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

Whereas gender and language are things that we all deal with
true, but we all don't engage with gender and language in the same ways
just like we all don't engage with chickens and corticosteroid therapy in the same ways

lol

some of us don't deal with chickens and corticosteroid therapy at all though!

Sarahel, it's 3 in the morning and I don't even know.

I've just spent the entire thread arguing, as a gender non conforming woman, that gender roles are contrived and how harmful it is that non-gendered interests are so actively gendered, and then you come in and tell me I'm ~being a dude~ for having an interest and a job in science.

like how many people don't even bat an eyelid at gender stereotypes? a lot of people.
and chickens are for eating and corticosteroids are something on a medication label or something "doctors know about"

i'm just saying that everyone engages with information on some level or another

all i'm saying is that your reactions to Butler and the theory and then the science stuff codes as "dudely" -- I don't mean it pejoratively, just that it is funny, because it shows the intersecting types of privilege interacting, and how it is complex.

for example, because you do have that aptitude/experience w/science, you have a certain privilege in terms of the science vs. non-science power dynamic.

I think it would improve my understand of the thread if everybody, ~ including me ~ would stop using these stupid ~ tildes ~ all the time because it is weird and ~ distracting ~

they're not tildes they're snakes!

~ swinton

The tilde is p much my way of saying I am being ~facetious~ or snotty or air-quotey or some other sarcasm family of emoticon WRT the text so highlighted. It's kind of a useful shorthand and I was hoping it would lead to people having a more natural and less negative interpretation of my posts where I'm not being 100% ~serious~ but I guess that didn't work, huh.

I think it is funny! I have totally adopted it.

it would also be funny if you did it like this:

<swinton>omg Thom Yorke's hair</swinton>

Just for that, I'm gonna post one of those ~Thom Yorke Looking Like Lost Son Of Tilda Swinton~ photos from like 1994 or so.

Anyway, ~FEMINISM~, huh? What's that about?

he totally looks like her lost son!

I'm just gonna mention some books I have liked that deal w/some gender stuff:

Susan Faludi's Backlash yeah this is like gender wars 101, also a great study in how fake media stories get perpetuated

Dorothy Allison's Skin is a collection of really great essays, I like it a lot more than her fiction

Pat Califia's Public Sex was kind of a big deal for me as well when I started reading abt this stuff

Doris Lessing's Prisons We Choose To Live Inside is maybe off topic but idk

Carol J. Adams' The Sexual Politics Of Meat is super interesting, just what it says

would be interested in hearing about what people in this thread think about Faludi's Stiffed, I thought it was really sad and fascinating but maybe skirting a little too close to excusing male privilege?

maybe skirting a little too close to excusing male privilege

^ how i felt reading it

It's odd, I've never read Faludi, either. I probably should. There are huge gaps in my feminist reading due to being autodidact about it - and for the past 3 or 4 years I've been mostly reading obscure feminist linguistics (due to personal interest) or Beauty Myth type stuff (due to the industry I was working in) rather than more general stuff ... which I should probably amend instead of wasting so much time on ILX.

In an actual hijack for a personal moan, I think I need to get off and stay off this thread.

It's cost me about £10 in mobile Internet at this point. I don't think I'm learning much, I'm certainly not teaching anyone anything they don't know, it's not making me any friends and it's just cementing a really negative impression of me in the minds of ppl who didn't like me to start with.

So in a non-angry and fairly sobered-up mood, I'm pretty sure I do need to bow out. This is doing me more harm than good.

I appreciate what you bring to this thread and to the boards in gen, fwiw

I mean I'm not sure that's worth app. 20 American dollars

Hey WCC, I've been out all evening and have only skimmed to catch up, but I want to say that you were instrumental in ilx even taking about any of this stuff, so thanks. I'm sorry it's been kinda costly to you personally, I have also been v frustrated at various points as you know. But we were all here on ilx and we were all presumably having these thoughts privately but we weren't talking about any of it until you made it happen.

I don't know where it's going to take us, but it will be somewhere cooperative and interesting, in large part thanks to your insistence that we talk at all, and your keeping it going even if it meant giving people a target to aim at. I'm sorry that was the role you ended up in. But this is a general good overall, I think.

dood, hoos, that excerpt about "Step up, step back" was so great. I feel like I/we have been having a contentious relationship to a bunch of men that I normally like pretty well, these last couple of days, on these threads, partly because of my inability to say what that thing said, as clearly, and with as much grace extended toward all parties.

"Common Behavioral Patterns That Perpetuate Power Relations of Domination"

http://toolsforchange.org/resources/org-handouts/patterns%20.pdf

^ don't let that title scare you off, it's a handy one pager with a big comparative table

No, it was cool! I gave it a quick read and it rang a lot of bells. Will consider it further.

cool link hoos thx

http://www.marxists.org/subject/women/authors/firestone-shulamith/dialectic-sex.htm

one of the most important books ever written

gbx's footnotes brings the lols, but the actual text is a bunch of reasonably short sentences with one or two clauses each? It's basically a flowchart of "we did this, then we did this, here are the results". Obviously you need the full science to fully understand it, but as a comparison to the writing style in the Judith Butler quote upthread, I don't really see it?

Also thanking Hoos.

(That said I'm steeped in science (the method, not this particular discipline), so I don't wish to claim that it is necc. clear - did anyone read it and not get some idea of what is happening?)

I'm copy-pasting this from the gender thread, because it's under the cut already b/c people are riffing wildly about pink jackets and football. Which is great; there are so many directions for this thing to spin off in and it's all good. But at this thread's moving slower and there are maybe diff. folks reading it who aren't keeping up over there, I thought I'd share.

Let me know if this was a bad move or if you'd like to see my follow-up notes in here too. x

Zora's thoughts on Delusions of Gender (Cordelia Fine, 2010)

1. The Introduction

This is the 'why I wrote this book' story and hurrah! Fine was obviously as furious about Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus as I was, and SHE actually got off her arse and wrote the riposte I only dreamed of writing.

She starts off by quoting a lot of deterministic accounts of the male-brain female-brain dichotomy. Books like The Female Brain, Why Gender Matters, Leadership and the Sexes and What Could he Be Thinking? Quotes like this, from the first in the list:

Maneuvering like an F-15, Sarah's female brain is a high performance emotion machine - geared to tracking, moment by moment, the non-verbal signals of the innermost feelings of others.

The thrust of these texts, as we probably know or could guess, is that women are hard-wired to be good at one set of things and men at another. Although Simon Baren-Cohen, when talking about 'male' and female' brains doesn't say that only men can own male brains, he has nevertheless chosen to use these words as labels for two distinct types of brain that humans can possess. Female ones, good at empathy. Male ones, good at 'understanding and building systems'.

Having read on a bit, though, I think the key reference in terms of the way Fine builds her themes, is this, from 19th century cleric Thomas Gisborne (I have elided the quotes here and the underscores are me summarising Fine, where you'd usually use square brackets but the bbcode won't let me):

The science of legislation, of jurisprudence, of political economy; the conduct of government... the abstruse researches of erudition... the knowledge indispensable in the wide field of commercial enterprise... these, and other studies, pursuits, and occupations, assigned chiefly or entirely to men, demand the efforts of a mind endued with the powers of close and comprehensive reasoning, and of intense and continued application.

_These qualities should be imparted_ to the female mind with a more sparing hand, _because women have less need of such talents in the discharge of their duties... When it comes to performance in the feminine sphere,_ the superiority of the female mind is unrivalled, _enjoying_ powers adapted to unbend the brow of the learned, to refresh the over-laboured faculties of the wise, and to diffuse, throughout the family circle, the enlivening and endearing smile of cheerfulness.

Fine then says, "What awfully good luck that these womanly qualities should coincide so happily with the duties of the female sex."

She's dry; I like her.

Fine then whizzes us through the history of the search for sex differences in the brain, including all that hilar stuff about calipers and scales. Finally, she starts to unpack what she intends to do in the book, which hinges on the idea that our minds, our sense of ourselves, our behaviour and the whole shebang are indeed physical but are not discrete or stable. She says:

...we can't understand gender differences in female and male minds -the minds that are the source of our thoughts, feelings, abilities, motivations and behaviour - without understanding how psychologically permeable is the skull that separates the mind from the sociocultural context in which is operates.

She's talking about self-fulfilling prophecies. Tell people that men are good at systems thinking and women are good at being cheerful & smoothing the menz' furrowed brows, and both women and men will not only believe it (often against their conscious beliefs and best efforts) but will actually become better at those things. And it's not only a cumulative effect that leaves you with a certain set of propensities that are relatively stable, it's dynamic and surprisingly immediate.

Best of all, she does a pretty good job -based on what I've seen in the first chapter-and-a-half - of backing these assertions up with scientific citations. She also seems to have a good grip on what makes good science vs. bad science.

It's bound to be selective, nobody could reflect *all* the work that's been done in the field, but at the moment... I'm inclined to trust her. I would like to be challenged to defend my trust, because it feels too easy; my gut feeling back in 1991 when my uni profs (mostly male) were crowing about 'proven, meaningful' sex-differences in brain function, was that this couldn't possibly be the way the world worked, it went against everything I held dear. I also know that people find it very hard to accept opposing viewpoints no matter how strong the evidence or argument is, and very easy to accept supporting viewpoints even when the evidence or argument is weak.

Anyway, enjoying it v. much. thoughts on chapter 1 later.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbLsy9eKBlI&feature=youtu.be

joeks bruv

STRATEGIES FOR BEING AN EFFECTIVE ALLY

Assume that all people in your own group including yourself want to be allies to people in other groups. Assume that you are good enough and smart enough to be an effective ally. (This does not mean that you have nothing more to learn- see # 6, below.)

Assume that you have a perfect right to be concerned with other people’s liberation issues, and that it is in your own interest to do so and to be an ally.

Assume that all people in the target group want you and members of your group as allies. Assume that they recognize you as such- at least potentially.

Assume that any appearances to the contrary-(any apparent rejections of you as an ally) are the result of target group people’s experience of oppression and internalized oppression.

Assume that people in the target group are already communicating to you in the best way they can at the present time. Assume that they can and will do better. Think about how to assist them in this without making your support dependent upon their “improving” in any way. (Hint: think about what has been helpful for you when you were in the target group position).

Assume that target group people are experts on their own experience, and that you have much to learn from them. Use your own intelligence and your own experience as a target group member to think about what the target group people might find useful.

Recognize that as a non-target person you are an expert on the experience of having been conditioned to take the oppressor role. This means that you know the content of the lies which target group people have internalized. Don’t let timidity force you into pretended ignorance.

Assume that target group people are survivors and that they have a long history of resistance. Become an expert on this history and assist target group people to take full pride in it.

Become an expert on all the issues which are of concern to people in the target group, especially the issues which are most closely tied in to their internalized oppression. Assume that making mistakes is part of the learning process of being an ever more effective ally. Be prepared for flare-ups of disappointment and criticism. Acknowledge and apologize for mistakes; learn from them, but don’t retreat.

Recognize that people in the target group can spot “oppressor-role conditioning”; do not bother with trying to “convince” them that this conditioning did not happen to you. Don’t attempt to convince target group people that you “are on their side”; just be there.

Do not expect “gratitude” from people in the target group; thoughtfully interrupt if it is offered to you. Remember, being an ally is a matter of your choice. It is not an obligation; it is something you get to do.

Be a 100% ally; no deals; no strings attached: “I’ll oppose your oppression if you oppose mine.” Everyone’s oppression needs to be opposed unconditionally.

http://www.peopleofcolororganize.com/activism/organizing/working-assumptions-guidelines-alliancebuilding/

ugh, activist language is the worst. like nothing in that is inaccurate or wrong but it's about the most tone-deaf and mechanical take on social interaction i've ever seen

I'm really sick of ~tone~ being held as a reason that people should not comply with really sensible requests.

That sounded really flippant and I don't mean it to come off as picking on you, Lex, but I just see this, again and again. I get what you mean, that activist-talk, in its way of trying to be non-exclusionary, becomes a kind of jargon which is in itself slightly exclusionary.

But I get this, when you talk about anti-sexism (and I see it all the time, with people who are trying to do anti-racism) that it's like...

If you try to be academic, then you're dry and boring, so ignore.
If you try to be passionate, then you're shrill and preachy, so ignore.
If you try to be humourous, then you're flippant and shouldn't be taken seriously, so ignore.
If you try to be precise, then you're Judith Butler and impenetrable, so ignore.

And people are forever telling, when you're writing about this stuff, that you have to watch your ~tone~ and you have to make it ~accessible~ - but you realise after a while that no matter what tone you take, someone will take issue with it - and it's not that they want you to be ~accessible~, they want you to make it *PALATABLE*.

So, really, one just has to just write about it in whatever language feels most comfortable to use, and just get it out there.

Don’t attempt to convince target group people that you “are on their side”; just be there.

^^ otm

i am now reading judith butler.

I do think Lex makes a good point about the relative sterility of a lot of activist language, though sometimes--as WCC suggests--being anything but sterile leads to charges of emotionalism. That said, I think given the nature of the subjects at hand, and their tendency to be highly charged on all sides, it can be helpful to take an even (even boring) tone when seeking to instruct. There's got to be a middle ground, I think.

strategies for being an effective allyzay

How aout disliking this language because delicate as it's trying to be, it actually comes off like patronizing crap that feels to me at least like it demeans both parties involved: "Assume that target group people are survivors and that they have a long history of resistance. Become an expert on this history and assist target group people to take full pride in it." Or how about this: "Assume that people in the target group are already communicating to you in the best way they can at the present time. Assume that they can and will do better." Seriously? This is basically "Think like a douche, but only act like half a douche. Give the 'target group people' the benefit of the doubt."

Also it sounds like corporate-speak, not activist-speak. Which I guess is a variety of activist-speak, as proposed and used by those activists who have a certain notion of what being "professional" really means.

Which is to say it sounds like some diversity training video with clod acting shot on VHS that you have to watch according to HR policy. Which is really just embarrassing all around.

The whole "ally" thing in itself is v. squicky. If somebody actually describes themselves as an "ally" of any cause in particular, as opposed to just you know being for the cause because they are for the cause, I am 100x more dubious of them to begin with.

"Assume that people in the target group are already communicating to you in the best way they can at the present time. Assume that they can and will do better." Seriously? This is basically "Think like a douche, but only act like half a douche. Give the 'target group people' the benefit of the doubt."

Try "if you're having trouble understanding someone's articulation of oppression, know that it's not because your envoy is not trying hard enough."

The whole "ally" thing in itself is v. squicky. If somebody actually describes themselves as an "ally" of any cause in particular, as opposed to just you know being for the cause because they are for the cause, I am 100x more dubious of them to begin with.

The ally framework comes out of feminist analysis, and its been taken up by POC organizers. When it comes to making myself a comrade, and deciding what to call my role in their struggle, I'll take my pointers from them.

From another angle: I'm an ally in the struggle against the prison-industrial complex because as a guy who passes for white with a relative background of privilege, I am not a target of the prison-industrial complex. The struggle against that form of oppression is not my struggle, because I am not the target of that oppression. But I have a role to play in agitation, organization, and support. That makes me an ally.

I'm tempted to just politely say I disagree and go back to posting funny quotes from current tv shows to the relevant threads, which as I occasionally need to remind myself, is really what I should stick to doing on ilx to begin with. But I do want to address this: "if you're having trouble understanding someone's articulation of oppression, know that it's not because your envoy is not trying hard enough." Why is that unique to "people in the target group" or an "articulation of oppression"? Shouldn't we generally go through life (and not especially as allies and activists or target groupers [which sounds like a delicious fish!] or what have you but as halfway functional human beings) figuring that if somebody is saying things to you and you aren't understanding them then perhaps you can work together to communicate better and that this isn't about the other person "not trying hard enough"?

Why single out this context? Why focus on "poor communication" from the "target group people"? Is it because it is hard to communicate well with "target group people"? Is the assumption that they will become more articulate? You see where this is going...

And furthermore, "envoy"? Really? A person from the "target group" is now an "envoy" from the "target group"? Not just, you know, a person with some different life experiences and other life experiences which are maybe not so different, but a freaking emissary? Like an ambassador, because people in the "target group" are that *that* different!?

I know it's easy to read lots of bad subtext into things. But there's some stuff in this language which isn't at all too "dry" or "neutral" to my mind, but instead reflects notions about how people are and how they should view one another that, when I think too deeply about it, actually starts to make my blood boil. Basically I'll take indecipherable critical discourse over this any day, because at least the intent of the former is to interrogate all the stuff going on in the latter.

Just briefly, then I shut up:

"if you're having trouble understanding someone's articulation of oppression, know that it's not because your envoy is not trying hard enough." Why is that unique to "people in the target group" or an "articulation of oppression"?

It isn't. This is a sterile suggestion that "it's not their fault if you don't get it."

Why single out this context? Why focus on "poor communication" from the "target group people"? Is it because it is hard to communicate well with "target group people"? Is the assumption that they will become more articulate? You see where this is going...

The assumption I'm seeing here is that there will be learning opportunities that will lower communication barriers. Not that anyone will "become more articulate," but that understanding can develop further down the timeline for a variety of reasons.

And furthermore, "envoy"? Really? A person from the "target group" is now an "envoy" from the "target group"? Not just, you know, a person with some different life experiences and other life experiences which are maybe not so different, but a freaking emissary? Like an ambassador, because people in the "target group" are that *that* different!?

I'm not defending any subtext of the original language, just trying to make the same point in a different way to find some common ground between us. I don't think it's nearly so simple as "we're all human, man," and it's my feeling that looking at the question that way is deeply short-sighted.

This is a sterile suggestion that "it's not their fault if you don't get it."

This. Many times, reading those uh guidelines, I get the feeling that they're tailored for an audience who will have barriers up against understanding/acknowledging their own privilege. Feels like some of the straightforward talk has been dialed back to be "palatable," as WCC put it.

Or at least to try to emotionally un-weight it, which is probably the same thing as making more palatable. Maybe this is misguided? Or maybe the pitch works for some audiences but would be better re-pitched for others.

If you listen to diplomat-speak, it has many of the qualities of what HOOS posted. Actually, "envoy" is a direct borrowing from diplomacy, so you can see how there was some modeling from that going on.