Feminist Theory & "Women's Issues" Discussion Thread: All Gender Identities Are Encouraged To Participate

What lack of female on female violence? Anyone who was ever 12 at an all girl school (I.e. me) will call this statement for the fantasy it is.

But one of my problems is, so often when women gather to talk about their problems and the narratives of their own lives, so often that narrative gets hijacked by men who want to substitute their own narratives about women, and I'm deeply tired of that.

this seems a bit unfair, at least as applied to this thread, which was specifically constructed to be open.

Gendered behaviour with regards to biology is *not* "controversial." it's the absolute ur-narrative most cherished creation myth of all time!

i meant controversial wr2 this thread

WCC, if the game doesn't end up men 2 million and women zero, then the rules are different than you expressed them. Also, if clawing, fighting and marching have yielded an improvement, then at some point somewhere men have ceded some amount of reward to women, as opposed to punishment at every turn.

Again, if men are to be denied any credit for ever taking any positive actions in regard to assisting women to overcome this state of power inequality, or for ever allying themselves with justice for women, or for being anything but right bastards who break women's bones to bake their bread, then... I think you're missing an essential trick in getting where I assume you want to go.

From comments you've made already in this thread, I suspect your reaction will be that, just like a man, I am whining to be patted on the head and given credit for being a good boy, while I ought to be inflamed with anger at the INJUSTICE of it all, and if I'm not 100% with you, and can't do right without appreciation, then to hell with me.

The problem with that line of thinking is simple enough. If I must be 100% with you, and if that means I must necessarily think that all men are nasty, unfeeling, power-hungry dealers of injustice who stand on privilege at every turn, then... sorry. I'm a man and there is something unacceptable in that definition of me. Something of a catch-22 you might say.

But, hey, suit yourself.

Con, this whole "biology is destiny" thing is something that many (maybe most?) women experience, constricting the size and shape of our lives, on an almost daily basis.

It's this hydra-headed thing that no matter how many times you chop off one head, it sprouts another to bite you. So not wanting to engage with that, not wanting to argue it down yet again, is often due to sheer exhaustion rather than a lack of engagement.

Aimless I don't argue with ppl who put words in my mouth. Just carry on having your discussion by yourself coz I don't see where you need me in it, considering you've already decided what I'm gonna say.

What lack of female on female violence?

Well, the relative lack of women convicted of violent crimes would be the obvious reference point.

While if you are someone being oppressed by those structures, you HAVE to believe change is possible..

What's sad is the dialogue involving female-on-male violence in relationships has nearly completely been drowned out by so-called "men's rights" people with claims like "when a woman hits a man it's no big deal, but when a man hits a woman it's domestic violence!" I don't think yelling about where blame is placed is helping anyone.

nasty, unfeeling, power-hungry dealers of injustice who stand on privilege at every turn, then...

I think it's important to realize that men stand on privilege at every turn whether they are nasty, unfeeling, or power-hungry or not. Even ones who are allied with women, working to help women, etc. Like if you can't get that then you will always be having the wrong discussion.

It's a numbers game, mh, and it's difficult to say "yes this exists. But can we please not let the narrative of the one place where women are unfortunately in the majority and men in the minority be written exclusively by that minority?"

Exclusively being the operative word there.

Also let's not even open the can of worms that is male on male violence which doesn't even need to be inside a relationship. Intra-sex violence as a real thing in this world.

WCC, you are steering by your own compass and you are locked on to the course it has set for you. Good luck. Just realize that if you place a chunk of ferrous metal near a compass the needle is attracted to that instead of to magnetic north. If you don't notice this you can get pretty far off track.

WCC, that makes sense, and i'm not trying to get you to engage w it.

fwiw, and i hope this isn't offensive, myths abt "biological masculinity" are another kind of prison. they're a power-granting prison, which may seem like an oxymoron, but they can be brutally rough on men who don't conform. and like i said at the top, we all "fail" to conform (succeed at not conforming!) in various ways.

just so we're clear, i'm NOT in any way, shape or form trying to compare my struggles with supposedly "natural" masculine identity with the awful history of female oppression. i'm very aware that i was born to a position of unfair privilege in this and other respects.

re our differences in this discussion: i'm just kind of a fence-sitter by disposition. i'm the type to try to see merit on both sides of an argument, to find common ground rather than to "take a side". maybe that's annoying to those with more clearly defined positions...

Aimless, Melissa has answered you pretty comprehensively.

It would be cool if people who don't actually want to examine their ideas about gender would do something other than post here, thanks!

Melissa, you are completely right and it makes me feel kind of like crap every time this point is articulated, because it's a privilege that I'd like to escape in some ways, because there are so many things that I'd like to do or change that it doesn't help with.

That and I would like to believe that there is something to meritocracy, but there are some points in my life where I consciously know it's not personal merit but personal privilege that's influencing things.

it's important to realize that men stand on privilege at every turn whether they are nasty, unfeeling, or power-hungry or not.

Yes. I would agree with that. Since the privilege is built into the society, the only way off it is to stand outside society. I do that from time to time, but only because I sometimes go wander around the wilderness where there aren't any other people. As soon as I return, I'm back on privileged ground.

Explain to me how I can alter this state and I will attend well to your words. But if there is nothing I can do, then please do not blame me for doing nothing.

You could stop coming into discussions about sexism and telling women that they're wrong-headed and that you have a clearer view of things?

fwiw 2 all my male-identified brothers, you dont have to post in this thread. the world will be okay if you dont share your take on all of this. you will be okay, too. it can be hard to take a step back and just be quiet for a while but sometimes its really worthwhile.

if you want male rape to be discussed, then yeah, there's a conversation to be had about that, especially wrt to your point about stereotyping and assumptions. i'm just saying, is this the right place for it?

― gyac, Monday, 13 February 2012 19:23 (29 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I guess you skimmed over the bit where I said "not for this conversation, I just wanted to get it off my chest" and "perhaps I need another thread."

Con I recognise that the myths about biological masculinity are another kind of prison - I keep repeating that patriarchy hurts men, too line and I deeply believe it.

If you're a natural fence sitter, I understand. And so long as your argument is and/both I'm prepared to accept that and/both intersection of nature and nurture is the most likely explanation of most human behaviour. So I think I understand yr viewpoint a bit better now?

But it's unfortunate that "nature" argument is something I get hit in the face with repeatedly while nurture isn't slapping me, I'm likely to be a bit partisan.

I think we should all create socks and have this convo with our gender-identities undisclosed. See what happens.

just to clarify my post upthread i think both/and is as simplistic as either/or.

Dudes who are feeling defensive about yr Privilege, what can you do to help?

1) you can recognise and acknowledge that privilege instead of pretending it doesn't exist or that everyone has it. This is a massively helpful first step.

2) you can check your privilege BEFORE you step in to tell women How The World Works.

3) you can actively work to change the future world by trying to dismantle privilege of all kinds. This is the scariest and hardest bit

(this is also the checklist I try to follow when thinking about mine own race privilege and class privilege so I'm not recommending anything I dont try to do myself. Try being operative word)

Mr Butler maybe you wanna come up with a 300 word essay on the intersectionality of nature and nurture with extra points for each 20th Century French philosopher you can squeeze in a reference to, but for now I'll take and/both as a less simple simplification than either/or?

acknowledging one's own privilege doesn't invalidate your problems or travails. when women (or anyone) argue about privilege with you they're not saying you, yourself, are a terrible awful oppressing human being - it's a structural issue. but the existence of privilege should not be the thing we're arguing over, it's a very basic thing to acknowledge. and fervently denying that it exists or nitpicking when people exaggerate just seems like a deliberate waste of time and is v annoying to women who encounter that sort of thing every day.

That and I would like to believe that there is something to meritocracy, but there are some points in my life where I consciously know it's not personal merit but personal privilege that's influencing things.

working against privilege => working towards genuine meritocracy?

ha just had momentary panic that this was the girls-only thread! phew

fwiw 2 all my male-identified brothers, you dont have to post in this thread. the world will be okay if you dont share your take on all of this. you will be okay, too. it can be hard to take a step back and just be quiet for a while but sometimes its really worthwhile.

okay, touche. point taken. i'm v interested in this stuff, and get carried away. i recognize, though, that my tendency to spout off is perhaps a reflection of masculine entitlement, so i could probably stand to be a bit less assertive in this context...

not really got anything to say but this thread looks interesting and i have 1 pot of tea and 2 eyes to read with. :D

would probably say that your ability to be fence-sitty on this issue is also reflective of privilege - you can afford to be, b/c the consequences of not taking a side don't actually affect you directly

xp

omfg

You could stop coming into discussions about sexism and telling women that they're wrong-headed and that you have a clearer view of things?

I am glad for that question mark. thx.

For clarification, I think there is nothing about being a woman that necessarily stops a woman from seeing things clearly, and if I have ever made any claim to knowing what's correct better than women do, I apologize and retract that claim as not just wrong, but deeply blindly stupid.

I'm not sure your suggestion would be sufficient to eradicate my position of privilege, tho.

Nothing could eradicate your position of privilege. Bar some sort of mass revolution, that is yours to keep. It will only help eradicate people (me) from feeling a deep irritation at the sight of your posts.

Now, is it ok to disagree with a woman about something that woman said? Or is that off-limits?

interesting to me that some men are so irritated at the notion that they are in a default position of power. guys, power is awesome! i think everyone should be able to enjoy power as much as possible. i mean, not power at the expense of others, though i wonder if there is any other kind when it comes down to it?

not really got anything to say but this thread looks interesting and i have 1 pot of tea and 2 eyes to read with. :D

misread this as "2 eyes to roll with"

i mean, not power at the expense of others, though i wonder if there is any other kind when it comes down to it?

I don't think there is, frankly. power is a relationship, requires a hierarchy etc

Over in one of the other threads, I related the tale of my 6th form women's group and how we eventually let boys in.

A couple of people suggested that it could not have been long before the boyz took over and controlled the debate.

Apart from the fact that this hilariously underestimates the ability of my cohort of 17yo female students to hold their own against said boys, never mind in the majority, we enshrined a priviliging of the female POV in the rules for the group to make sure the boys never got uppity.

1. Boys could only ask or answer questions. They were not there to give unsolicited opinions, ever.
2. Boys could not participate in setting the agenda.
3. Boys could not vote on any motions, though their position was noted.

That was easy to do because they had said they wanted their sense of entitlement to be challenged. Also much easier to manage IRL, with someone chairing.

I didn't think this thread was redress-the-balance space, however if we would *like* to erase Aimless' sense of privilige, is there some way we can set this space up to do that?

hokay, i said i was stepping out, but c'mon...

would probably say that your ability to be fence-sitty on this issue is also reflective of privilege - you can afford to be, b/c the consequences of not taking a side don't actually affect you directly

i sincerely believe that my ability to be fence-sitty on this issue is deeply ingrained into my character. and i've known all sorts of people with whom i share this trait, male and otherwise, white and otherwise, straight and otherwise. imo, it's indicative of a "philosophical" disposition (if i may flatter myself), and perhaps of a certain aspie-ness when it comes to intellectual matters. i am against certainty. i am opposed to absolutes. i do not believe in Truth or Understanding. i'm only ever comfortable with ambiguity and approximation. honestly, i think it's more a product of my constantly feeling like a freak and an outsider than of my privilege...

xpost

Poster's regret, too meta, forget it let's just get on with talking about nature/nurture or whatevs.

actually your rules seem pretty sensible, surfing. not as hard and fast rules for this thread, maybe, but as good mental guidelines for guys (like me) who want to participate in conversations like this.

its just even with a both/and you're positing this distinction. as if the body ended at the surface of the skin, but the body leaves itself in traces, ruffled traces, the warm part on a sofa, the smell of someone sleeping. and in words, the sounds of voices in other rooms, the shape of handwriting. culture and nature are no more distinct than bodies and language. the difference between xx and xy. i mean where is it that these separate influences are being exerted. sexism is the description of a certain terrain maybe. not exactly a pre-coded set of tactics. new sexisms come into being all the time just as new feminisms come into being in order to combat them. new terrains and new means of navigating them. a set of survival strategies. it might be easier to just think of nature itself, how it is produced by culture. if we want to unhinge and dismantle patriarchy then we need to unhinge and dismantle the logics that produce it. the constant need to find a set of anteriors. bodies themselves are processes, movements, materials, sites of inscription. bodies are culture, not just because they are cultured but because the complexity of such assemblages is irreducible. fractures, continuities. its hard to understand where trans people would fit into a world in which gender can only be understood as a construct of culture or language or whatever. why the need to transition, to submit to these particular technologies of the body, vaginaplasty, testosterone injections, bilateral masectomy, brow shaping, etc etc. are these elaborate modes of gender performativity? that seems insulting somehow. how to disconnect these processes from learning how to walk like a woman, changing your name. moving. finding a space to transition. bodies are narrated and they narrate themselves.

i sincerely believe that my ability to be fence-sitty on this issue is deeply ingrained into my character. and i've known all sorts of people with whom i share this trait, male and otherwise, white and otherwise, straight and otherwise. imo, it's indicative of a "philosophical" disposition (if i may flatter myself), and perhaps of a certain aspie-ness when it comes to intellectual matters. i am against certainty. i am opposed to absolutes. i do not believe in Truth or Understanding. i'm only ever comfortable with ambiguity and approximation. honestly, i think it's more a product of my constantly feeling like a freak and an outsider than of my privilege...

― Little GTFO (contenderizer), Monday, February 13, 2012 12:31 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

yes well positions of power are deeply ingrained in all our characters and this doesn't change the fact that you can afford to do this while others can't and that you're basically declaring it a universal value that everyone should be beholden to. when in fact, displaying your uncertainty like a badge on every topic and "exploring the sides" while "remaining above the fray" is a very white, very male appeal to white male ideological power no matter how many otherwise friends you claim think exactly like you do. white-washing appeals to neutrality are ridiculous and stifling and they haven't done anyone any good and they'll continue to (not) do so. so many xps

echoes of ye olde hysterical vs rational dichotomy so often thrown at women who need to make an argument

displaying your uncertainty like a badge on every topic and "exploring the sides" while "remaining above the fray" is a very white, very male appeal to white male ideological power

I agree with this. I don't think it's wrong to attempt to approach these subjects objectively, but one should be aware of how subjective un-attachment is, given one's relationship to the subject. Neutrality is often the luxury of the priveledged.

privileged

1. Boys could only ask or answer questions.

tbh, Socrates managed to ask 'innocent' questions that were so irritating to people that he was condemned to drink hemlock and most Athenians thought it was a pretty good deal to just be rid of him.

Q: if it is accepted that men calling women "girls" is sexist, is it simply a matter of turnabout is fair play for women to call men "boys"?

^^^original post was referring to 17yo, iirc?

letting grown men into a 6th form women's group would've been pretty creepy

It was a "6th form women's group", iirc.

yes, comprised of students usually sixteen to eighteen years of age.

a group of 17 yo females admits 17yo males = boys among women?