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

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?

Neutrality is often the luxury of the priveledged.

yeah, i question this line of reasoning because certainty is also the language of the privileged. and questioning is used by the marginalized in order to create alternate realities.

i also question it because it's the language of division, "with us or against us", and i reject that categorically, not just in this instance but in (almost) every instance. i do not deny anyone's right to commit to believe as they do, but i defend the validity of my commitment to "objective" distance, to a mode of exploration and testing. i believe that there's real value in this.

d'oh ah I see what you did there Aimless

nm

Yes they were 16-18, on the cusp of manhood, just as we were 16-18 on the cusp of womanhood. Some people were studying sociology and copping onto "women's issues" and we were all for trying to take ourselves seriously. I don't recall what language the actual rules used but I'm sure it wasn't actually 'boys'.

FWIW I have no problem being referred to as a 'girl' by people I like, where the intention is playful rather than condescending, ref. "No boys allowed", "No girls allowed": we do this.

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"

― max buzzword (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 13 February 2012 20:27 (39 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

did come into some eyerolling practise itt not gonna lie. people strawmanning and strawwomanning like crazy. lol people not reading other people and then arguing with them about points they didn't make.

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)

― White Chocolate Cheesecake, Monday, February 13, 2012 8:01 PM (50 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

one for the FAQ

xxxxp There are also holes in our language for stuff, though, such that "women's group" means one thing but "girls' group" doesn't suggest the same thing at all, in which case "women" was a more useful word there than "girls."

Thank you, Zora. We are once more as little lambs gambolling in the fields of green.

btw guys this tumblr, curated by a couple of my friends, is v relevant here

http://yumadwhiteboy.tumblr.com/

http://30.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lxnb9b6rzF1r9zsizo1_500.jpg

http://29.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lxe7wpBE3i1r9zsizo1_500.jpg

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lx8ld5fHYf1r9zsizo1_500.jpg

http://29.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lx8jzhO4zP1r9zsizo1_400.jpg

ok sorry done with that

I think those are pretty good!

They're great.

like the blog, too, hoos. image by image, i don't always agree w what i take to be the point, and some make me uncomfortable, but that's clearly the point, so well done, blog persons.

Yeah I'll cop to some strawmanning but to be honest that first big post with all the CAPITALS like Molesworth was not so much a reply to Con as me just venting every single argument I've ever had in this subject (which is a fuck of a lot) and just trying to say jeez I do not want to have any of this argument again about biodestiny and neurosexism - but of course even a world weary "I dont wanna talk about this any more" is basically an invitation to discussion to ppl who have not had that argument 5000 times and Con maybe felt unfairly picked on because I was shouting at the previous 500 ppl I'd had the conversation with as much as him.

Hmm, hit and miss imho, that last one is like "why do I want to hear Skrillex' opinion about all this". Former ones are great, yes.

xp

oh my god i only just realised those were dreadlocks in the last one i thought they were like...wall decorations

i am DEAD

I only wish they were wall decorations. Also the rest of that site has some of the most punchable mugs on it I have ever seen.

but of course even a world weary "I dont wanna talk about this any more" is basically an invitation to discussion to ppl who have not had that argument 5000 times and Con maybe felt unfairly picked on because I was shouting at the previous 500 ppl I'd had the conversation with as much as him.

fwiw, i don't blame you at all, WCC. i recognize that my "objective" ambivalence about loaded subjects sometimes verges on socratic trolling.

ambivalence about loaded subjects sometimes verges on socratic trolling.

― Little GTFO (contenderizer), Monday, February 13, 2012 9:36 PM (15 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

ha

so i am late to the party and no one's even talking anymore but it's worth pointing out that biodeterministic assertions that are necessarily rooted in some dichotomous Testosterone/Estrogen ish betray a fundamental and devastating, argument-wise, misapprehension of some basic endocrine stuff

o sure, but it's still reasonable to draw connections (not necessarily or directly causal, but connections nevertheless) between testosterone production and male competition/aggression

Ernest Hemingway as a child:

http://students.cis.uab.edu/mikehow/dress.jpg

btw, i'm not on board with biodeterminism at all in regard to humans, unless it is framed in terms so general as to become nearly meaningless. As WCC mentioned upthread, variation within sexes is much greater than variation between sexes (nb: I am using 'sexes' to denote the physically-expressed primary sexual characteristics) and I see no reason in my personal experience to disbelieve that assertion.

(cant get caught up here for a minute so XP)

even just basic chemistry tbh, w/r/t what the ~implications~ are of normal reaction-type stuff like concentration gradients, affinities, biochemical pathways, and le chatelier's whatever

in that: genotypically men and women are pumping out estrogens and androgens all the time, but at differing rates and compositions. this is largely (but not entirely) due to having different soft things making different hormonal stews; stews that, in XX/XY or XXY or XYY or w/e, are comprised of hormones shared and produced by literally (almost) everyone and that (surprise) can be chemically induced to act more like what we simplistically believe are their binaries.

which is to say: it might be very likely that if someone's hormonal ecosystem, with its v special concentration ratios, is experiencing a surfeit of testosterone, that that may predispose someone to aggression. or "aggression." and so sure XY "men" are more likely to roiling in that brew.

but that says nothing about the actual, root-causes of violence and violent behavior, what's doing the roiling. many ppl have a genetic predisposition to cancer (and these genes are often ~less~ subtle than the in-yr-face obviousness of X/Y phenotypic difference). and some of these people will, "inevitably," go on to develop cancer. but many of them dramatically increase their risk by engaging in behaviors and exposing themselves to risks (maybe unknowingly!) that also predispose to cancer. would we be right to demur on the topic of "bad behavior" or "social determinants" and make the genetic component the essential one, because it's more "science-y"? because that would be dumb.

so yeah ok i guess retrospectively males are pretty violent and sure if you take steroids (as a man or a woman) you're gonna be more hot-tempered than if you didn't. and criminals have excessive levels of testosterone or something (note the word "excessive"). big fucking deal! PCP, booze, and lust make all ppl violent and criminals also have "excessive levels" of drug addiction, mental illness, minority status, and connections to poverty.

tl;dr even pretending to get serious about the ~hormonal~ roots of gendered relations is roughly equivalent to phrenology, both scientifically and ethically

re hemingway, talk about yer later-life overcompensations.

don't know if i'm saying anything that hasn't already been said here, but i completely appreciate the desire to displace the question of biology from these discussions - no one is so crass as to pretend that there's no connection between the cultural and the biological, but yet the body is so overwritten by culture as to make any worthwhile study of it in these terms virtually impossible. but the problem there is that in displacing the problem of biology you can end up displacing the problem of what a genuine sexual difference could entail, perhaps risk engaging in a monolithic form of cultural critique that can't really do justice to the differences that hold between actual material bodies. how you work through the manner in which these things fold together, how you avoid falling into the particular pitfalls of this approach and avoid its own normative tendencies, well, that is difficult.

o sure, but it's still reasonable to draw connections (not necessarily or directly causal, but connections nevertheless) between testosterone production and male competition/aggression

― Little GTFO (contenderizer), Monday, February 13, 2012 7:22 PM (23 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

i was mostly posting to myself there obv but as to this: no, it really really isn't. unless its also reasonable to point out connections between butterflies flapping around in china and a bombing in a public place and then suggesting, humbly, by your leave, that bombings are actually a problem with butterflies and not with people blowing up bombs

i was being kind of a jerk there, soz

yeah, the connections are a bit clearer in the case i suggested than butterflies and bombs. as you said earlier, "males are pretty violent and sure if you take steroids (as a man or a woman) you're gonna be more hot-tempered than if you didn't. and criminals have excessive levels of testosterone or something (note the word "excessive")."

this matters, this is real. acknowledging it doesn't mean we've "answered the question", but ignoring or minimizing it because we are uniformly hostile to any biological interpretation of gender strikes me as foolish. we don't have to throw out biology entirely to recognize that culture is the primary architect of most of what we perceive as "gender", even the ostensibly biological stuff.

i can't throw out biology entirely or else i'm out of a job