Feminism and Gender

[AvalonXQ]

Who are some of these figures that you have in mind? And which works are you thinking of?

Dworkin and MacKinnon are two obvious names that occur to me immediately. I'm sure others can supplement; it's not hard to find writers with pretty disgusting anti-male messages during the Second Wave.

 

[rustypouch]

My beef personally with feminists is well known. I think they tend to treat women as perpetual victims and men as perpetual perpetrators. Most feminists I don't respect don't have healthy relationships with men in their lives. Ex. they are divorced and bitter or unmarried. And they want to blame men for all the problems in the world.

The victimization thing I have noticed as well, and it really bothers me.

The other thing that really bothers me is downplaying issues affecting men. Often these issues are trivialized, ignored, or outright mocked. Sometimes when they are acknowledged, it's because they have a negative affect on women.

 

[jiggeryqua]

Which feminist hate TGs?

Again, I'm not denying that some feminists deride TGs or that the conceptual structure of some feminisms dehumanize TGs, but it didn't take long at all for people who are opposed to some aspects of some feminisms to present their least favorite feminism as representative of some monolithic feminism.

Oh, and I've only just this minute said I wouldn't be dragged into this thread (to you, even!) but could you clarify which feminism we are allowed to talk about? The good ones, presumably?

This is, as someone rightly pointed out, an ideological thread. Like the politics sub-forum, the best we can hope for is two entrenched positions, with posters skirting the MA while expressing their contempt for those who do not hold their unsupported opinions, which they themselves bolster with thinking that would hold no water in any factual thread.

ALB, I'm surprised you didn't just start a poll. It's worked so well with the moon hoax and holocaust denial...

 

[A Laughing Baby]

Who are some of these figures that you have in mind? And which works are you thinking of?

I am interpreting A Laughing Baby's warning in the OP that this is not a safe space thread to include permission to "name names", as it were. (And please correct me if I am wrong about that, A Laughing Baby.)

You're free to name names provided you stick to the MA (I'm taking your meaning to mean prominent figures in the field). By "not a safe space," I mean it in the sense that this is not a discussion where feminists can tell non-feminists to leave. In other words, someone can come in here and talk about how stupid feminism is and how women are evil whores trying to get money or something equally dumb and reprehensible. "Safe space" is a phrase used a lot in feminist discussion, with its own meaning. Basically, I was saying "anything goes in here, so be careful if you're easily triggered."

 

[bookitty]

That's a very interesting observation. Do you see that behavior as a sign that your opponent is losing the argument? Or does his potential physical threat overshadow the signal?

Like everything, it's different with different people. Some men do it more or less intentionally, some more of less by force of habit. For some it is a response to what they see as "talking back," a refusal to be placated by a condescending comment, or not shutting up when constantly interrupted. For others, it may be that confrontation makes them uncomfortable and reacting in slightly threatening manner is learned behavior to avoid confrontation.

I don't take it a sign that I am "winning" because that's a fairly ridiculous idea for any single conversation. Nobody changes anyone's mind during a conversation, the very best you can hope for is the merest germ of an idea.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Yet respond to it you did by refusing to respond to it.

I addressed the tone of your post rather than its content.

That you, in fact, did is attack the tone of the argument rather than its content and present your post as somehow attacking the content.

I think I was quite explicit that I did not choose to respond to the content of your post due to its tone. So, no, I did not present my post as "somehow attacking the content". I identified the tone, and asked you to change it if you wanted me to respond.

 

[jiggeryqua]

Dworkin and MacKinnon are two obvious names that occur to me immediately. I'm sure others can supplement; it's not hard to find writers with pretty disgusting anti-male messages during the Second Wave.

Mary Daly. Most entertaining. Mad, hateful and seriously deluded. Three doctorates and tenure at Boston.

(from wiki)
In Gyn/Ecology, Daly asserted her negative view of transsexual people, writing, "Today the Frankenstein phenomenon is omnipresent . . . in . . . phallocratic technology. . . . Transsexualism is an example of male surgical siring which invades the female world with substitutes." "Transsexualism, which Janice Raymond has shown to be essentially a male problem, is an attempt to change males into females, whereas in fact no male can assume female chromosomes and life history/experience." "The surgeons and hormone therapists of the transsexual kingdom . . . can be said to produce feminine persons. They cannot produce women."

 

[mijopaalmc]

I think I was quite explicit that I did not choose to respond to the content of your post due to its tone. So, no, I did not present my post as "somehow attacking the content". I identified the tone, and asked you to change it if you wanted me to respond.

You did not make a substantive criticism of the argument in my post; you just attacked its presentation, while pretending to address the argument.

 

[A Laughing Baby]

Oh, and I've only just this minute said I wouldn't be dragged into this thread (to you, even!) but could you clarify which feminism we are allowed to talk about? The good ones, presumably?

This is, as someone rightly pointed out, an ideological thread. Like the politics sub-forum, the best we can hope for is two entrenched positions, with posters skirting the MA while expressing their contempt for those who do not hold their unsupported opinions, which they themselves bolster with thinking that would hold no water in any factual thread.

ALB, I'm surprised you didn't just start a poll. It's worked so well with the moon hoax and holocaust denial...

It should be said that I'm not seeking to get anyone to change their minds, score points, or win an argument with this thread. I just wanted a consolidated place for people to argue (or discuss, if I'm feeling optimistic) this topic, as it's a rather broad issue that affects (and is affected by) many topics on the forum.

While I know that many threads with traditionally inflammatory topics (I/P, abortion, etc.) on this board lead to threads like you described, I'm hoping that at least one productive, positive discussion can come out of this thread. If that happens, I consider it a worthwhile endeavor. And by "positive and productive," I don't necessarily mean anyone agreeing with each other. I feel like simply getting to the point that we (an all-inclusive we, there) can understand each other's positions would be a huge step forward for the forum.

I know that there are many strong feminists on the board, as well as many who strongly dislike feminism. So my goal isn't to have a popularity contest, as it were. I really hope it doesn't turn into one.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Like everything, it's different with different people. Some men do it more or less intentionally, some more of less by force of habit. For some it is a response to what they see as "talking back," a refusal to be placated by a condescending comment, or not shutting up when constantly interrupted. For others, it may be that confrontation makes them uncomfortable and reacting in slightly threatening manner is learned behavior to avoid confrontation.

This isn't limited to men. People, generally, raise their tone of voice, clench fists, and lean forward when they start to get "heated" during a discussion.

The interesting thing about this is that I believe you have the privilege backwards in this case. In this situation you have described, I have never seen a man hit a woman, but I have seen a woman hit a man several times. So the woman's privilege in this case, at least in the social situations that I've experienced, is to be allowed to get in a heated argument without the expectation that she may actually be physically assaulted for it - and the further privilege of being allowed to physically harm the man without social repercussions.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Dworkin and MacKinnon are two obvious names that occur to me immediately.

And what exactly did they say?

I'm sure others can supplement; it's not hard to find writers with pretty disgusting anti-male messages during the Second Wave.

Be specific.

This is just lazy referring to some vague "pretty disgusting anti-male messages during the Second Wave".

 

[AvalonXQ]

You did not make a substantive criticism of the argument in my post; you just attacked its presentation, while pretending to address the argument.

Explain how any reasonable reader would believe that my post "pretend[ed] to address the argument".

I addressed the tone directly; I did so explicitly; I was not deceitful in doing so. Stop accusing me of pretending to address the substance of your post; I did no such thing.

 

[GreyArea]

You're free to name names provided you stick to the MA (I'm taking your meaning to mean prominent figures in the field).

Yes, that was my meaning. And thank you for the clarifications.

Also, thank you AvalonXQ and Bookitty for your replies.

For others, it may be that confrontation makes them uncomfortable and reacting in slightly threatening manner is learned behavior to avoid confrontation.

One of the things that I wonder about regarding feminism is where it intersects with science. When are human behaviors learned, as Bookitty describes this aggression by her interlocutors? And when are they biologically inherent? I think this might be discernable with science, but it isn't easy.

I think that sometimes men and women will wrongly justify bad behavior by saying it is biological and not cultural so it can't be helped or isn't even a bad thing. Or they might not go quite that far and claim that culture and reason are incapable of keeping in check "inevitable" biological reactions.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Explain how any reasonable reader would believe that my post "pretend[ed] to address the argument".

I addressed the tone directly; I did so explicitly; I was not deceitful in doing so. Stop accusing me of pretending to address the substance of your post; I did no such thing.

Does the phrase "form over substance" mean anything to you?

The tone of my post does not make my argument invalid nor does it make your post any less of a refusal to address the argument rather than the arguer.

 

[bookitty]

Lots of comments on feminism, not much on gender. As a transgendered person, this is something that I have to deal with constantly. And I have to say, that I have rarely gotten as much hate from any mainstream group as I have from hardcore feminists. Not even necessarily the radical fringes, but from some of the most mainstream-leaning but somewhat puritanical types. MtF TGs are often treated as agent provocateurs, and I've listened to some of the more radical types come right out an say that TGs don't really exist, but are a patriarchal plot to discredit feminism. Including one on this board, many years ago. And it's not just MtF, but FtM are also not well-liked, although they're typically treated as simply delusional or fa "symptom of the true problem".

I am very aware of this negativity and sickened that it is ongoing. That has never been my personal stance but there has been overlap and I'm sorry. Trans people get enough crap from the rest of society, feminism should have been and should be more welcoming.

Lately there has been more focus on the trans issues. I sincerely hope that a better understanding of gender dysphoria will help raise awareness within all aspects of feminist thought. MtF trans people are women and some of those are feminists. If we don't listen to these women, we are losing valuable insight. If we don't support the rights of all trans people, we are rejecting an already vulnerable group and don't deserve to call ourselves allies.

From a purely personal perspective, I just don't understand it. I honestly can not wrap my mind around that whole "dual privileged" nonsense. Not just because it is so easy to show that trans people don't have any great social or economic benefit and all that other science-y stuff but because it's just so stupid. Who thinks like that? Why?

 

[bookitty]

This isn't limited to men. People, generally, raise their tone of voice, clench fists, and lean forward when they start to get "heated" during a discussion.

The interesting thing about this is that I believe you have the privilege backwards in this case. In this situation you have described, I have never seen a man hit a woman, but I have seen a woman hit a man several times. So the woman's privilege in this case, at least in the social situations that I've experienced, is to be allowed to get in a heated argument without the expectation that she may actually be physically assaulted for it - and the further privilege of being allowed to physically harm the man without social repercussions.

Violence is not a privilege. It is abuse.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Violence is not a privilege. It is abuse.

Cultural immunity from casual public violence is a woman's privilege. Men have a cultural expectation to accept this violence; refusing to do so has negative social implications.

Did you see the episode of What Would You Do where they filmed actors pretending to be a couple, with one member of the couple hitting the other?

When women saw the man hitting the woman, they called the police.

When women saw the woman hitting the man, they cheered her on.

EDIT: Found it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LlFAd4YdQks

 

[mijopaalmc]

Cultural immunity from casual public violence is a woman's privilege. Men have a cultural expectation to accept this violence; refusing to do so has negative social implications.

Did you see the episode of What Would You Do where they filmed actors pretending to be a couple, with one member of the couple hitting the other?

When women saw the man hitting the woman, they called the police.

When women saw the woman hitting the man, they cheered her on.

And this has nothing to do with how a patriarchal culture views violence perpetrated by women as opposed to violence perpetrated by men?

 

[AvalonXQ]

And this has nothing to do with how a patriarchal culture views violence perpetrated by women as opposed to violence perpetrated by men?

Every response you make to one of my posts is aggressive and presumptive. Why the belligerent tone? Why the assumption that I'm disagreeing with you?

My whole point was that this is due to cultural gender bias (I disagree with the term "patriarchy").

 

[luchog]

Yes, the feminist hatred of trans-gendered people is something I've only recently discovered. Has that always been the case?

In my experience, it has. Fortunately, it's been getting better instead of worse overall; at least IME. The transphobic types are becoming more marginalized, as GLBTs in general gain more acceptance overall.