
How can it be possible to simultaneously believe in the ideals of feminism and be in opposition to the feminist movement?
Think about that for a second.
The only way is if there is a fundamental disconnect between the ideals of feminism and the feminist movement.
Hm… Does she realize what she’s implying? Actually, her addendum stands as the most powerful anti-feminist[*ahem* anti-feminist _movement_] argument I’ve yet read on this blog or anywhere on the net.
Don’t you get it? There are many feminisms!
Feminism is so diverse a movement that you can’t make critical generalizations. If you have some criticism to voice, two randomly-chosen feminists have nothing in common. So there’s no generalization which holds true about them!
It’s not like when you praise feminists. When you praise them they have lots in common. Oh, yeah, you can generalize all you want when you praise them. Everyone knows what you’re talking about when you praise feminism. Feminism is the most important movement ever. The best thing since ice cream. Yeah, I’m talking about THAT feminism.
But if you want to say negative things about feminism? Golly, now you gotta specify WHICH feminism. You have to specify a sub-sub-branch. Maybe quasi-liberal pro-sex eco-feminists? Maybe you mean liberal anti-sex eco-feminists with mint frosting? What does feminism mean? Which one are you talking about? Golly. Which one? You gotta specify now. It’s just so HARD to figure-out what “feminism” means. Feminists have NOTHING in common!
And when you say “anti-feminist”, it’s crystal clear what you mean. Because there’s only one feminism to be “anti”. Not when you criticize feminism. It’s just too diverse for criticism. Not monolithic groups like “men” or “white people”. We’re talking about “feminists”. They’re like grains of sand when you want to hold them accountable. No two feminists are alike and have nothing in common. Not like when you wanna say good things about them. That’s when they’re monolithic. They’re alike. Miraculously.
Good God, how can people not laugh at this?
Hey. That’s why I prefer to dispense with criticizing feminists and criticize… hm… well, I can’t use the word, but the old skool values that the feminist movement shares with every other gender conservative movement.
Daran, the last quote:
“Or, another way: if feminism does harm (and it clearly does some harm), should we end feminism or reform it? If you think we should feminism, you’re probably opposed to feminism, and therefore not a feminist.”
is probably missing a word at the beginning of the 2nd sentence “If you think we should ___ feminism…”
Sorry, work habit, I bug videogames for some small things like that too. Or bigger things like crashes…or walking underwater while passing a bridge instead of ON the bridge.
Historically speaking, when reforms of this great a nature are conducted, they generally result in something that is altogether different from what originally existed. The best example is the reformed Judaism that both John the Baptist and Jesus Christ attempted to bring about, which resulted in a new faith that is quite different (though some similarities remain) from what they were most familiar with. This seems to be true with most reformations, whether ideological or social.
So if reform is the preferred route, the question is what kind of reform? Are we talking about substantive reform like what Christ and the Baptist sought or a general reform along the lines of reclaiming the purported purposes of an ideology or movement? I think that is an important question because the former would initiate true reform while the latter simply assuages the opinions of those who feel there is no need for change.
By that logic, Jesus Christ was not Jewish. He actively worked against the faith that he belonged to in an effort to create what he felt would best serve his people. However, that is generally what occurs when a person seeks to reform something. What results usually bears little resemblance to what it derived from.
That said, the above is perhaps the clearest explanation of what a feminist is that I have heard.
I’m curious about the opposed to the feminist movement part. If there are various forms and kinds of feminism, what exactly does it mean to be opposed to it? Is the test opposition where the majority of feminists agree? What if one agrees with the ideology as listed above, but not with the ideology as academically defined (i.e. patriarchy, privilege, etc.)? Defining feminism in the way listed above makes a lot of sense (with the exception of the opposition part) and to that I would say that most of residents here fit that definition.
Edited to add:
I think typhonblue may have summarized my point.
TS, Judaism is a religion and an ethnicity, not a political movement. A person with Jewish parents who was raised Jewish can think Judaism-the-religion is an evil ideology that should be abolished and still be Jewish. Meanwhile someone who thinks, say, Marxism is evil and should be abolished can never reasonably be considered a Marxist, even if she agrees broadly with some of the basic tenets of Marxism.
That was not what was stated.
It was more like…
If you believe X you are a Marxist. Unless you disagree with the Marxist movement.
Which begs the question, where is the disconnect? How can you believe in Marxist principles (not broadly, but _the_ principles of Marxism that divide Marxist thinkers from non-Marxist thinkers) and disagree with the movement?
Does the movement exist to champion something _other_ then its own ideals?
I agree with typonblue. Using Marxism as an example if you disagree with movement don’t you disagree with Marxism ideals? Isn’t the converse also true that if you disagree with Marxism ideals you also disagree with the Marxism movement? How can one agree with the movement but not the ideals, or agree with the ideals but not movement (assuming the movement is accordance with the ideals)?
Or, perhaps, the problem lies in the _interpretation_ of those ideals.
I very much believe all of that.
However I don’t exclude the male point of view from analysis. Not only do I not exclude the male point of view from analysis, I think an excessive focus on the female point of view(or concern with ‘rescuing/benefiting/providing’ for women) is a cultural inheritance and another aspect of gender injustice.
Therefore I’m guessing my interpretation of those ideals is vastly different.
Although, really, how can you be about ‘gender equality’ if you don’t even take the simple step of looking at both sides honestly?
Actually, I don’t even think feminists have even _looked_ at the male side. Just made the assumption that somehow they have more control over society and that their role is both preferable and more powerful then women’s.
Good point Typhonblue. The problem does lie in the interpretation of the ideals. This is the crux of every movement, how your ideals are interpreted and then acted upon by the constituents of your movement. Marxism had some noble ideals, but how closely did countries that implemented it follow them? Even though they didn’t adhere to the ideals completely they were still labeled as such. Were they truly Marxists in the first place? Likewise if your actions differ from the ideals are you truly what you say you are?
I honestly don’t think you can.
I agree that feminists haven’t done an adequate job at looking at the male side. I wonder if the phrase “the grass is always greener on the other side” is fitting here? I suspect that feminists think that men have it better. I also suspect that MRAs may think women have it better.
I agree with typhonblue. I very much support those ideals, those principles of gender equality…yet I’m not for the actual interpretation I’ve run into – though especially radical feminism (the one I was exposed to most).
I agree that feminists haven’t done an adequate job at looking at the male side. I wonder if the phrase “the grass is always greener on the other side” is fitting here? I suspect that feminists think that men have it better. I also suspect that MRAs may think women have it better.
Very much indeed. And I think that “grass is always greener on the other side” mentality is what feeds generalizations and all those privilege lists you see. Feminists assume that all men have it better than all women simply because they are male (and this is the basis of most of the items on those male privilege lists). But when you challenge those assertions they often say that said privilege does not apply to you is because you have some other mitigating factor going against you. The reason minority men have such a hard time with the judicial system has nothing to do with the fact they are men but because they are minority men. The reason poor white guys have a hard lot in life is because they are poor, not because they are white or because they are male. Its almost if they say the only reason men make it to the top is because they are male and they either didn’t have any mitigating circumstances or they overcame them yet a woman that makes it to the top MUST have overcome the fact that she is a woman.
Think about it like this. When talking about the troubles of black men its assumed that the only reason he is having a hard time is because he is black (as if the specific combination of black and man means nothing). When talking about the troubles of black women its assumed that they MUST have been held back because of their race and gender (but notice that the specific combination of black and woman suddenly means something).
To the extent that feminist organisations do good, they could do the same good, or better, if they weren’t feminist. A non-feminist DV organisation which didn’t exclude men could do the same good as a feminist one. Thus I do not attribute such good that feminist organisations do to their feminism.
I’m glad you pointed this out. For some reason it seems to me that some feminists try to attribute good deeds to feminism as if the only reason someone commits a good deed is because they are feminist and attribute bad deeds to anti-feminists (and in cases MRAs) as if the only reason someone commits a bad deed is because they are anti-feminist.
I’m sure everyone here is familiar with the term progressive. Is it me or are some feminists trying to make progressive synonymous with feminist? I think it is all in an effort to control the language. Feminists hold onto the 2% myth about false rape accusations in order to control conversation about rape. They want people to believe that men are the only ones that comment DV so they can control conversation about DV. They refuse to admit that there more to getting to the top than being male because it would ruin their precious male privilege lists.
And besides if this is true:
…if you’re opposed to sexism — if you believe men and women should be equal, that the gender system in unjust, that our freedoms, both legal and cultural, should not be dependent on our genitals, chromosomes, or our gender presentation, that every person has a sovereign right to reproductive justice…
Doesn’t that mean that there are people that fit the titles of both MRA and feminist?
It is quite easy, for example, I oppose drunk driving, but I also oppose MADD. While I agree that drunk driving should be reduced I find their methods, and the results they get from their lobbying to be repugnant.
Similarly I look upon feminism with great skepticism, because while their stated goals may be noble, most everything else I find has less then desirable methods and results.
I believe in equality sure, but my concept of equality and feminism’s concept of equality* do not overlap. I cannot for a moment conceive how fighting for equality for a single group and only that group could ever actually achieve equality.
*Even if we make it as broad as possible
I guess this is where I get the disconnect.
If there is a set of ideals that the feminist movement strives for and you believe in those ideals and strive for them yourself, what sets you apart from the feminist movement?
In MADD’s case, they embrace not only a set of ideals but a methodology to achieve them. They are more then just a set of ideals.
So what is this additional X factor to feminism that must be embraced in order for a person to be feminist? If believing in egalitarian gender ideals isn’t enough, what is it?
Do we also have to embrace certain methods of activism?(as with your MADD example) I doubt this is the case, because I don’t think there is much consensus on correct activism in the feminist movement.
Or is the X factor a certain interpretation of the ideals that Daisy Bond omitted to mention:
For example… “I believe in gender egalitarianism but only when concern is focused on women.” “I believe in gender egalitarianism but only in the context of a set of assumptions about gender that remain unexamined critically.”
In fact, in my own experience, I have applied feminist principles to the world around me with a great deal of rigor and… here I am. I have concluded that the set of unspoken gender assumptions that feminism operates in are invalid–not only are they invalid, but they are suspiciously similar to gender assumptions we’ve held for generations upon generations. Namely, men are responsible, women are non-agents. Men are immoral, women are amoral. Men are defined by their actions, women are defined by being acted upon.* Men are not worthy of compassion or human interest, women are.
*What is ‘patriarchy’ but another repetition of this old idea? Patriarchy is how men act upon women and women are acted upon. The twist being that this automatically makes men evil. Why not be really radical? Why not propose an interpretation of our society that has women acting upon men and men being acted upon? And then see if it can make any predictions that prove true.
I cannot for a moment conceive how fighting for equality for a single group and only that group could ever actually achieve equality.
It seems to me that feminists aren’t fighting for equality for only one group. I think they do want equality for everyone but my problem is that they think that everyone should concentrate on equality for women first and by some feat of unknown magic everyone else will achieve equality too.
Danny:
I’ve seen such logic applied, the whole men can not be oppressed thing. Oddly whenever there is a privilege list, there is a white male privilege list and a black male privilege list precisely because they are different men.
As long as they line up with the ideals of equality. Both groups seem to have a hard time coming to a consensus on what that equality is.
There’s a thread at punkassblog on DV and some of the feminists are making a point of who is committing most of the DV.
Does feminism and feminism alone provide one with the tools to do good deeds? Why doesn’t a MRA or humanist approach work just as well? What are the tools that feminism provides to do good deeds that some other group wouldn’t be able to do? Maybe more succinctly, are the underlying ideological underpinnings – i.e. patriarchy, male privilege, etc. – necessary to doing good deeds?
I just realized something.
We have stated feminist ideals; then feminist orthodoxy such as patriarchy, male privilege, etc.
However the orthodoxy does not necessarily fall out of the feminist ideals. For example, you can believe in gender equality as an ideal but not the existence of patriarchy (in the west) or male privilege as facts.*
I think Daisy Bond’s definition of feminism omits the orthodoxy that must also be adhered to: that men are responsible and women are victims. And that’s where the point of disconnect lies. The feminist movement not only says it champions ideals of gender equality, but has a system of orthodoxy. In fact I think in determining a ‘true feminist’ feminists rely more on adherence to orthodoxy then belief in gender equality. Thus Daisy Bond’s statement about not ‘opposing feminism.’
*I’m not even sure if there is a relationship between the ideals and the orthodoxy. The orthodoxy is a slight memetic mutation on a cultural inheritance; the ideals are truly radical. How did they become associated so strongly when there really is not a strong relationship between them?
typhonblue: One shouldn’t state a theory and then look for predictions that verify it. One should look for examples that contradict it. Falsifiabilty is what makes a theory useful (or connected to reality), not verifiability.
I’m pointing this out because I had a discussion some weeks ago on a feminist website with someone who doesn’t think it right that a theory should be tested empirically in the sense of looking for things where the theory fails, but instead thinks that a theory should be accepted because of its “theoretical plausability”.
So, if your theory holds and men are acted upon by women in, say, Great Britain: What hypothetical empirical findings would contradict this theory?
Women being treated like objects would contradict this, although the reverse would not be evidence of it.
If a theory has no predictive value, it’s fairly vacuous isn’t it?
What does ‘theoretical plausibility’ mean?
typhonblue: According to some feminists, women *are* treated like objects. I’m looking for something less prone to interpretation.
Predictive value: Well, I sometimes have the feeling that some feminist theories predict A, but would just as well predict not A if it was found that not A is the case. You could argue that in such a case, that theory predicted neither A nor not A, but I just wanted to make the point clear. Because of my remembrance of said discussion.
“Theoretical plausability”: Theory sounds plausible to me when I don’t look at statistics. I guess this sounds pretty sarcastic, but if one rejects empiry this is what one gets.
Sort of like how the Big Bang theory sounds plausible to many without those ‘many’ being able to verify the claim by measuring or reproducing it. The proponents of the theory themselves are unable to provide concrete proof (not like we can accurately measure the universe, their proof relies more on space becoming ‘colder’, and thus less dense).
Though it sounds a lot more plausible than some Sky Daddy deciding to take a pile of mud, make it human, take a rib out of it and make a companion for it…and then tell them “Incest is bad, but I guess you got no choice for a few dozen generations”.
“…if you’re opposed to sexism — if you believe men and women should be equal, that the gender system in unjust, that our freedoms, both legal and cultural, should not be dependent on our genitals, chromosomes, or our gender presentation, that every person has a sovereign right to reproductive justice…”
One can believe in all of these things without necessarily believing that women have everything worse. But that’s really the required unspoken element to all of these beliefs, isn’t it? That women are worse-off than men in every significant way? And that instances where that is clearly not the case need to be minimized or ignored?
To be more accurate, Daisy should’ve said “if you believe that the gender system is unjust but is always more unjust to women than it is to men.” To dispute that claim is un-feminist, no?
I would argue that being a feminist requires one to first believe that women have everything worse, and everything about “equality” and “reproductive justice” are of secondary or tertiary importance, isn’t that right? Being a feminist, by Daisy Bond’s definition of feminism, does not necessitate or require the denial or minimization of instances where men are clearly worse-off than women. Nor does it require that instances of female victimhood be trumped-up and amplified to make women look more victim-y. And this is precisely what goes-on throughout much of the feminist press.
Keep in mind though, that instances where men’s hurts are denied, minimized or ignored, such as the effect there has been on Straus and others DV research (that this part of their research is all but ignored, even when they take the same and report results of it)…may derive from other forces than feminism…but I’d find it weird to call a force who wants to deny men can be victims “Patriarchy”.
We already know men can and do die in great numbers, so it doesn’t preserve some “We are immortal/invincible” meme to deny victimhood.
Besides feminist organizations who may get more funding if it doesn’t get split to issues not concerning them directly – who else benefits from men not being able to be seen as victims, then we might know who the real enemy is. Keep in mind, it is older than feminism.
There is a long tradition of seeing male deaths and male injuries as being less noteworthy than female deaths or female injuries. Seen from this angle, feminism is not a revolutionary force but a staunch defender of tradition.
The true way of transgressing one’s gender roles would be to view male injuries as being as important as female injuries. Almost an unthinkable thought for those who rigidly wish to defend the Patriarchal status quo in which women’s hurt feelings deserve more attention than the life or death of a man. Treating men better than they are now? When they already have everything better than women? Ridiculous!
“Women are the main victims in war-”
“But if you look at the numbers, you’ll see that battle-age males are-”
“YEAH YEAH, Patriarchy Hurts Men Too. UGH, Jesus, you whiners just can’t shut-up about that, can you? (SIGH) As I was saying, women are THE main victims in war..”
I know what some feminists say about women being treated like objects. Unfortunately I find their analysis to be a bit shallow. They see women being treated like ‘objects’ in the same way a cart horse treats a farmer like an ‘object’–namely by ‘acting’ upon him to pull him home. Equating the person who has to take the most direct and obvious action with the subject seems fatuous. In a lot of cases the person who has to take the _least_ obvious action is the one in charge.
So I’m talking about instances where women are treated like literal objects, where their consent to issues involving their person and their lives is irrelevant. An example of this would be the common situation in the modern mating game in which a man walks into a bar and slings a woman or women he finds attractive over his shoulder or into a wheelbarrow or whatever and leaves. Her consent to his sexual interest is, of course, irrelevant, just like any other object.
(Also, the sex industry doesn’t necessarily treat women like objects; women’s sexual favors can be bought and sold but you don’t usually give the _object_ the money, you give its owner. And as far as I can see the sex industry attracts women because it is incredibly lucrative suggesting they are getting paid, thus owners of objects, not objects themselves. Not only that, but the existence of the sex industry confirms that the dynamic above is totally bogus, women’s consent _is_ something that men have to obtain prior to sex that’s why there’s a market for buying consent.)
Anyway, in my opinion we can develop a reasonable definition for being treated like an object and then see if it falsifies my theory.
In brief my definition is thus:
Being treated like your consent–and your subjective experience*–is of no importance.
I’d also like to add that I can think of many situations that occur to men, because they are men, that fulfill this criteria.
Alternatively, being treated as a subject requires:
Being treated like your consent–and your subjective experience*–is of importance.
Addendum: This has to apply to interactions between the sexes; pointing to a bunch of frustrated, disenfranchised teenage boys who talk about women like objects says nothing about the reality of social situations. This is a way of venting off steam because the world works in precisely the opposite way; in fact they are projecting _their_ own experience of being treated like objects onto women.
* Subjective experience being best exemplified by presence or absence of suffering.
I’ve never understood the charge “objectify”, if only because it’s used in such a hypocritical manner and sometimes made through a heavily-contrived interpretation. Surely, drafting only men into combat objectifies them as cannon-fodder?
To give an example of how opportunistic the term “objectification” is used, I remember on Feministing how they made a couple of posts about how sexual toys for men (blow-up dolls, etc) “objectify” women because they supposedly reduce women to their body parts. In other posts, they raved on and on about how great vibrators are. Disembodied male body parts “objectify” no one, apparently. I guess only one sex can ever be guilty of objectifying the other.
Equality.
Just another note on the Addendum.
It seems like pointing at a lot of men’s ‘bad’ behavior in society as evidence that men treat women as objects is questionable. First of all this behavior is either legally or socially unacceptable, suggesting it does not form a fundamental part of our social mores. Secondly, it seems that much of it is a reaction to _men_ being treated like objects in our society–their consent or suffering being considered irrelevant. So men project their own experiences of disenfranchisement and helplessness onto women and try to make them suffer–however this behavior is still not considered acceptable in any of the forms it takes. Unless someone makes money off of it, of course.
typhonblue:
I suspect this is the case. How many feminists consider ifeminists feminists? The reason why they are not widely considered feminists is because they challenge orthodoxy. Feminists that challenge the male oppressor/ female victim paradigm seem to shunned by other feminists. To me it seems a feminist is a feminist if they agree mostly with orthodoxy.
This is a question I’ve asked myself. What is it that the orthodoxy brings to the table? Put a different way do we need orthodoxy to achieve the ideals. I for one don’t think so. I think the ideals are completely independent of the orthodoxy.
Saying you’re for equality and then taking a side only and ignoring the other seems a lot, to me, like the US claiming to help make the world more peaceful by disarming and requiring the removal of dangerous weapons everywhere…except for their own weapons.
You guys still caught up on how to define Feminism? Dr. Violet Socks did a good work up on that number recently.
I’ll tell you what..
You are not Feminists.
Kiuku
Kiuku?!??!? You’re back???
Admit it: you missed us!
Ballgame,
Nah I saw you guys struggling over here and I thought you could use a little help.
I am never too far away.
Schala, hi.
Hi Kiuku.
And I’m not saying feminist is necessarily doing what I said (though the US certainly are doing what I compared it to). It is from what I observed though, and my observations are mostly limited to radical feminism, and stuff that gets in the news that I hear about.
And as for why I’ve had more experience with radical feminism: Many of their proponents (but not all) are opposed to my existence.
Schala,
I’ve changed my stance on Transsexuals recently. It goes against what some Radical Feminists think about the matter and I still consider myself a Radical Feminist.
That’s why I said not all. I have a friend who considers herself a radical feminist who has no problem with me. And we’ve had long talks online about everything and anything. This, contrasted with my experience at MWMF, or some blogs online (I won’t even count womensspace).
A minor point though is that I’m probably intersex as well, but it’s never been confirmed. While hard to detect and not readily visible, it is still quite evident that *something* is up with my body, but no one has thought it would be something to find out, even when I brought it up.
I should clarify. My stance before was against Transexual male to female men entering into women only spaces and this, as I understand it, is the Radical Feminist default position. I don’t agree with the Psychologist version of Transexuality, which puts forth that gender, as defined by society, male and female, is in born or that one belongs to either sex exclusively. But I do think that men should have every reason to become women, and that those who do, should be accepted into Feminist circles atleast marginally.
Kiuku
Violet Socks’s “good number” was simply to use the dictionary definition – the offline definition, so to say – that a feminist was someone who believed in equal opportunities for both sexes. By that definition the bloggers here are feminists.
Admittedly, it wasn’t VS’s intention to include a lot of men as feminists; rather, she wanted to welcome Sarah Palin into the fold, although her track record on one of the most important feminist issues, abortion, is appalling.
Unintended consequences are still consequences though. The guys here are on board too.
Well there is a biological basis well-beyond the psychological basis advanced in the 60s and 70s. There has been evidence of congruent brain structures – changes that were independant of hormone intake (as those changes were present wether hormones had been taken or not, including by controls).
For example, a MtF at death had taken hormones 20 years.
Female-like brain structure.
A MtF at death had never taken hormones.
Female-like brain structure.
An average woman had never taken any form of hormones.
Female-like brain structure.
An average woman had taken some form of hormone therapy.
Female -like brain structure.
An average man had never taken any form of hormones.
Male-like brain structure.
An average man had taken medication for prostate cancer (androcur – a very potent anti-androgen) for a period.
Male-like brain structure.
No to mention, in intersex individuals, it has been shown that about 25% are dissatisfied with the initial assignment, enough to do something about it – wether that assignment was surgically enforced or let alone. For one, at birth I was let alone, my condition’s not even been detected to this day. Yet the initial assignment was wrong enough to transition in early-mid 20s.
As for men wanting to be women. I’m not sure I agree men want to be women, or women want to be men, let’s say someone’s identification can contrast sharply with the almost arbitrary system of classification we use to assign people to a sex. It is far from perfect.
Some are deeply-gendered, the average person is gendered-enough that they wouldn’t consider a change to the other sex with any seriousness, even if it was instant and not-painful, if it was not reversible. Some are also less-gendered, that they consider transition to be too much trouble, or not a satisfying enough result. Many don’t like the constraints placed on men or women as well, and see it as trading to get the same thing in the end (so they don’t transition, but might be androgynous in dress).
Though I did find it weird that MWMF posters aligned with radical feminism were so bent on “protecting womanhood” from “invaders” if it’s so damn bad to be a woman.
OK, within hours of Kiuku making an unexpected return, Tom returns as well.
JUST a COINCIDENCE?!?!?!?
Hmmm…..
(Good to see you make a return appearance, Tom!)
Ballgame,
Tom Nolan can’t get enough of me. He probably searches “Kiuku” all day while he posts as Satsuma on Women’s Space…and I can probably think of a few others too.
Tom Nolan,
I just think it is funny how you guys are still caught up in “Feminism how ever do you define it” and why no one considers you guys Feminists. You can profess to be for equal rights all you want, but if you insist on being confused by what everything means and whether or not anyone is being treated unfairly so as to warrant equal rights, and spin yourselves around in circles till you don’t know your left from your right so as to say nothing about the left in regard to the right, then you’re not anything at all.
I don’t, personally consider men Feminists but rather pro-Feminist is the term I choose now and they should be happy with that.
Good luck finding a definition of Feminism that doesn’t presuppose the oppression of women.
“I would support equal rights for women if they needed them” is not Feminist. Personally I hope for the day when Feminism is obsolete, and the Patriarchy is abolished but that time is not yet and Feminism is still very much a movement with Feminists and everything.
Men absolutely want to become women Schala…rather males want to become females. It is the origin of the difficulties. If men were just women in the first place, well obviously there would be no Patriarchy, but more importantly there would be no perceived need for a power dynamic at all.
I disagree with the science of male brains and female brains and agree with the science that discounts this. It’s readily available for those who want to do the research and I don’t feel like debating evolutionary psychology when other Feminists have already done so in a much more detailed fashion. However I do agree that those males who take non violent steps to make themselves females should be accepted.
Kiuku
But you agree with Violet’s definition, don’t you? The one she used to include Sarah Palin (who, while she agrees that women deserve equal rights actually believes that they already have them)? So, do you agree with Violet’s definition of feminist when it helps include a right-wing, anti-abortion reactionary like Palin, but disagree with it when it helps include the male bloggers here?
Or do you disagree with Violet’s (I think hopelessly lax) definition? If that’s the case, why didn’t you say so on her blog, and why do now refer to that particular post as “good work”, rather than what, in my opinion, it was: an opportunistic redrawing of the lines in order to include as a feminist a woman who, by any sensible reckoning, is nothing of the kind?
“Men absoultely want to becoiem women, Schala.”
Kiuku, dear, who can you possibly know what men want? Or are you just bullshitting when you say this, something you can’t possibly know?
Or are you saying that if men were just women in the first place, and this would resolve all problems, then men should have to want to be come women, so therefore we do want to become women, and that’s your proof? Because that’s the way what you wrote reads.
And if it is, if you just conclude that someone is doing this or that because it is necessary to maintain your world view, you are reducing them to an object, a puppet you move around on a stage; it is absolute dehumanizing objectification, and that makes you a gender bigot.
Just so you know.
Hm.
I don’t know, I think it has a certain logic.
The dogmatic right also has a lot of the misandry(better disguised) as feminists–namely that men are somehow sinister and generally to blame(for what particular thing can vary, of course.) So it ties in well with the dogma, if not the ideals.
Whereas the bloggers here are more about questioning how you can apply the ideal of equality if you’re only measuring one side. So, obviously not feminist because they are obeying the _letter_ but not the spirit of the ideal.
Hi Kiuku,
How is your Female Nation coming along?
I have to say that this conversation reminds me of a friend with excellent artistic skills. He would always say that he was not an artist. I would ask him why he said that while reminding him how skilled he was at it. He responded with something to the effect of, “Once I take on the title artist people will hold to the expectations and limitations of being an artist. I just think of myself as a guy that’s good at drawing.”
Thing is when it comes to all this human rights stuff one of the biggest obstacles is, “What am I?” or “What is that person?”. You have people that will claim a title and then appoint themselves the sole arbiters of who may claim that title. You have people that will in one breath try to define someone else’s title but with the next breath will be ready to shout and argue when someone dares to define theirs (and honestly between MRAs and feminists I’ve seen way more feminists do this to MRAs then vice versa).
And what for? To control the conversation? To make yourself for good at night when you go to bed? To make yourself feel like you’re better than someone else who has a different opinion or taking on a different title. To make someone else’s title look bad so that your title can look good? Why get so caught up in the title when the point is the activism behind the title? What good does all the badmouthing that feminists do of MRAs? How does MRAs badmouthing feminists do any good for anyone?
Kiuku
Ahhh, those were the days…mais où sont les neiges d’antan?
I am genuinely interested to know how Kiuku answers my last questions, though.
I think she’ll have the most difficulty motivating enough women to do the crap jobs that nobody else wants and are 98% male such as… forestry worker, garbage collector, sewer worker, fisherwoman, coal miner, truck driver, etc. etc.
I wonder if women really would be better off without men. After all children are highly resource-intensive therefore more then one adult is needed to tend and provide for them–so which of the two hypothetical mommies will have to work so the other can get to be a parent?
I guess it’ll be the one from the same class of woman that can be motivated to take the crap jobs above.
*sigh* You see why I don’t support femtopia? I haven’t yet met a woman, other then myself, who will get off her ass and help men when they’re doing ‘man-work’. So I guess it’ll just be me(and a few others like me)–desperately trying to keep everything afloat whilst being bossed around by a bunch of lazy fatasses who aren’t even as attractive as men.
Shoot me now.
While it is interesting when considering my position and that of some of my friends – it certainly is far from applying generally. I work in a 90% male 10% female environment. Videogame industry isn’t very female at the creation/testing level, the parity is close though, at the consumer level.
Being able to endure 7 hours of the same game day after day, possibly for months. While fun, a job where you’re sitting, and not that hard if you’re perfectionist, it isn’t for everyone. The job is open to mostly everyone still. I had no problem at all being hired either.
I’m pretty sure that less than 5% of the employees there, who are sort of geeky, open to many things and such, would even entertain the thought of transitioning, were it painless and instant. Less than 0.1% if its in the current “format”. I’d say 4.4% of the previous 5% would do it for curiosity’s sake only, not a perceived need. 0.5% would do it for a perceived better treatment. 0.1% would do it regardless of anything.
I just made-up these numbers, but I seriously doubt they’re higher. I might be overestimating it as it is.
For the record, while I was considered male superficially, I never liked it, I never identified with it, and I never tried to “belong” to the group “male”. I think it was mutual, as they hardly ever liked me. Most of those who do belong to the group “male” cannot say the same. Heck, even most transsexuals have made attempts to “fit in” as a guy. I didn’t know how, and wasn’t interested.
“How is your Female Nation coming along?”
JFA,
I am thinking Cuba.
Tom Nolan,
The fact that you notice which blogs I comment to and don’t comment on is more interesting to me than your question. lol
You should read my post where I explain how I’m not in the Abortion ghetto, and the general consensus among us that Feminism is not just all about Abortion.
Abortion “rights” exist in countries where women are oppressed the worst, and in history, such as in the Roman empire and ancient Greece, where women were cattle. Abortion (there) is about the interests of men.
We can’t rightly sacrifice female leadership, supporting women, and we can’t rightly justify misogyny in exchange for abortion rights.
Palin is absolutely a Feminist. She is a woman, first of all. She is a woman who is running for office.
As for your sentiment, today is far better than any yesterday.
This new edit feature is wonderful.
I don’t see how that alone, barring absolutely no qualifications elsewhere, makes someone a feminist. I’m not considered a feminist either by people online. Sure, I’m not running for office, but hey, I’m spending a lot of time, energy, and hopefully not too much money (seeing as I got little of that) to fight patriarchy’s opposition to me being legally female (such as making access to surgery so damn hard but REQUIRING it for changing sex legally).
continued from other comment (as it cut while editing)
And yes patriarchy has a vested interest in keeping it that way, as hard as possible, for men not to become women – but I doubt it’s for what you showed above.
I think it’s another, more selfish motive. Well, it seems logical and plausible to me, but maybe it’s not that either. But here’s my thoughts on it:
Men, while not always enthralled about having to do the courting…want to court women. To them women means since birth. Anyone that was without female genitals at or near birth (like less than a year old) is considered a fraud, by patriarchy, if they try to claim to be female.
It would be like “stealing what is rightfully hers” in a way. Like getting praise for work you haven’t actually done…except women are not necessarily at fault for getting complimented or courted (some are at fault because they seek it to no end, and know how to ‘play’ it). It’s not something they’ve done, and except for long term relationships, not much enters the picture. So it’s like a freebie. Patriarchy doesn’t want “frauds” to get those freebies.
Why? Probably because it feels they should suffer the same as them, for lacking the divine grace of superstition associated with sugar and spice, as opposed to puppy dog’s tails.
A clearer example:
I get sent a letter containing 10,000$. The letter isn’t addressed to me, it doesn’t seem to be drug deals, mafia or stuff I should worry about. But I can spend it, the check is addressed to whoever cashes it, with no name specified, and the check will clear.
Someone could easily get jealous that I got something they feel equally entitled to, but they did not. I didn’t do any work to get it. It was plain luck.
Patriarchy would feel that I, as legally male, am not entitled to the benefits of being courted and treated as female. And yes, benefits. I don’t think I’m treated worst for it.
It would thus seek to preserve the situation where I have to “announce myself as a fraud” (out myself as pre-operative) by making it as hard as heck to get surgery, and hormones (many ways to get them, costly and dangerous for the health in most cases), let alone a shrink who speaks the same language as me figuratively speaking. It also makes it harder for courting, since over 3/4 of the population wants nothing to do with dating a transsexual more than a single night.
Not covering surgery, and yelling on rooftops that its a choice, and its elective and its evil, and it corrupts kids and what not.
You know, in my province, a teen of maybe 16, was able to get a breast augmentation 100% covered (5000$), because she felt attained in her self-esteem because of the smallness of her breasts. But the government certainly won’t cover a medically-recognized procedure that treats successfully GID in well-over 90% of cases and gives returns on benefits to the state (increased will to live = more income for the state over time – it pays itself back plenty).
It’s not just 5000$, but that one WAS elective. I got small breasts too, and I ain’t blaming the government for it. I can live with it, or pay myself…the government ain’t exactly making it easy to live with mismatched documentation though. And I won’t “live as male” just because it makes identification issues with government, work, schools etc easier.
So I might be shooting myself in the foot out of obstination in the face of adversity, but so be it. I won’t back down until my last breath.
I’ll clarify this part:
I can get invited to dates and I’m apparently a 7/10, with a rather juvenile body. Poor enough so I don’t feel too guilty about having it paid for me, since I probably couldn’t afford it most of the time. But that’s not something I actually had to work for. It was handed to me.
Maybe it’s not worth transitioning only for that, I doubt many men would bear the uncomfortability of being in a body that feels foreign to them simply in order to get lunch paid for them. And I never implied it was reason-enough to transition.
But that and general respect afforded to women, this pedestal of greatness and holyness, of superior-morality and what not…they want it applied to only those they choose (and yes they do, at birth, your sex on your certificate is determined by rather arbitrary criterias – by patriarchy).
Kiuku
I was reading and contributing to Reclusive Leftist and a lot of other feminist blogs long before you came on the scene, Kiuku – at a time, I guess, when you were still in school. I don’t read them, however, because you comment on them. But you remember how this blog is supposed to work, don’t you? If you say something, you can expect to see it challenged – and all the emoticons and stage directions in brackets (*grins*) and abbreviations rotflmao and so on won’t prevent them from being challenged.
Anyway, far from being able to wholeheartedly support Violet Socks’s “good work” on the definition of “feminist” (which was merely, I repeat, to use a dictionary definition the upshot of which would be to make the bloggers here feminist) you have a quite different definition of the term:
A feminist is a woman who holds any views whatsoever, but who says (in this case rather half-heartedly in response to a leading question) that she is one. And the closer she is to a position of power, the more this fantastically lax definition (“Do you say that you’re a feminist? Are you a woman? – Pass!”) comes into a play.
Who is “us”, I wonder? But anyway, you are correct: nobody has claimed that reproductive rights are the be-all and end-all of feminism. But for the vast majority of feminists (i.e. not a ghetto) on- and off-line it is a defining issue, and I guess it would still be so for Violet Socks, for example, if Sarah Palin, who must be defended at all costs as a feminist, herself espoused it. I know that you think that men can be, at best, pro-feminist. But would you accept a male doctor as pro-feminist if he refused on the grounds of conscience to sign the authorization for a badly-needed abortion? Because, you know, Sarah Palin is absolutely opposed to abortion under any circumstances.
“A feminist is a woman who holds any views whatsoever, but who says… that she is one. And the closer she is to a position of power, the more this fantastically lax definition… comes into play.”
But Joe Biden is a feminist, Tom. Did you see the way he got choked-up about his kids? And we all know that no normal dad gets choked-up about his kids. He’s quite different from the kinds of evil liars that Glenn Sacks fronts for.
Tom, ref. #41 – by that definition Kiuku is not a feminist. She has made that very clear here.
Nolan,
You may simply be describing the effect of placing more weight on people who do feminist things, rather than simply say what they would support or believe in. Clearly a woman who is for instance, fighting for her right to do something, is more of a Feminist than someone who espouses feminism, even if she never heard the term. I think just growing up female, unless you are a rampant misogynist, has a way of making you a Feminist, and if you are a rampant misogynist, it is probably because you just haven’t been liberated yet.
I may be feminist because of what I believe in (principles), but not of feminist organizations. First there is the divide/antagonism with trans and intersex women, and I’d rather read about it than be implicated in it (I don’t think I have the strength for it). Second, there is the dismissal, ignorance and minization of men’s hurts. Saying “among them x women and children” is nice and all, but men are never mentioned.
The DV industry also does a good job of making most people believe women can’t hurt anyone, even when he has a black eye and a limp arm.
To be clear, the attitude existed before, the DV industry just reaffirmed the Victorian notion, but they made it worse by affriming it has scientific merit (neglecting much of the research results and presenting those that make them look good – even from the same research).
Schala,
I think that, being viewed as a woman, even though you’ve always viewed yourself as a woman, will be a Feminist making experience, even if you didn’t yet identify as Feminist. This is not necessarily the case, but you do a good deal of Patriarchal analysis, and so far as I can tell your Femininity and view of yourself as a woman is not dependent on men’s views of women through the Patriarchy which is real cool, and which is a big issue other Feminists have with T community.
Well, I’ve been exposed to rather clumsy, juvenile (an appropriate term for the time it occurred at), misogynistic comments. I also heard my fair share of misandrist comments. Who I ought to be ought to be for myself, and it isn’t negotiable. If I can’t be selfish with my own identity, at the least, then I won’t be no one.
I’ve had years of practice of leaving fashion and “what should be” way back over there, far from me. Those conventions I accept is because they suit me, or I can’t imagine doing it another way.
I wash my (very long) hair, once every two weeks. I almost never tie it. I never use gels or sprays in it. I never blow-dry it. I don’t dye it every week (I dyed my hair all of twice, and the last was only streaks). I dress with what I feel like wearing…and well, according to the temperature…I hate winter. Few people could even influence my choice of clothes or style.
I may be docile and rather submissive, but I have very sharp opinions about what I like or don’t like.
Aych is raising the frequent straw man again:
There are certainly areas where women are equal or perhaps better off. But rather than “every significant way,” it is more a matter of believing that on average women are worse off.
The followup is simple: if you believe that women as a class are worse off on average, then you are justified in focusing your attention on improving the lot of women as a class. This justification stems both from the desire to help the class who is worse off, and the efficiency that stems from a movement with a more pointed goal.
If you DO NOT believe that women as a class are generally worse off, then you lack the core belief to categorize yourself as feminist.
If you DO believe that women as a class are worse off and yet you insist on focusing your attention on situations where you help men, then you are, obviously, not acting in a feminist fashion.
If you DO believe that women as a class are worse off but insist on a “neutral” focus which divides your attention equally, then you are also not acting in a feminist fashion: your obligation as a feminist is to cure the disparity. You are certainly “more feminist” on a sliding scale than those who would increase the disparity, but if you’re not attempting to “close the gap” then you are not acting in a feminist fashion. This middle ground is the lair of those who ‘just focus on equality’ and the like.
It’s not so hard, really.
Sailorman: I put-in the phrase “every significant way” because it’s frequently open to interpretation and selective vision. A negative effect which carries a “significant” impact on women may no longer be considered “significant” if the same thing happens to men even if it objectively has an even bigger negative effect on them.
If women are worse-off in some way, it’s ipso facto significant. If men are worse-off in some way, it’s trivial BS which can be written-off.
But, really, this point is kind of moot.
I have a few questions about that “neutral” focus you mention in comment 67 Sailorman.
Are you trying to say that people with a neutral focus are no trying to close the gap?
Please explian how people that “just focus on equality” are trying to cure the disparity.
You say a feminist has an obligation to cure the disparity. If someone’s attention is being divided equally that means they are trying to deal with all disparities.
In the end it comes down to: If a “nuetral” person is trying to deal with all disparities then what makes them not a feminist? Is because they don’t think that the issues of women don’t take priority over everyone else’s or is there more to it?
So what happens when all of these feminist efforts result in women no longer being generally worse off than men? Do all feminist cease to be feminists? If you continue to take it on blind faith that women are worse off, even once they are not, are you not working against equality and for female superiority? If you’re taking it on blind faith (or isolated experience) that women are worse off, how do you know we aren’t past that point of general equality already?
You guys simply aren’t Feminists. I don’t know who in their right mind calls you guys feminists.
You guys simply aren’t Feminists. I don’t know who in their right mind calls you guys feminists.
By all means keep your title. If you need some label to help you identify who is “right” and who is “wrong” in order to save you the trouble of trying to see what they are about then more power to you. If I’m not mistaken you claim the title feminist right? I’m sure if the title feminist vanished from our language you would still be doing the things that you do to help women right?
If you’re taking it on blind faith (or isolated experience) that women are worse off, how do you know we aren’t past that point of general equality already?
Simple we don’t but they do. When it comes to feminists (and lots of other activists are like this) THEY are the ones that decide who has it worse, THEY are the ones that decide who has the unfair advantages, THEY are the ones that define what an unfair advantage is, and THEY are the ones that will let the rest of us know when we have equality.
Yes.
Obtaining equality from an unequal starting point requires that you act in an unequal manner. If you believe that Group A is disadvantaged (unequal) w/r/t Group B, then in order to correct that inequality you must preferentially give more help to Group A.
If you take the view “group A and B are both equally worthy of my help” and if you assist the groups equally, you are not closing the gap.
Because part of feminism is.. hell, i already discussed this.
Maybe so, as the movement would be functionally unneeded. But i haven’t put much thought into it; I’ll cross that bridge when i get to it.
Lots of straw man “ifs” in that bollock of a comment. but sure, those straw men won’t work.
“Obtaining equality from an unequal starting point requires that you act in an unequal manner. If you believe that Group A is disadvantaged (unequal) w/r/t Group B, then in order to correct that inequality you must preferentially give more help to Group A.”
So the worse-off you claim to be, the more free stuff you are owed. I like it!
Thank God it wouldn’t create any incentives to portray one’s group as being being worse-off than the others in an attempt to get a bigger share of “help”, eh? Why, if it did, it could turn into an “Oppression Olympics” of sorts as competing special interests jockey for the title of Biggest Victim.
So how much do we men owe women in reparations?
Obtaining equality from an unequal starting point requires that you act in an unequal manner. If you believe that Group A is disadvantaged (unequal) w/r/t Group B, then in order to correct that inequality you must preferentially give more help to Group A.
If you take the view “group A and B are both equally worthy of my help” and if you assist the groups equally, you are not closing the gap.
The only way that method works is if group A is worse off then group B in EVERY way meaning that group B has NO disadvantages.
Or if you think that A and B have issues to address and B’s issues will instantly be fixed as soon as you fix A’s issues. I’ve crossed paths with some feminists online that think thie way. “Everyone needs to embrace feminism because we are addressing women’s issues and men’s issues. But don’t try to bring men’s issues to front because the women’s issues are more important!” So yes men are supposed to embrace feminism because it will resolve men’s issues while at the same time being told that men’s issues MUST take a back seat to women’s issues…nice.
So let me get this straight. The As and Bs have issue’s. If I try to help them both I am not A-ist. If make the Bs my priority I am not an A-ist but instead a B-ist. So the only way to be an A-ist is to make resolving A’s issues my top priority and work under the belief that resolving A’s issues first is the only way to true equality?
My reaction to this is what I said about the title feminist in comment 72:
By all means keep your title. If you need some label to help you identify who is “right” and who is “wrong” in order to save you the trouble of trying to see what they are about then more power to you. If I’m not mistaken you claim the title feminist right? I’m sure if the title feminist vanished from our language you would still be doing the things that you do to help women right?
Oh come on aych you know that no one ever plays Oppresion Olympics…unless they can win (or lose depending on how you think about it). That is why some feminists will:
Play OO against men of all races all day everyday. Reminding a man of his male privilege (The ultimate feminist trump card of silence and shame. This thing is bigger than the Big Joker in a game of Spades.) is Auto-Win.
Not play OO against a woman who has more minority status than they have because that would mean they are trying to say they have it worse. They will announce their ally status while at the same time try to make sure they stay in line by removing their differences (like claiming the REAL issue is that they are all woman) and unite under womanhood to battle the evil patriarchy (because the patriarchy is the cause of ALL of their problems).
Not play OO against a man whose minority status involves anything other than race or involves race plus other things. Instead they will annouce their ally status…but will be ready to remind them of their male privilege should they appear to be playing OO.
JFA: How much? Until women say: “that’s enough.” Better start mailing-out those checks, boy.
And you’d better hope that their victim-status won’t mysteriously increase as time goes on.
But wouldn’t paying reparations to women be “benevolent sexism”? Assuming that they can’t do things on their own so someone must help them?
aych: Isn’t it terrible patronizing of men to think they can escape their responsibility by paying women of?
Men need to OWN their culpability. They need to admit to all their crimes. Even the thought crimes the commit on a daily basis.
Because feminist can read men’s thoughts. We know that from Kiuku. She claims to know that most men hate women and all men really want to become women!
Here’s a bit of science fresh off the press for Kiuku:
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_.....102908.php
That’s right Danny. We just cannot win this one.
Hm. I’m not sure if Sailorman is functioning as devil’s advocate or not.
This is how I take the situation.
Men like to rub their emotional genitals on women by helping them ‘slay’ their dragons. They’re masturbating themselves playing their white knight role; rubbing themselves to climax as they objectify women as ‘frailty’ objects and ‘solve’ their problems. Feminist males have exactly the same dynamic as chivalrous males except their reward is to be hated even more; feminists allow men to rape them spiritually _and_ punish them for it as well. What a sexual thrill for them!
By way of contrast, no matter how dire the situation is for men, these spiritual-rapists will refuse to acknowledge, not just because they want to rape women of their agency–by protecting them–but also because they are inherently homophobic; identifying with other men creates icky feelings in their emotional genitals.
In fact, in their denial of the difficulties men face, they both rape women of their agency and provide themselves endless emotional/spiritual pleasure but they also deny women any humanity–women are moral objects, not people.
Further the unexamined, reflexive belief that women are worse off no matter what, is merely a manifestation of their need to have unlimited supply of their pleasure of choice. It has nothing whatsoever to do with helping women–or at least the people women are supposed to be, since women aren’t people in their eyes.
They are nothing but frailty-objects. Any hint of agency must be forcibly suppressed!
Of course such men would absolutely despise women like me. We seek to be seen as actual people, not frailty-objects for their emotional-masturbation.
typhonblue,
There are plenty of people who inhabit such a fantasy land for a lack of meaning in reality. It’s a fantasy fuelled from both sides.
But probably there is some component of reality to it also. Fairy tales often relate to archetypes / evolved patters of thought.
JFA,
If a guy decides to avoid punching me in the face because I’m smaller and such an action is menacing and terroristic, that’s acceptable chivalry as far as I’m concerned.
But why shouldn’t I be held responsible? My husband says women are imbued by virtue of being the same gender as most primary care-givers with a ‘tone of voice’ that, itself, can be very stressful to hear because it can inspire obedience at a primal level. (This is just one example of instances where women naturally seem to possess more power then men)
Why shouldn’t I be held accountable for my effect on men by virtue of being a woman?
Actually, there is a lot of personal satisfaction in acknowledging the powers and influences you have over others and using them responsibly and respectfully. I think these guys I detailed in my little screed want to hog that feeling and keep it to themselves.
typhonblue: Your description of chivalrous and feminist men reminds me of the behaviour of possessive mothers towards their children. Maybe that’s where they learned this objectification?
You know, if I could have used the word ‘femservative’ men, I could have avoided the word feminist. I think this is one instance where the word works very well.
Yeah, I’d imagine so.
It seems a lot of dysfunctional, exploitive dynamics revolve around people who compulsively have to save frailty-objects and the people who compulsively act like frailty-objects in order to be saved. Neither side sees the other as really human, just a source of emotional-masturbation.
Learned helplessness… hm. (If I had a more substantial mustache, I’d be twirling it in thought.) XD
I can tell confidently that helplessness is possibly a big sexualized component, brought to day without any hypocrisy with BDSM and bondage, especially with female submissives, but it exists with male submissives as well (I just don’t know how they see it).
Well, apparently Josef Fritzl was beaten and humiliated by his mother regularly without reason.
Um…. no. Do you know what “preferentially” means? It’s not the same thing as “exclusively.”
That straw feminist is not me. I do not think that feminism is designed to focus on men’s issues as they are generally defined. (however, I think that many MRAs underestimate the secondary benefits of feminism.)
Well, you left out the important part, which is that (in your hypothetical) the As are worse off than the Bs.
Not exactly. You are putting in some various straw men here.
Clearly this is sour grapes. Funny how most of the people who think the word is ridiculous are those who are, conveniently, opposed to the movement.
Technically, you are correct. However, in application, preferential treatment most often results in exclusive treatment, particularly when following the method you mentioned above. Another point is one cannot fix an imbalance by creating another imbalance in the hope that the two null each other out. Historically speaking, this generally does not work, resulting instead in simply shifting the imbalance from one side to the other.
In the case of feminism, this is further compounded by the majority of women’s disadvantages being things neither men or women benefit from, such as absence of services for victims of violence. In this instance, giving preferential treatment to women results in disadvantaging males.
I have experienced what Danny mentioned while doing advocacy work for male victims of sexual abuse. I agree that feminism is not equipped or capable of addressing men’s issues. However, that is not the message that feminists disseminate. The message generally is that by supporting feminism, men’s lives and their issues will be addressed, despite that few feminists even acknowledge men’s issues exist, and the few who generally do not consider them worth addressing.
As for the secondary benefits, I am not sure what you mean.
The same could be said of feminists and their response to MRAs, FRAs and male victims’ advocates. I would find that more piteous and banal rather than funny.
That straw feminist is not me. I do not think that feminism is designed to focus on men’s issues as they are generally defined. (however, I think that many MRAs underestimate the secondary benefits of feminism.)
What makes you so sure its a straw feminist? Just because you yourself don’t think that way does mean that no one does. That is why I specified that it was “some of the feminists that I have crossed paths with online”. Now if I were to go around proclaiming that all feminists were like that then you would have a point.
(however, I think that many MRAs underestimate the secondary benefits of feminism.)
I’m curious. What would these secondary benefits be?
Well, you left out the important part, which is that (in your hypothetical) the As are worse off than the Bs.
Based on what? And I seriously mean this because if its the As deciding that they are worse off than the Bs then can really if really be called a proper analysis of the issues? And even when an A and B can agree that the As have it worse wouldn’t you agree that there is only so much you can do before you start to discriminate, injure, or otherwise harm the Bs? (Now that is not to say that all ways to help the As will harm the Bs mind you.)
Not exactly. You are putting in some various straw men here.
Then please point out said strawmen.
Clearly this is sour grapes. Funny how most of the people who think the word is ridiculous are those who are, conveniently, opposed to the movement.
You obviously aren’t paying attention. I never said the word was ridiculous. I’m saying that the fact that people make such a big deal about it is ridiculous. And who said anything about opposing the movement? Some parts and people in the movement perhaps but not the whole thing. Feminism has done some good things. But don’t waste the pat on your back thinking that feminism is the only movement in human history that has a perfect record.
Other than your point about preferentially vs. exclusive (which is a good point) the rest of your comment is summed up into, “Since I don’t think that way no one does.” and “The only reason you think its a ridiculous is because you are against the movement.” Neither of which is true.
TB,
re: #85 – I call those people “charity vampires.” Just now in our area their favorite hunting ground is in homeless advocacy. They pose as defending homeless people when in fact what they are doing is keeping homeless people dependent (on them).
[...] asked if he and his cohorts at “Feminist Critics” are feminists by this definition. Daisy responded in part: Feminism is a movement. I think [...]
Got here by several links through interesting things….
I don’t know what strawfeminist movement you’re talking about.
If anything represents the “establishment” feminist movement, Ms. Magazine does, surely? Well, it’s had a lot of men’s voices and has repeatedly addressed the issue of sexist restrictions on boys. The mainstream *is* the gender-egalitarian “wing”.
“I’d like to see a movement which genuinely adheres to the stated principles of equality, non-discrimination, and opposition to the enforcement of gender roles.”
That would be the “mainstream feminist movement”. I have no idea what movement you are actually criticizing, and your extreme failure to be specific makes the entire “criticism” bogus. I know there are some seriously troublesome wings of the feminist movement which have gone in very wrong directions, but they are not the mainstream by any means. Are you attacking MacKinnon/Dworkin pro-censorship ‘feminism’, or lesbian separatist ‘feminism’, or essentialist ‘feminism’? Be specific. The majority of feminists, and the major organizations (NOW, for instance) don’t support any of these splinter groups either.
“Actually, I don’t even think feminists have even _looked_ at the male side. Just made the assumption that somehow they have more control over society and that their role is both preferable and more powerful then women’s.”
Have you ever *READ* any modern mainstream feminist literature? You should try it.
In fact, feminists have looked at the male side, and identified very serious and abusive gender roles restricting male activity, noted that boys actually get murdered for violating them, advocated that these restrictions end, etc. etc. Women in that movement have also said “But it’s the men’s problem first; we will support their liberation, but we must not take sole responsibility for it, just as white people cannot take sole responsibility for ‘freeing’ black people.”
Heck, I saw many of the early articles on this topic in Ms. Magazine in the 1980s and 1990s.
Aych, hold your breath for three days.
Welcome to our blog Anon. Although you are welcome to post without disclosing identifying information, we’d prefer it it you could post under a name which is more distinguishable from everyone else who does the same.
I’ll try to respond to your substantive points shortly.
aych its like I said before. Feminism is a shell game in which the ball moves even after the shells stop moving and you have picked one. And I’ll give you one good guess who is moving the shells and who moves the ball.
Anon. they may have looked at the male side of things but the problem is they make assumptions about the male side. Namely the assumption that since most men have it better than most women then all men have it better than all women when it comes to gender (one of the biggest arguments about male privilege).
And while there are feminists that do take the “Yes men have issues and we will help them but we won’t do it for them.” attitude there some out there that take the “If men would embrace feminism it would solve all their problems too.” attitude.
Well I suppose if there were some Feminism-Not Feminism continuum, ya’ll might fall more on the side of Feminism than, for instance, Jessica Valenti, who is a complete disgrace to the movement, imo.
Yes I have.
Unfortunately there is still the assumption that women have it worse and thus should be focused on, usually to the exclusion of men. (As with domestic violence.)
The discussions in Ms. Magazine did not address society’s devaluing of males, treating males as disposable or question the idea that males are inherently violent, abusive, oppressive and aggressive, nor did the discussions include the part women play in reinforcing misandrist norms in our society. What the magazine did was question whether boys should conform to conventional norms for masculinity. As we have seen in the last thirty years of the feminist movement, questioning masculinity does not alter the social expectations placed on boys and men. To the contrary, feminism continues to perpetuate them. That is far from gender-egalitarianism.
The mainstream feminist movement does not support, for example, providing services to male victims of domestic violence and rape. Mainstream feminism does not support removing male invisibility, i.e. instances where male victims are not mentioned and not acknowledged. Mainstream feminists do not support organizations that do provide services to men and boys, nor do they question the misandry present within their branch of the feminist movement or any others. Actually, the opposite is quite often the case. Instead of simply ignoring these issues, mainstream feminists deny they even exist, regardless of evidence demonstrating otherwise.
That is a common claim, however, you were familiar enough with the presented positions of what feminism is and is not that you were able to attribute the positive aspects of what feminism should be to the movement you appear to support, so you do apparently know exactly what is being criticized.
That is not looking at the male side. Just as the female side is not limited to women being stuck in a kitchen, the male side is not just limited to boys and men being told to be tough. There are a whole host of issues, ranging from male disposability to female violence against males, that represent the male side. None of those issues are regularly discussed by feminists, nor do feminists seem interested in bring the topics up.
Essentialism is the hallmark of Anti-Feminism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-feminism
So, in that case, criticisms of essentialist beliefs are not good criticisms of Feminism.
and if you read the description, sounds exactly like you all. Describes your site perfectly. Describes your so-called issues perfectly. Describes you.
Not Feminism.
An ironically essentialist position.
Well Kuiki I don’t think anyone here claims the title feminist and as for being anti-feminist…there is a big difference between disagreeing with some of the ideas and people in the movement and just writing off the entire movement. If this place was anti-feminist, why haven’t you or any of the other feminists that post here been kicked/banned from this site? If this place was anti-feminist why do Daran and the bloggers here go out of the way to make sure feminists get a fair say (which is usually in the form of keeping an eye on aych’s comments)? And if this place was anti-feminist then why hasn’t anyone here just gone off on a childish name calling spree on you or any other feminist that posts here?
One more: If this place was anti-feminist then why is there a page that lists the legitimate concerns of feminists?
Say what you want but at best this place could be called non-feminist but anti-feminist is not accurate.
[shrug] It’s a matter of conclusions.
People can look at the same set of information and come to different conclusions. But the conclusions they come to say quite a bit. And the conclusions drive the truthfulness of their claims to belong to particular moral groups.
So you can in theory conclude that jesus was, or was not, some sort of god. (though I cringe at the word ‘conclude’ in a religious context) But whether or not you and I agree on jesus’ status, we should easily be able to agree that “there is a movement called christianity, and reaching a conclusion that supports the godly nature of jesus is a core requirement of that movement.”
This agreement holds even if you think christianity is nuts, or that atheism is nuts, or whatever.
Similarly you can look at the evidence and conclude that women are, on average, worse off than men. Or you can conclude that women and men are equally well off.
But no matter what you think, you should be able to understand that “there is a movement called feminism and reaching a conclusion that the world on average is currently biased against women in comparison to men is a core requirement of that movement.”
You CAN call yourself a christian “but not believe in the whole jesus thing.” You CAN call yourself an anti-racist “but think that we are in a state of equality right now.” You CAN call yourself a feminist “but think that men have it worse or that at least women are no worse off.”
You CAN call yourself a scientist and geologist “but believe, based on all the evidence, that the world is 6,234 years old.”
All of those positions are bullshit, however.
It’s not that the CONCLUSION is wrong. You are entitled to conclude whatever you want based on the evidence, even though I think you may be incorrect. It’s that certain conclusions (or lack thereof) disqualify you from claiming membership in certain groups.
Why is that so hard to understand?
Actually, only the last one is bullshit and only because of the methodology scientists and geologists employ. There are, however, whole branches of Christians who do not consider Jesus is literally God incarnate, just as there are many anti-racist people who genuinely believe we are in a state of equality, just as there are feminists who genuinely believe men have it worse or that women are no worse off.
The underlying reason why this occurs is because the evidence can be interpreted any number of ways and, as in the instances above, previously ignored or disregarded evidence may be considered valid.
So this is the fundamental dividing line between feminism and non-feminism? Okay, good, glad to clear it up that equality has nothing to do with it.
The position that men have it worse is bullshit?
Currently there is at least one situation where men have it considerably worse then women. That of genital integrity. I’m not going to get into an argument about the relative sexual loss; just imagine whatever you think is physically equivalent to a foreskin on a woman (and there has to be something, since both sets of genitals arise from the same un-sex differentiated genital tubicle.)
Whatever you think is physically equivalent to a foreskin on a woman is _illegal_ to cut off a woman without her consent for any reason. Women, in our society have the right to genital integrity. Men do not.
A man’s genitals can be cut to conform to the aesthetic wishes of his mother, legally. A woman’s genitals cannot be cut to conform to the aesthetic wishes of her father.
How did this come about in a society that values men over women? This is the most basic right a person has; the right to their own bodily integrity, a right to informed consent prior to surgery that alters a functional, healthy body part.
Men don’t have this basic right in our society. At least when it comes to their penises. (I suppose if a mother took her infant son in and said she found ears to be unaesthetic and wanted them removed, the hospital would refuse her. Which makes one wonder why it’s that _specific_ body part that’s singled out for routine and medically unnecessary surgical alteration from its natural state.)
You would think a patriarchy would, at least, be a bit more protective of its son’s penises.
First: can y’all learn to read/summarize more accurately, or can we agree that “having it worse” is applied to a general or average sense, and not a specific sense? I do not want to constantly be forced to address your inaccurate summaries, nor to fight a series of straw men.
Comment by typhonblue | November 6, 2008 at 2:59 pm
The position that men have it worse is bullshit?
Um, no. That is merely a position (if applied on a general and not specific level) which is incompatible with feminism.
Comment by TS | November 6, 2008 at 1:55 pm
There are, however, whole branches of Christians who do not consider Jesus is literally God incarnate
This can easily side track into a semantics discussion, but I do not think it is accurate to classify someone as a christian who does not accept some sort of extrahuman position for jesus or, at the very least, who does not give his purported teachings a weight which is disproportionate to their intrinsic value. Self identification is not always accurate.
just as there are many anti-racist people who genuinely believe we are in a state of equality, just as there are feminists who genuinely believe men have it worse or that women are no worse off.
No, that’s the point. There are not, in fact, feminists who genuinely believe that men have it worse. There are people who incorrectly refer to themselves as feminists who believe that men have it worse, but that is an issue of incorrect identification.
Are there Objectivists who believe that society should tax heavily according to ability and distribute resources according to need? No. there may be people with those beliefe who refer to themselves as objectivists, but that’s not what they are.
Similarly, people who believe that men are generally disadvantaged over women may choose to refer to themselves as feminists, but that’s not what they are.
What if we don’t agree that neither males or female has it worse in the general sense?
Because if we go into specifics to make a “tally”, you’ll find that:
1) Statistics are lacking to make this assumption
2) Many specifics are not countable, even if statistics were available
3) Many specifics are ignored, and sometimes, even seen as an advantage when its an inconvenient (such as having to provide being the consequence of being forced to work).
4) No one is unbiased enough to make such a tally, were it even possible. Popular vote is an even worst idea.
As such, the conclusion “women have it worse” generally, while applicable to places where the situation is visibly one-sided (such as places where women are routinely and in great numbers slaves of men, and men cannot be slaves), is very hazy when trying to apply it to a country such as Canada, or the US.
We cannot assume the premise to be true without being able to measure it in some way. Saying the wage gap says it all is only one variable amongst thousands, and then we have to define how much value each variables have to be able to compare them.
Different people will place different values on said variables.
As such, someone like me who doesn’t care about going above the glass-ceiling, doesn’t have a personal problem with it, it doesn’t affect me.
Someone like me who is pacifist and unfit to serve in combat roles, doesn’t care if the restrictions applied to it and/or the climate in the army is disfavorable to women – I never wanted to join and wouldn’t even if it was the opposite slant (with women favored).
So if I was to define the values of combat roles/army in general, it would have low/insignificant value to me. Same for the wage gap, I’m paid at or near the minimum wage, so are all my coworkers. I’m not discriminated because I’m part of the 6% working in my position (functionalty tester in videogame testing) who are female.
No, it’s a position which is incompatible with Sailorman’s definition of feminism (and, admittedly, many other gynocentric feminists). As has been pointed out before, Merriam-Webster offers different definitions:
You’ll note that nothing in either of MW’s definitions alludes to a judgment about which gender has it worse.
And, what Schala said.
Let us first drop the snark and sarcasm. I understand you do not agree with anyone’s position here, but that does not grant you the liberty to use the tone you have taken in your posts. Treat the posters and bloggers here as you would have them treat you, that is with the most basic level of civility and good faith. We can disagree without resorting to the lowest form of wit.
Secondly, I agree with Schala.
Technically, that is an opinion, not a fact, and that is part of the reason this is an issue in the first place. It is unclear what criteria qualifies a person as a feminist. As you noted, self identification is not always accurate, and there are plenty of feminists who would not count you among them despite your agreeing with their positions, yet (I would imagine) you call yourself a feminist.
Sailorman, I would go so far as to say that talking about “group A having it worse than group B in a general or average sense” is a pretty pointless concept, even when having only one parameter of “having it bad”. No matter what definition of “group A has it worse than group B in a general/average sense”, I am pretty sure I could come up with examples satisfying your definition where the statement “members of group A have it worse than members of group B” would look very odd. (For example by having one incrdibly happy person in group B, while the rest in group B lives a miserable life.)
My impression is that many feminists consider the comparison of two groups of people far easier than it really is, and simply go by appeal to “common sense”.
I think that we can compare due to ‘points of disadvantage.’
For example, generally the valued class is given far more property rights regarding their bodies then the less valued classes. This extends to ‘property rights’ regarding children as well. And rights to the fruit of their own labor.
The valued class’s subjectivity is far more important; the less-valued class’s subjectivity is irrelevant or considered non-existent–their actions, specifically their effect on the valued class, are more important. Often the valued-class is seen as the moral centre of society while the less-valued class is innately destructive to society.
As Danny said way earlier up the thread, there does seem to be some issue with using “feminist” and “progressive” interchangeably.
While this site does seem to be quite progressive, and egalitarian, it is not “feminist.” I think a person can, quite comfortably, be a feminist, a progressive, and an egalitarian all at the same time.
Of course feminism is gynocentric. As a movement, it’s very creation was in reaction to injustices visited upon women, specifically. This is not to say that injustices don’t happen to everyone else, or that even some of the same injustices don’t happen to men for some reason or another.
As of right now, there is no one single, broad, progressive anti-injustice movement (with the exception of such organizations as Amnesty International, et al.). When such a movement has been tried in the past it rather blatantly put issues that effect women specifically on the back burner. “We’ll get to you later, Sweety. We have to deal with the big important men’s issues first.”
So the progressive women said, “Well how about we just start our own movement and deal with them right now?” And so, here we are.
There are a myriad of groups working for advancement of underprivileged people, almost all of them specific to one group or another. It’s odd that amongst all of these movements it seems only feminism comes under constant and specific attack for non-inclusiveness.
It’s a bit like saying, “Why don’t the GLBT groups work harder to raise awareness about race issues?” Although with a lot of the nonsense I’ve been hearing about after Prop. 8 in California, that’s not such a bad question.
In my little Utopian fantasy, all these movements would eventually merge into one giant, egalitarian, progressive movement. Then we could finally stop arguing about what “Feminism” means.
Zobabe:
A. Can you please tell me what “big, important” “men’s issues” were being dealt with while the little ladies sat at home, sffering in silence?
B. The dictionary definition of feminism would lead one to believe it is a far more inclusive movement than what it seems it really is. And yet, there really are feminists (and you know this) who would claim that men’s issues can be cured by the application of feminism, but that we must focus on women and children first.
[...] another thread, ZoBabe makes an assertion which is not uncommon among gynocentric feminists: Of course feminism is gynocentric. As a movement, it’s very creation [...]
This is a quote from a feminist at Renee’s blog.
I think it’s indicative of why people who are interested in Men’s Rights put feminist theory in their cross-hairs.
Feminists are saying more then that they’re ‘helping women’; they’re also saying they’re helping men. They’re saying that they’re ‘changing the traditional roles of masculinity’, challenging things that also hurt men, etc. etc. In short they are saying that feminism helps men. And that men should shut up and help women because that’s going to help them in the long run.
Aside from all the problems I have with feminist theory, I find this attitude is eerily similar to antiquated attitudes about the roles of the sexes:
Men take responsibility for women and are–somehow–benefited by taking responsibility for women.
@typhonblue: I agree that women are considered more valuable than men by Western society. However, that doesn’t quite mean that women get “happiness” from that.
And also, not every women is considered equally valuable, and there are specific men who are considered more valuable than some specific women.
You cannot *really* compare any two groups; you have to use statistical measures like average or median, or something like that, and the used measure also very often jumps around. (For example, if someone would state that men are better at chess than women because there are far more great chess players than great femal players, that person would only look at the tops of men and women and ignore the greatest part of men.)
TB: And that men should shut up and help women because that’s going to help them in the long run.
Sounds oddly familiar…
As far as “men should shut up and help women,” not my position at all. I think that with a progressive mindset, a lot of the issues that feminists hold near and dear, such as the harmfulness of predetermined sex roles and social disciplining on those lines, would just naturally fall under the gambit of a men’s progressive movement as well.
Thus feminists and the men’s movement would be in agreement on that issue and could work together.
On issues where there is contention, e.g. favoritism toward women within family law, male only draft, etc… having a separate, independent, men’s movement would certainly help toward checks and balances, assuming the common goal is eventual egalitarianism.
What I do not agree with is the presumption on the part of many male visitors to feminist sites that all of this should naturally fall on the shoulders of feminists, and that it is somehow hypocritical for feminists not to give equal time, always, to men’s issues.
Clarence: I never said the ladies were sitting at home suffering in silence. They were showing their support for progressive causes by being allowed to fetch coffee and type. When it became clear that that was the extent of the input they were expected to have, the movement no longer seemed quite “progressive” enough.
@ZoBabe: To me it is obvious that “feminism” holds a monopoly over all gender-related issues in media and society, and many feminists seem to be eager to defend this monopoly and kepp control over the debate (where male suffering or problems have little to no room). Also, many feminists do write about men quite a lot; it’s only that they mostly don’t write about men as victims, but men as oppressors (or men as champions for feminism).
Most male dissident commenters on feminist websites seem to object to statements which insinuate that “maleness as such” is the root of women’s problems (and will be until men obediently do everything as women/feminists tell them to do), or comparative statements about how women suffer much more from something than men, when there haven’t even been studies about how strongly men suffer from that something (please not that I use “women suffer more from X” in a rather colloquial sense; personally, I don’t believe that a *group* can suffer, only individuals of that group), or insulting remarks to a group of people who have different views from the feminist writer.
Well, and then there are the rare cases of men wanting to reinstall patriarchy as defined by feminists, and yes, I have seen those, and no, they really are not common.
That’s fine.
As long as feminists are willing to accept they don’t have the last word on gender or gender-related oppression.
typhonblue:
I’m totally okay with that. That’s why I think feminism and egalitarianism are not mutually exclusive. Many bloggers and commenters here do not identify as feminist, but are clearly egalitarian. I do not find myself in any great disagreement with them, except perhaps in perception of certain situations. And I have no problem with other people’s perceptions not always matching my own.
As has been pointed out, not all feminists are egalitarians either. So there is clearly room for cross-section.
It is from my own perceptions that I identify as feminist.
Well, and then there are the rare cases of men wanting to reinstall patriarchy as defined by feminists, and yes, I have seen those, and no, they really are not common.
Good luck telling some feminists that. According to them if you don’t agree with feminism 1234567890% then you must want to reinstall the patriarchy. Why? Because they sincerely think they are above external criticism.
Danny: “they sincerely think they are above external criticism.”
I’m not sure that’s quite it. Women, long before feminism, have been able to demand and expect automatic respect as women, operating in the personal sphere at least. A woman could lose a certain amount of respect by being too “easy” sexually, but othrwise she doesn’t have to do anything to earn it. A man who doesn’t “respect women” is seen as a bad man. As a result a woman may have had to put up with being patronised, but not with being contradicted.
What I think has happened is that women have entered the worlds of business and politics, formerly male domains, believing the kind of respect that men enjoy in those domains is of the same type – automatic unless you do something to lose it.
I’ve had arguments on Comment is Free with a feminist who appeared to sincerely believe that before women entered the workforce, men were given good jobs on a plate (rather than having to compete for them against other men). On Saturday on CiF another feminist has argued (in an article about Sarah Palin) that “What we need is a world in which women are treated by both sexes with the respect that is automatically granted to men.”
But respect in those fields has always had to be earned, in a competition of ideas, achievements and personalities. Some women understand this and achieve. Others assume they will receive respect by default like they do in the personal sphere, and think they’re being discriminated against when they don’t.
Excellent break down Pat. I think I may have been writing off that assumption of respect as just arrogance. While I think it is arrogant for them to think that simply being a woman should grant them respect outside the personal shpere and foolish for them them to think that men are just given respect outside the personal shpere you do clear things up a bit.
When I look at anything that is traditionally male dominated with women breaking onto the scene I see two types of women. 1. Those that try to make a name for themselves on the “Girl Power” ticket. 2. Those that just step to the plate and put their skills where their mouths are. Which ones would you rather deal with? All I’m saying is that in my day’s of hanging out in arcades the women/girls that just came in and played (win or lose) got much more respect than the ones that depended on their gender to get by…
Where is respect automatically granted to men?
My God.
Aych, what do you think of this quote:
Off the record, there are those who acknowledge the stresses of being FTM [Female to Male]- the probable loss of family, friends and the serious issue of being misunderstood by most everyone – are problems mitigated by the curious pleasures and privileges of living as a man. “I could sit in a sports bar smoking a cigar, having a drink,” I was told by one FTM, “and I felt safe. No one was wondering if I was available, to anyone, for anything.”
Or this one:
Steinberg is one person not afraid to admit that passing for male has its upside. “Even store clerks are more cordial,” he says. “The benefits of being male are real, and anybody who doesn’t admit it is kidding themselves. Of course there’s also the downside – I might well go bald.”
Both quotes from here
These folks have experienced being perceived as both genders, and think being a man is easier.
And we have Norah Vincent who weights a definite ‘no’ in on the side of men having it better. (Went FTM as an undercover reporter.)
There was another MTF I read about who said(and I paraphrase):
“Women have all the power in society. They don’t even have to be attractive. They should start realizing it!”
Maybe the dividing line is wether or not you’re MTF or FTM? And that all transgender are more inclined to seeing the ‘benefits’ of becoming the gender they want to be; one has to extract that personal benefit from their observations.
So Norah Vincent’s experience is possibly the most applicable. She never wanted to be a man; she just wanted to find out what it was like to live as one.
(And, yes, she did recognize the invisibility. But she also found the invisibility came with some very serious drawbacks.)
Take a look how the Victorians structured their social interactions between men and women.
1. Men must never address a woman directly until she addresses him first.
2. Men must wait quietly, eyes down cast, until a woman decides to address him. Making no move to turn her attention from whatever it is she is engaged with.
3. Men must never, under any circumstances, touch a woman.
This was, supposedly, to ensure that a woman didn’t appear ‘loose’. How convenient that it also had the secondary effect of making a man subservient.
There is a trick with working with dogs. You let the dog come to you after you indicate receptivity to its advance. It establishes your dominance over it.
What do I think of those quotes, D? They’re subjective comments made by somebody who didn’t like living as a woman. And, now that they’ve made a transition, everything feels better. It’s not necessarily because everyone treats them better.
Come on, “store clerks are more cordial”? You don’t think that’s completely subjective? Odds are that the individual (Steinberg) gets about the same treatment by store clerks as she used to but she simply regards it as more cordial now.
I bet food tastes better for this person now. I bet sleep is more restful for this person. I bet the weather seems a little better to this person, as well. So what?
So DaisyDeadhead women who comment that men have it easier than women are on to something. FTM who comment that men have it easier are on to something. But the opinions of men that try to say that its not as easy as it looks to be male are just “blind to their male privilege” right?
This is right in line with feminists deciding what male privilege is while at the same time deciding that there is no such thing as female privilege. I guess human rights are pretty easy to deal with when you set all the parameters yourself right?
And I would very much like to hear and answer to aych’s question in comment 126.
Danny: 127, I think you mean.
Pfft, am I alone in seeing the facilness of using such an article as proof that men are automatically accorded respect? It has FTMs talking about how much better they feeel that they’ve made the transition. Their subjective feelings prove that men are automatically accorded respect by storeclerks, for example. One enthuses: “Now people bend-over backwards to call me ‘sir’”.
Right, because being called “sir” by a clerk is a huuuuuge honor. It requires that the clerk bend-over backwards to utter a three-letter word. The novelty hasn’t worn-off, I guess.
By the same token, I bet the sun shines a little bit brighter too. Proof that the weather treats men better, no doubt.
Norah Vincent?!? (((coughs))) Sorry, I can’t take a self-defined conservative seriously, so that one’s on me.
Take a look how the Victorians structured their social interactions between men and women.
Such interactions applied only to the bourgeois classes, of course, not the unwashed masses of England. (i.e. the majority)
But the opinions of men that try to say that its not as easy as it looks to be male are just “blind to their male privilege” right?
Excuse me, but where did I say this? I try not to use the word “blind” as an insult, so I think your quote comes from someone else. Please don’t put quotes around words I didn’t say, then ask me to explain them, okay? (One reason I stopped posting here some time ago, was this CONSTANT tendency to put words in my mouth.)
And I would very much like to hear and answer to aych’s question in comment 126.
Go ahead.
Oh you mean hear ME answer? Well, umm, my post was an attempt to answer directly in a creative way. As usual, it wasn’t to your liking. Oh well.
She’s a conservative lesbian?
That just made her even more interesting, IMHO. Besides, what do her political leanings have to do with her observations? From what I read, a lot of them would rub conservatives the wrong way as well.
Read her whole book and never once got the idea that she spoke with a political agenda in mind.
And the bourgeois and upper class were a useless appendix to Victorian society. They had nothing, whatsoever, to do with the government and rulership of said society.
Ummmm Daisy that is why I said that in the form of a question. By asking if you believe that way I am giving you the opportunity to address it as you see fit. If I wanted to put words in your mouth I would have made a statement not a question.
And about an answer to aych’s 126 I wasn’t pointing at you. One thing I cannot deny about you so far is that you are willing to talk to people who don’t agree with you instead of the common say your piece and if people disagree run back to your safe space and cry foul and shout names.
She’s a conservative lesbian?
Yes. She’s also anti-abortion.
And the bourgeois and upper class were a useless appendix to Victorian society. They had nothing, whatsoever, to do with the government and rulership of said society.
The House of Lords wasn’t bourgeois? The parliament wasn’t made of bourgeois, educated lawyers who could read when the majority of people could not? Well, fuck me. I had no idea.
In the nineteenth century? No, they weren’t bourgeois, they were titled aristocrats by and large, with an admixture of higher clergy.
Danny, well, thank you.
“Male privilege” is one of those phrases I reserve for a particular point of view or specific situation. Yes, I use the term, but not in a “blanket” way.
The last time I used the term was regards the election. I felt Hillary Clinton was subjected to a double standard regarding her age, attractiveness and appearance. I don’t think men in the race were jeered at the way she was, and THAT, freedom from sexually-based jeering, baiting and cat-calls, is a male privilege. The closest any other candidate got was John Edwards getting called ‘pretty boy’ over his expensive haircut. Even so, his basic humanity was not called into question because of the way he looked. The way Hillary was savaged really took me aback, and no, I didn’t vote for her or back her for president. I just GAPED at the nastiness. It was all out of proportion and totally sexist.
Male privilege = long line for the women’s restroom, three guys in line for the men’s.
Yes, I have gone in the guys, I figure they can go ahead and arrest me. I always ask first and so far, no objections, but plenty of laughter: “Need any help in there?” hardy har har. Still, ain’t skeered!
““Even store clerks are more cordial,” he says. “The benefits of being male are real, and anybody who doesn’t admit it is kidding themselves. Of course there’s also the downside – I might well go bald.””
Well, as someone going MtF, I’d also say store clerks are more cordial now. For one, they don’t say Mr 30 times in one sentence to annoy me as much as possible, or ignore me altogether. They’re also more likely to give me unsollicited tips and such, which I’d probably never even known about if not for that. I figure they think women are more receptive/accepting of suggestions
I don’t believe the premise that they do that because they think I know nothing, solely to patronize me. It would be like chastizing the maitre d’ in a restaurant for being attentive to his clientele (asking if the meal is alright, if you need anything more, maybe other little things). Oh and female clerks do it a lot more, as well, from my experience.
I know a conservative MtF intersex (not me), not personally, but I post on the same forums often. I’m not conservative myself, I’m probably more socialist-liberal.
And she is one of the most vocal about respecting differences absent of bigotry, she certainly wouldn’t have voted yes on 8.
Re Norah Vincent being a “conservative”. Do you really believe the world is made up of two classes of people, only one of whom can possibly have anything worthwhile to say?
Catty remarks over a woman’s looks?
Well, we all know straight men are prone to this. >_<
Come on? Who are the people who ‘go there’?
And why were Hillary’s looks more germain then, say, that she’s a man-beater?
@Daisy:
The whole appearance thing during Hillary’s run I agree was male privilege. It was extremely unfair that people felt the need to constantly comment on her looks as if they someone made a difference in her stances on the issues.
Male privilege = long line for the women’s restroom, three guys in line for the men’s.
Yes, I have gone in the guys, I figure they can go ahead and arrest me. I always ask first and so far, no objections, but plenty of laughter: “Need any help in there?” hardy har har. Still, ain’t skeered!
I’m not gonna pretend to understand your frustration on bathroom lines but I really don’t think that is male privilege. That is just a difference in biology.
And truth be told when the men’s room is out of order and no women were around I’ve ducked into the ladies room. But I did remember to put the seat back down…
Uh, Daisy, you DO recall that Dennis Kucinich was subject to plenty of vicious mockery about his looks, right? And that John Edwards’ hair got made fun of ceaselessly for being too good-looking? Or did none of that filter through your selective vision to make it into your selective memory?
Being made fun of is part of being a public figure. But Hillary really should’ve been exempt from all that, I guess. Much in the same way that she was also exempt from being assailed as a coward for not serving in Vietnam.
Make no jokes about Hillary! It’s sexist.
Hey, would it have been less sexist if she’d been called a coward for not getting shot-at by Viet Cong in the rice paddies? Equality, remember?
…and now for an alternative point of view…
“One of Young’s more interesting cases was a hermaphrodite named Emma who had grown up as a female. Emma had both a penis-size clitoris and a vagina, which made it possible for him/ her to have “normal” heterosexual sex with both men and women. As a teenager Emma had had sex with a number of girls to whom s/he was deeply attracted; but at the age of nineteen s/he had married a man. Unfortunately, he had given Emma little sexual pleasure (though he had had no complaints), and so throughout that marriage and subsequent ones Emma had kept girlfriends on the side. With some frequency s/he had pleasurable sex with them. Young describes his subject as appearing “to be quite content and even happy.” In conversation Emma occasionally told him of his/her wish to be a man, a circumstance Young said would be relatively easy to bring about. But Emma’s reply strikes a heroic blow for self-interest:
Would you have to remove that vagina? I don’t know about that because that’s my meal ticket. If you did that, I would have to quit my husband and go to work, so I think I’ll keep it and stay as I am. My husband supports me well, and even though I don’t have any sexual pleasure with him, I do have lots with my girlfriends.”
Pat: Failure to see what that has to do with anything. Hermaphrodite marries man based on preconceived notions of sex roles, yet enjoys hetero-style sex with women more=women don’t enjoy heterosexual sex but just use it for material gain?
Huh? Are you mirroring the party-line, or coming up with something interesting?
Surely you can do better than that.
Uh, Daisy, you DO recall that Dennis Kucinich was subject to plenty of vicious mockery about his looks, right?
Sexual remarks? When? Quotes? Anything like “boner shrinker”? Ball-buster? “Menopausal insanity”?
There aren’t even any equivalents for those insults.
I know I got literally thousands of hits on my blog for Elizabeth Kucinich’s photos… and I quoted (same post) where he bragged about being married to a younger woman. On REDDIT and other places my post with these photos was linked, I read nothing but admiration (from both sexes) for how short and nerdy he was, nonetheless marrying a tall, stunning redhead. “He must know how to do something right!”–would be the polite way to phrase the admiring posts I read, by the hundreds.
Try again.
And that John Edwards’ hair got made fun of ceaselessly for being too good-looking?
And no overtly sexual insults, until he suddenly acted like Barney Fife (I posted about that too) and ran down the hall of the Hyatt, locking himself in the bathroom to avoid the National Enquirer.
Or did none of that filter through your selective vision to make it into your selective memory?
I would ask you the same question.
(PS: Why is Aych allowed to be so nasty, but when I spoke this same way to typhonblue, I was reprimanded?)
I haven’t yet met a woman, other then myself, who will get off her ass and help men when they’re doing ‘man-work’.
Good God, where do you LIVE? Obviously, you need to come down south.
Down here, women (like my daughter, living on a ranch) haul some serious ass.
Do you really believe the world is made up of two classes of people, only one of whom can possibly have anything worthwhile to say?
There are two classes of people: people who believe there are two classes of people, and people who don’t.–Dorothy Parker.
Lots more than just two!
Daisy: he was mainly called short and ugly, yet you seem to think that counts as a form of praise. He specifically needs to be called something like “boner-shrinker” before its an insult? That’s ridiculous. Is Hillary owed extra protection from mockery simply because she’s a woman?
Besides, wouldn’t it have been equality for people to have called her a coward for not shipping-out to Vietnam? She was certainly able-bodied at the time, she could’ve gone as a WAC. Why is it that those who are upset about a double-standard over Hillary’s treatment by the media NEVER bring that one up?
He specifically needs to be called something like “boner-shrinker” before its an insult?
I didn’t SAY it wasn’t AN INSULT.
Again, please stop putting words in my mouth, PLEASE.
I said, and I repeat, freedom from sexually-based insults is a male privilege. And it is. (Danny got it, and thank you for understanding what I mean.)
This does NOT mean (of course) men are not insulted, as women are insulted. I am specifically talking about reducing women to their fuckability quotient. This does NOT happen to men. Insults directed at someone’s appearance are not always SEXUALLY based, and that is what I specifically referred to. Announcing that Dennis is too short to get it up, or has a short dick, etc, would be the kind of remark I am talking about. It simply doesn’t happen to men in the public sphere (such as radio or TV), as it does to women. (Admittedly, such remarks might be said in private; I refer to PUBLIC discourse, SNL, etc. I got “boner shrinker” straight from SNL.) When did Keith Olbermann mock Dennis for being short? Bill O’Reilly?
I believe the result of this situation is that only the fiercest, most fearless women dare to compete on the public stage, because this sexually-based baiting can be very intimidating. And no, I didn’t say women should be immune to mockery–I answered Danny’s direct question asking for an example of male privilege.
And you didn’t mention anything about how everyone swooned over Dennis’ wife, to the tune of several thousand hits on my blog. Would that have messed up your little narrative about Dennis-the-short-victim? You are just as biased as you claim I am, perhaps more so.
And Aych, getting tired of every comment dripping with sarcasm, when just a LITTLE sarcasm from me was slapped down in short order. This is why feminists don’t come here–there is definitely a double standard regarding what is acceptable.
Is there some reason you have to be so unkind in every single exchange? What is the reason for this? Is this the way to reach common ground?
As for being free from sexually-based baiting, do homophobic taunts not exist? There were a number of conservative blogs insinuating that John Edwards was gay because, again, his hair was too good-looking.
IMHO, I think the best way to reach common ground is to refrain from trying to steer everything back to how everything puts women at a disadvantage in situations where it is arguably not the case.
Daisy and aych: please lose the sarcasm and keep it polite and civil.
Actually, it does. The difference is that we generally accept it as par for the course. It is fairly common for people to mock a man’s inability to find female sexual partners or his general undesirability based on his height, weight or level of conventional attractiveness or attack (usually through implication) a male’s sexual prowess or penis size. While I agree it does not carry the same social impact as it does for women, it can and probably does carry the same emotional impact on its male targets. None of those examples strike me as being a male privilege.
Fine, I’ll cut the sarcasm.
Look, I can recall a number of situations in which people of both sexes have said, to my face, that my penis was abnormally small, or misshapen, or that I had syphillis, or was gay, or probably masturbate too much and other such taunts. And, furthermore, I’ve seen it happen to other men as well. Hell, I might’ve dished that out myself, not that I particularly recall doing it. So the idea that men live free from being sexually smeared is nonsense. The following claim that this is therefore a privilege that men have is also nonsense.
So here I am saying what my life is actually like, then Daisy says what she imagines my life is like. And, no surprises, there’s a pretty big gap between the two. You’ll pardon me if I don’t show a great deal of respect for the point of view which is, at best, based on guessing.
(PS- seeing as how I’ve been reprimanded on FC a bunch of times, I’m not sure how the moderators pull their punches on me.)
I said, and I repeat, freedom from sexually-based insults is a male privilege. And it is. (Danny got it, and thank you for understanding what I mean.)
Hold on. In that particular situation (meaning specifically Hillary’s run for the White House) there was male privilege but men are not free from sexually based insults. If men didn’t have to worry about sex based insults I would not have had to point this out. When you absolutely positively must get attention, throw in a penis size joke. Unless the husband’s penis size has something to do with Proposition 8.
Its my understanding that women are often faulted over the appearance of their sex organs as well…
More accurately interpreted: …yet enjoys hetero-style sex with women = Emma enjoys hetero-sex when participating as a man, but finds it useful for material gain when participating as a woman.
DaisyDeadhead said (about the quotes she cited)…
Emma, who was not only perceived by others as both genders, but also perceived –self as both genders, thought being a woman was easier. As I said – an alternative point of view.
I am the party line. The party mirrors my line. But, this particular line belongs to Emma, not me.
Yeah… but why pound a tack with a sledge hammer?
To Pat: I agree myself having seen it from both sides, that I do get it easier as a woman, especially since in any of the areas of interest to me, I am not limited in any way whatsoever (even promoted).
If I am limited, it’s usually self-limitation that are not because of being perceived as female. Mostly physical-social limitations due to not being legally female, such as avoiding locker rooms like the plague because of possible issues.
Pat: Thanks for the civil (and amusing) response. I was a bit tired and over-snotty at that last comment, my apologies.
No apology necessary. I, also, have said things and later regretted them. Besides, you weren’t being snotty… you were… passionately defending your ideals.