Kettetastic ([info]yakkette) wrote in [info]feminist,
@ 2004-10-04 15:38:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Entry tags:feminist mvmt general, language, male feminists, privilege

12 Helpful Suggestions for Men Regarding Conduct in Feminist Spaces
1. Realize it's not all about you. No, really! Shocked? This is because:

Corollary to Rule 1: Feminism is about women. Girls, ladies, females, grrrrlz, womyn, wimmin, whatever you call them, it's about us. It's for us, by us. Not how you feel harmed or threatened by feminism or women, or about how you are oppressed as a man. We know that patriarchy affects all people negatively - but this isn't the space to draw attention to how men suffer. I strongly encourage you to form your own men's group to discuss those issues.

2. Check your privilege. Yes, you have it. We all have different kinds of privilege, but you, as a man, have male privilege. Just because you don't feel privileged doesn't mean you don't have it. Recognizing that you have privilege does not mean that you have never suffered. Being told to check your privilege is not a personal insult or attack. It also doesn't indicate that someone is trying to cop out of an argument or silence anybody - we just get tired of having to explain it constantly. See Rule 6 for more info.

Corollary to Rule 2: There is no such thing as "reverse sexism." Don't even think of trying that one on us. The fact that an individual man can be harmed by an individual woman does not override an entire misogynistic social system.

3. Listen. This would be really nice. Please respect our feelings and our experiences.

Corollary to Rule 3: When in doubt, shut the hell up. If you're not sure you're "getting it" take a step back, resist the urge to hit that "respond" button, and try to think about what women are saying - before you act.

4. Resist the unconscious urge to dominate. It's what you've been programmed to do, but this is not the place for it. See Rule 1 and Corollary. If you find that you're posting more than the rest of the community combined, think about why. If you feel the need to constantly draw attention to your maleness, examine that dynamic - it's often a subconscious method of exercising control.

5. Try not to get defensive. Remember that women expressing frustration with the patriarchy is not a personal attack on you, and there's no need to respond as such. If you do so, you're likely to violate rules 1-5. Remember: If you're feeling attacked by feminism, it's probably a counter-attack.



6. Remember that it's not our job to educate you. Feminist communities shouldn't have to be constantly rehashing "feminism 101" due to the influx of new male members. You can read this, so you can read a book, or if that's too much to ask, you can do internet research. There are lots of ways to learn about basic feminist theory without sidetracking an entire community in the process. If you do the research and still have specific questions, then it's more appropriate to ask people for their opinions - but they still don't "owe" you anything.

7. If people are calling you a troll, there's probably a good reason for it. You don't have to purposefully be trolling to act like one. You can play devil's advocate to your heart's content and then log off the computer and not have to deal with these issues ever again. The rest of us can't do that. This is our reality, and we generally don't appreciate men treating issues that really affect us as some sort of witty intellectual exercise.

8. Don't try to be a knight in shining white armor. So you think you can singlehandedly save feminism with your unqiue insights? Get over yourself. It's extremely unlikely that you've had some brilliant revelation that has eluded us women for ages thanks to the superior intellect of your penis.

9. Women are not a hive mind. Feminism is not The Borg. There is a wide range of diverse experiences and views within feminism. Just because one person on a feminist community agrees with you doesn't mean that we all will. Just because your feminist friend thinks one way doesn't mean we should all be expected to. Wide, sweeping generalizations and assumptions about feminism and women are not likely to win you any points.

Corollary to Rule 9: Do not use your presence or opinions to pit women against each other. Try to refrain from becoming the subject of discussion - that violates Rules 1, 3, and 4. Don't "divide and conquer."

10. Call out other men on sexist behavior. This is the best way to put theory into practice, and is a way to use your male privilege for good! If you're claiming to be a feminist on one board and then laughing when your friends make sexist jokes, we're obviously going to question your sincerity.

11. Understand that just because you call yourself a feminist doesn't mean that you're exempt from these suggestions. So you have an understanding of feminist theory - wonderful. So you want to fight the good fight - great. That doesn't give you the right to then go and ignore all the other suggestions because you "get it" and you're "one of the good ones."

Corollary to Rule 11: Don't identify as feminist so you can get attention from women. It's creepy and pathetic, and usually we can smell it a mile away. It does not become any more appropriate to hit on or make suggestive comments to women in a feminist community simply because you call yourself a feminist, either. This is not the place to look for a date.

12. Don't expect a pat on the back for following these suggestions. And don't whine if you don't feel you're receiving enough credit for acting like a decent human being. You shouldn't be behaving appropriately because you crave our stamp of approval - you should be behaving appropriately because it's the respectful thing to do.


This list was greatly influenced by [info]hothead's post - and this older one, and all the wonderful comments. I did not come up with most of these, but I just wanted to organize the various complaints and observations into something that's hopefully easy to understand. I'm not writing this as a snark/complaint towards the men in this community - I'm dead serious.

Anything important I left out?

Snarky side discussion: What words and phrases would you like to see eliminated entirely from a man's vocabulary within a feminist community? I'll start with three: "identity politics", "man-hater" and "I thought it was about EQUALITY!"




Page 1 of 2
<<[1] [2] >>

(Post a new comment)


[info]animeg3282
2004-10-05 12:37 am UTC (link)
Thank you for making this clear. While the hardcore trolls won't be reformed, maybe those on the borderline will go "oooooh."

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]yakkette
2004-10-05 12:41 am UTC (link)
I figure at least if one of the trolls is saying "waaah I don't get it!" I can say "go look up the corollary to rule #3, please."

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]99catsaway
2004-10-05 12:43 am UTC (link)
I think we can all agree "feminazi" is another bad term.

Good post.:)

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]yakkette
2004-10-05 12:51 am UTC (link)
Yeah, feminazi as anything other than a joke has absoultely no place in a feminist community - or anywhere, for that matter.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]veile, 2004-10-05 01:02 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]rainbowtimes, 2004-10-05 01:34 am UTC

[info]veile
2004-10-05 12:47 am UTC (link)
You know, I hate that term "reverse sexism". I mean, wouldn't that be good? It would be the opposite of sexism. The reverse of sexism would naturally be treating people equally. Men can be discriminated against, although it is much more common to happen to women, but either way it is sexism! I just hate terms like "reverse sexism" and "reverse racism". Besides just being plain wrong and annoying it adds the culture of separating men and women, whites and minorities, etc. Sexism is treating someone badly based on their sex. Racism is treating someone badly based on their implied race. It is irrelevant the sex or race. It is wrong no matter what. I want an equal society. Grrrr...

Good post. The only term I would like to see no one use, unless it is a criticism of, is "reverse sexism".

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]matcha
2004-10-05 12:55 am UTC (link)
Haha, you and I are on the same brainwave! Cool! :D

(Reply to this) (Parent)

(no subject) - [info]99catsaway, 2004-10-05 01:02 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]animeg3282, 2004-10-05 01:06 am UTC

[info]matcha
2004-10-05 12:53 am UTC (link)
Perhaps women themselves should take heed of this advice. I love the reputation some feminists garner us by being sexist, not listening, not resisting the urge to "dominate," and being particularly defensive. And you're right, there isn't such a thing as "reverse sexism" - just like there isn't "reverse racism." Just as all judgement based on race is racism, all judgement based on gender is sexism. Women can be sexist, too.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]yakkette
2004-10-05 01:17 am UTC (link)
You've completely missed my point.

Unless you're talking about feminists being sexist to other women, or trying to dominate other women, or being defensive towards other women.

There's no such thing as "reverse sexism" because a marginalized group cannot oppress the group in power.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]kamuela, 2004-10-05 01:30 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]yakkette, 2004-10-05 02:45 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]kamuela, 2004-10-05 02:57 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]matcha, 2004-10-05 01:31 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]kamuela, 2004-10-05 01:35 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]matcha, 2004-10-05 01:57 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]kamuela, 2004-10-05 02:04 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]matcha, 2004-10-05 02:07 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]kamuela, 2004-10-05 02:13 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]matcha, 2004-10-05 03:21 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]yakkette, 2004-10-05 02:52 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]matcha, 2004-10-05 03:01 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]yakkette, 2004-10-05 03:41 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]matcha, 2004-10-05 03:45 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]yakkette, 2004-10-05 04:07 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]matcha, 2004-10-05 04:15 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]2peculiar, 2004-10-05 02:19 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]kamuela, 2004-10-05 02:26 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]2peculiar, 2004-10-05 02:50 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]yakkette, 2004-10-05 02:57 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]2peculiar, 2004-10-05 03:24 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]yakkette, 2004-10-05 03:45 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]2peculiar, 2004-10-05 05:29 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]matcha, 2004-10-05 03:24 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]bluecassandra, 2004-10-05 07:28 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]2peculiar, 2004-10-05 03:10 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]2peculiar, 2004-10-05 03:12 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]jfpbookworm, 2004-10-05 01:33 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]estu_k_aftadai, 2004-10-05 02:30 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]venus_orbiting, 2004-10-05 02:31 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]yakkette, 2004-10-05 02:54 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]trinityva, 2004-10-05 03:20 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]jennem, 2004-10-05 05:59 pm UTC

[info]gem225
2004-10-05 01:12 am UTC (link)
Thank you for this post. I hope that the people who need to read and learn from it, do, but somehow I doubt that. *sigh*

(Reply to this)


[info]t3knomanser
2004-10-05 01:12 am UTC (link)
1) You don't know me very well. Of course it is.
2) The privelege I've earned far outweighs what I've been given by virtue of my gender. Most of the things that I did growing up that I continue to do (barring computers) were, in my environment, female dominated (music, art, and writing).
3) Listening is not the same as respecting someone's feelings.
4) My urge to dominate is entirely conscious, and I think this post is enough proof.
5) I only defend my ideas or my body. My ego is well nigh indestructible.
6) Can't argue there.
7) Probably because my online social skills are lacking. Then again, I don't instigate debates to make friends.
8) *snicker snort* See #1 and #4
9) Not yet anyway... the technology isn't there yet. In the future, it will be us versus the robots.
10) Lead by example I always say.
11) But those sorts of guys are the funniest.
12) See #1, #4 and #8

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]kamuela
2004-10-05 01:20 am UTC (link)
you caught me on a twitchy ban-hammer day.

I take this response as a declaration of intent to troll.

bye.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]maclyn, 2004-10-07 08:20 pm UTC

[info]cookieavalanche
2004-10-05 01:15 am UTC (link)
Yea. I'd like to second the mention that I know plenty of women who act just as patriarchal as many men do. I don't think they should be exempted from these rules, just because they are women. I think acting patriarchal is different from acting sexist. Women internalize patriarchy and use it, all the time. Often they use it to kind of "act like" successful men. Margaret Thatcher comes to mind as the exemplification of a woman who has acted patriarchal-- done what powerful men have historically done to get ahead, used a male-defined, patriarchal paradigm. She's an obvious and extreme case, but every day, on a much smaller and more nuanced scales, women use patriarchy. They use the patriarchal tools and ideologies that men have used for centuries to subjugate not only other women but other classes, races, ethnicities, some say nature too. What I'm trying to say is that I really like your post and think it's really helpful, I just think that there are many, many women it also applies to, women who are antagonistic to feminism for various reasons, one of which is that they utilize patriarchy daily.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]yakkette
2004-10-05 02:40 am UTC (link)
I think one can address the issue of how men act in feminist communities without implicating women as well. Doesn't that kind of become the opposite of "But men suffer too!" when we're talking about feminist issues? The nastiness of women to other women is a valid topic, and I really do agree with your assesment, but it's a little broad for the subject of this post.

It would make an excellent seperate post, though. It's absolutely a subject that should be discussed.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]cookieavalanche, 2004-10-05 03:47 am UTC

[info]welsey
2004-10-05 01:28 am UTC (link)
Thanks for posting this! I really think that it's an important thing to have written down. There are people who would read this as sexist, and that's what makes me so mad about society and realize that we still have a long way to go in feminism. This is important stuff.

Some men just can't appreciate the idea of something being solely ABOUT women, they need this idea of "equality" so that their issues can be talked about too. Once again bringing the subject back to males. They need to understand that this is not the place to pull that patriarchal shit, however well intentioned it may be. It's time for men to sit on the sidelines and be respectful, let something be a woman's space FOR ONCE.

Awesome entry.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]yakkette
2004-10-05 03:02 am UTC (link)
and notice how hostile the response is to this post. We ask for one little corner of the world where it can be about us - and that's still not enough.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]welsey, 2004-10-05 04:25 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]disquesinge, 2006-08-11 10:00 am UTC

[info]globedoc
2004-10-05 01:44 am UTC (link)
#10 is most important.
Great list!

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]yakkette
2004-10-05 03:14 am UTC (link)
#10 is really I think the most important work that feminist men can be doing. When a woman complains to a man about sexism, he's not likely to take her seriously. When a man does it, though, hopefully it will at least make him stop and think.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]searover
2004-10-05 01:54 am UTC (link)
"when in doubt, shut the hell up" Well, that breaks it down, doesn't it? if you're confused, just trust us, we're right. okay...

"Resist the unconscious urge to dominate" Must...oppress...women.... must....control....with.....dick.....

"Remember that it's not our job to educate you" This goes along with the corrolary to rule three, right? You're wrong, we're right. and no, we're not going to explain it to you and you're not allowed to ask about it. That's just how it is.

"If people are calling you a troll, there's probably a good reason for it" Exactly. You're a troll because you're questioning our rightness. and not shutting the hell up.

"Women are not a hive mind." I am becoming inclined to disagree. I find that the more feminists I meet, the more sweeping stereotypes i can create that they fit into. OKay, that's not completely true. There are definitely plenty of sane women out there, but it seems like the ones that talk the most are the ones that I can fit into stereotypes. Are they still stereotypes if they're accurate?

"don't expect a pat on the back for following these suggestions"
Oh, i get it. Sit down, shut up, we're right, you're wrong, and even if you do everything we say, we're STILL gonna treat you like shit. Gee, guys must be lining up at the gate to be feminists.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]jfpbookworm
2004-10-05 02:54 am UTC (link)
"when in doubt, shut the hell up" Well, that breaks it down, doesn't it? if you're confused, just trust us, we're right. okay...

"When in doubt, shut the hell up" is not the same as "shut the hell up." Though I'd phrase it more like "don't feel obligated to respond to every comment, or even every comment about men," with a dash of "there are some subjects about which you won't be taken seriously because you are male; learn to deal with it."

"Resist the unconscious urge to dominate" Must...oppress...women.... must....control....with.....dick.....

The "unconscious urge to dominate" isn't about oppression so much as trying to steer the conversation towards those things on which you are most qualified to comment.

"Remember that it's not our job to educate you" This goes along with the corrolary to rule three, right? You're wrong, we're right. and no, we're not going to explain it to you and you're not allowed to ask about it. That's just how it is.

You're missing the difference between "it's not our job to educate you" and "you're not allowed to ask." It's the difference between a request and a demand.

"If people are calling you a troll, there's probably a good reason for it" Exactly. You're a troll because you're questioning our rightness. and not shutting the hell up.

Do you even read this community? If you're the least bit borderline, you'll have people saying you're not a troll.

"Women are not a hive mind." I am becoming inclined to disagree. I find that the more feminists I meet, the more sweeping stereotypes i can create that they fit into. OKay, that's not completely true. There are definitely plenty of sane women out there, but it seems like the ones that talk the most are the ones that I can fit into stereotypes. Are they still stereotypes if they're accurate?

It's called perceptual bias.

"don't expect a pat on the back for following these suggestions"
Oh, i get it. Sit down, shut up, we're right, you're wrong, and even if you do everything we say, we're STILL gonna treat you like shit. Gee, guys must be lining up at the gate to be feminists.


"Guys lining up at the gate" isn't the point. Neither is "we're right, you're wrong," for that matter. This "us vs. them" mentality is misguided.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]yakkette, 2004-10-05 03:05 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]searover, 2004-10-05 03:22 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]yakkette, 2004-10-05 03:48 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]searover, 2004-10-05 04:19 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]yakkette, 2004-10-05 04:21 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]searover, 2004-10-05 04:40 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]yakkette, 2004-10-05 04:59 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]mintogrubb, 2004-10-05 10:21 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]yakkette, 2004-10-05 10:35 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]mintogrubb, 2004-10-05 10:42 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]beandelphiki, 2004-10-05 11:03 pm UTC
Why cant we be friends
[info]sjine
2004-10-05 02:00 am UTC (link)
I am so glad to hear exactly how you think men in general (did I mention I am male?), so I come posting as an obvious dominating, sexist, privileged, defensive, uneducated, troll-like at all times while also a man in shining armor man who promotes others to make sexist comments (sorry, ONLY other males) and I have never ever experienced any form of being a minority based on my gender. Oh, and by the way, I am obviously the kinda guy who NEVER listens.

Ok, enough bull. Fact is, I am a stubborn person (just like you, though I tend to be more open minded) and I like to be on the defense (all men suck, none of them are decent EVER!). I hang around with my group of friends, of which the female/male ratio is about 6 girls to every guy, all of which I would concider femenists (but not me, cause I am a guy). Why? Because they believe in EQUALITY (uses your own definition as posted in the bio of this community). I listen to them, I reflect on what they say, I take advice more often than I give it, and quite frankly, I dont feel comfortable with the judgment you, as one woman, has made on me, one man.

The fact is, you are a sexist person far beyond the guys I see discussing their girlfriends in the locker room in a derogitory way. You sit upon your computer and make a list of rules I should follow, because I have a dick and because my pecs arent covered in extra body tissue. You have decided that I am ignorant of your suffering, so let me ask you: are you white? Are you straight? Do you own your own home?

Let me tell you, if you are white, you float on top of society more than you will ever know with only one person left to place blame (everyone needs someone) so you pick the men. Penis envy, as a psychiatrist would call it, I think its just human nature to blame someone, you even blame other women who arent as orthadox femenist as you. Are you straight? I have gay male and female friends trying to just get married? I feel so blessed that I can do something as simple as walk in and get a marriage liscence, and you damn well better be too. You obviously have a roof over your head, while there are men AND women out there fighting to just find a house, a shack, anything.

As long as there are people like you, orthodox and completly unexcepting of anything other than the pure pathetic image you are clearly trying to force onto women so that men feel bad, nothing will ever change. You have mapped out the reasons why this post is being printed out and shown to all my female friends, but dont worry, the three I have shown online are laughing. I am clearly to dominating and have brainwashed them. Yup.

I feel so insulted, reading your post, you classify men in one whole group, and you just put women in one helpless group. Unlike you, my female AND male (gasp, shock, horror!) friends, as well as myself, fight to bring equality. There arent gender bounds between us. So I'd like to give you a new word to try in your little catagory game. "They". We use it, here in my little "obviously dillusional" world. Works well. I dont always win against my female friends, I dont always lose. But heaven help me for the people like you who make all our hard work pointless for the guys who are still jackasses to point fingers and say "freak out".

So go ahead, diss my view as always happens in these journals. Make sure you call me wrong, say that all your points have gone over my head. Dont worry, "we" have all grabbed the society out there, we choose to be active while you sit around and bitch and moan about how men are ruling the world.

So stop putting men down, pull them up to be your equal. Its the only way to get things done. Or, you can sit and post about how I am wrong. I really dont care, any female I associate with is enough proof to myself that at least I have grown up just as equal as anyone else.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: Why cant we be friends
[info]hothead
2004-10-05 02:09 am UTC (link)
Did you really say "penis envy?"

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Why cant we be friends - [info]isolatedexile, 2004-10-05 02:51 am UTC
Re: Why cant we be friends - [info]madamjolie, 2004-10-05 03:48 am UTC
Re: Why cant we be friends - [info]welsey, 2004-10-05 05:23 am UTC
Re: Why cant we be friends - [info]dancingdrew, 2004-10-05 05:44 am UTC
Re: Why cant we be friends - [info]kamuela, 2004-10-05 02:18 am UTC
Re: Why cant we be friends - [info]trinityva, 2004-10-05 02:21 am UTC
Re: Why cant we be friends - [info]sjine, 2004-10-05 02:43 am UTC
Re: Why cant we be friends - [info]silverspar, 2004-10-05 02:52 am UTC
Re: Why cant we be friends - [info]yakkette, 2004-10-05 03:06 am UTC
Re: Why cant we be friends - [info]cantstopthedawn, 2004-10-05 03:06 am UTC
Re: Why cant we be friends - [info]kamuela, 2004-10-05 03:12 am UTC
Re: Why cant we be friends - [info]holyschist, 2004-10-07 12:22 am UTC
poor crying penii - [info]trinityva, 2004-10-05 02:18 am UTC
Re: poor crying penii - [info]sjine, 2004-10-05 02:31 am UTC
Re: poor crying penii - [info]venus_orbiting, 2004-10-05 02:34 am UTC
Re: poor crying penii - [info]madamjolie, 2004-10-05 03:53 am UTC
Re: poor crying penii - [info]hothead, 2004-10-05 11:53 am UTC
Re: poor crying penii - [info]trinityva, 2004-10-07 06:54 pm UTC
Re: poor crying penii - [info]welsey, 2004-10-05 05:30 am UTC
congratulations - [info]kamuela, 2004-10-05 10:00 am UTC
Re: poor crying penii - [info]yakkette, 2004-10-05 03:12 am UTC
Re: poor crying penii - [info]trinityva, 2004-10-07 06:54 pm UTC
Re: poor crying penii - [info]explodemyheart, 2004-10-05 03:27 am UTC
Re: poor crying penii - [info]trinityva, 2004-10-07 06:52 pm UTC
Re: poor crying penii - [info]madamjolie, 2004-10-05 03:49 am UTC
Re: poor crying penii - [info]trinityva, 2004-10-07 06:53 pm UTC
Re: poor crying penii - [info]woolf, 2004-10-07 01:12 am UTC
Re: poor crying penii - [info]trinityva, 2004-10-07 06:48 pm UTC
Re: Why cant we be friends - [info]searover, 2004-10-05 02:19 am UTC
Re: Why cant we be friends - [info]silverspar, 2004-10-05 02:49 am UTC
Re: Why cant we be friends - [info]madamjolie, 2004-10-05 03:59 am UTC
Re: Why cant we be friends - [info]rainbowtimes, 2004-10-05 07:39 pm UTC
Re: Why cant we be friends - [info]madamjolie, 2004-10-06 03:53 am UTC
Re: Why cant we be friends - [info]jfpbookworm, 2004-10-05 02:57 am UTC
Re: Why cant we be friends - [info]madamjolie, 2004-10-05 04:06 am UTC
Re: Why cant we be friends - [info]madamjolie, 2004-10-05 04:09 am UTC
Re: Why cant we be friends - [info]bluecassandra, 2004-10-05 08:11 pm UTC
Re: Why cant we be friends - [info]madamjolie, 2004-10-06 04:03 am UTC
Re: Why cant we be friends - [info]bluecassandra, 2004-10-06 09:48 pm UTC
Re: Why cant we be friends - [info]beandelphiki, 2004-10-05 11:14 pm UTC
Re: Why cant we be friends - [info]disquesinge, 2006-08-11 10:15 am UTC

[info]2peculiar
2004-10-05 02:03 am UTC (link)
Feminism is about women

The majority of feminist issues and positions are about relations between men and women or between women and "society" (men and women). The concerns involve how these relationships create disadvantages for women, but that hardly removes the involvement of men. That's like saying "racial equality is about non-white people"... um, no.

There is no such thing as reverse sexism

Well, certainly there's no need to apply the word "reverse" to sexism against men. Sexism is sexism, and prejudice and stereotyping are applied to all sexes and groups. Women in general certainly get the short end of the stick from sexism, but it quite definitely does go both ways.


Being told to check your privilege is not a personal insult or attack. It also doesn't indicate that someone is trying to cop out of an argument or silence anybody - we just get tired of having to explain it constantly.


On the contrary, it is most definitely a personal insult, an attack, AND a cop-out from an argument, all at the same time. An absolutely basic principle of civil discussion is the principle of charity - do not assume the worst about the motivations of another person in the discussion. It's certainly possible for "privilege" to account for a person's opinion, but it's one of a huge number of possible factors. And it definitely counts as assuming the worst - saying that someone's opinion is based on biases from their position in society, rather than having been arrived at by careful reflection, or some entirely different personal reason having nothing to do with bias. That is a very serious allegation, and is thus extremely offensive and totally unfounded and uncalled-for unless you can make a very rigorous, specific case for it being true. But of course "check your privilege" is pretty much universally used here in the context of a cop-out - it's slung at somebody as if it were an argument in itself, often as a signoff phrase, not followed with the appropriate deeply thought out justification. "Check your privilege" is, in terms of both politeness and meaningful content, equivalent to "you're a stupid poopy-head".

In addition it's frequently an unsettling indication of blatant prejudice on the person saying it - there's usually not nearly enough information to tell if some random poster's opinion is based on "privilege", or any OTHER specific factor either, so being ready to throw out the "you believe this because you're a man/whatever other demographic group" tells us nothing about the prejudices of the original poster but quite a bit about the prejudices of the person calling "priv check". And added to that, an unsettling indication of the prejudices of the people who sit idly by when "priv check" is called, but would descend in a screaming horde against anybody who showed up and started saying "you just believe that because you're a woman".

I long since learned that stereotyping and prejudice are so deeply ingrained in human nature that being their victim doesn't teach people to stop using them against others, but it's still grating to see that displayed in such a blatant manner.

Remember that it's not our job to educate you. Feminist communities shouldn't have to be constantly rehashing "feminism 101" due to the influx of new male members.

Please enlighten me as to what the difference is between new male members and new female members. Surely you don't assume that women come pre-equipped with knowledge of feminism? I'm a guy and I know more about feminism than at least 19 out of 20 women. For that matter so do the more loudmouthed male posters who showed up recently.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]venus_orbiting
2004-10-05 02:08 am UTC (link)
Thank you.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

(no subject) - [info]estu_k_aftadai, 2004-10-05 02:12 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]city_of_dis, 2004-10-05 02:21 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]kamuela, 2004-10-05 02:22 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]2peculiar, 2004-10-05 02:35 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]verony, 2004-10-05 02:53 am UTC
Feminism 101 - [info]yakkette, 2004-10-05 04:19 am UTC
Re: Feminism 101 - [info]2peculiar, 2004-10-05 04:53 am UTC
Re: Feminism 101 - [info]welsey, 2004-10-05 05:16 am UTC
Re: Feminism 101 - [info]yakkette, 2004-10-05 05:37 am UTC
Re: Feminism 101 - [info]welsey, 2004-10-05 05:47 am UTC
Re: Feminism 101 - [info]2peculiar, 2004-10-05 06:44 am UTC
Re: Feminism 101 - [info]dancingdrew, 2004-10-05 05:50 am UTC
Re: Feminism 101 - [info]yakkette, 2004-10-05 06:13 am UTC
Re: Feminism 101 - [info]faepuck, 2004-10-05 05:50 am UTC
Re: Feminism 101 - [info]welsey, 2004-10-05 05:57 am UTC
Re: Feminism 101 - [info]2peculiar, 2004-10-05 06:09 am UTC
Re: Feminism 101 - [info]disquesinge, 2006-08-11 10:37 am UTC

[info]princessebee
2004-10-05 02:20 am UTC (link)
Wow! Look at all the dumdums who don't get it! This is better than TV. Except it's real-life. And that's fucking depressing.

As for my contributions to the list: "I'm male and I'm a feminist"; "My opinion is just as valid as yours!"; "Well! Thanks for making feminism soooo 'attractive' to us guys, I don't blame men for hating feminists and opposing feminism" (and similar variations); "But it's about MORE than women's issues! It's about men, too!"; "Your sexist/feminazi/dogmatic ways indicate sexism FAR worse than ANYTHING men have done to women" (and other similar variations).

I could keep going...

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]searover
2004-10-05 02:27 am UTC (link)
wait...you object to people trying to say that their opinion is valid? sorry, not people, MEN. i didn't mean to make it sound like MEN get basic human rights too. My bad. Hey, can we include women who disagree too? How about ALL opinions that aren't pre-approved are invalid?

Big Sister, here we come!

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]princessebee, 2004-10-05 02:29 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]searover, 2004-10-05 02:41 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]princessebee, 2004-10-05 02:48 am UTC
moderator request - [info]kamuela, 2004-10-05 03:04 am UTC
Re: moderator request - [info]searover, 2004-10-05 03:46 am UTC
Re: moderator request - [info]kamuela, 2004-10-05 03:53 am UTC
Re: moderator request - [info]searover, 2004-10-05 04:37 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]xfadedx, 2004-10-05 02:51 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]searover, 2004-10-05 03:07 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]evil_laugher, 2004-10-05 03:16 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]2peculiar, 2004-10-05 05:02 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]evil_laugher, 2004-10-05 05:11 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]2peculiar, 2004-10-05 05:25 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]evil_laugher, 2004-10-05 05:34 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]holyschist, 2004-10-07 12:07 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]yakkette, 2004-10-05 05:40 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]2peculiar, 2004-10-05 06:28 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]yakkette, 2004-10-05 06:37 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]2peculiar, 2004-10-05 07:16 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]everwatcher, 2004-10-05 08:14 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]princessebee, 2004-10-05 08:00 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]everwatcher, 2004-10-05 08:03 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]yakkette, 2004-10-05 08:35 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]proudduckling, 2004-10-05 03:59 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]searover, 2004-10-05 04:36 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]evil_laugher, 2004-10-05 05:12 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]yakkette, 2004-10-05 05:15 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]dancingdrew, 2004-10-05 06:02 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]yakkette, 2004-10-05 06:15 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]yakkette, 2004-10-05 06:16 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]globedoc, 2004-10-05 06:41 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]dancingdrew, 2004-10-05 07:23 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]yakkette, 2004-10-05 07:27 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]globedoc, 2004-10-05 07:40 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]dancingdrew, 2004-10-05 07:49 am UTC

(Deleted post)
(no subject) - [info]princessebee, 2008-06-11 09:46 pm UTC

[info]ladycakes
2004-10-05 02:46 am UTC (link)
Beautiful. :)

I had something to add, but the responses are making me laugh so hard I can barely see through the tears to type.

This is RICH! HAW! *knee slap*

(Reply to this)


[info]chevaliermalfet
2004-10-05 03:05 am UTC (link)
Good post. I think those are entirely helpful suggestions to men, I hope they take them to heart. It'll also protect them from being ripped a new one. I understand why men are being rubbed the wrong way by this though. It grates on male priviledge quite a bit. It bothered me at first. But like you suggested I took some time and thought about it. I think the reason that most people would get their hackles raised about this post has nothing to do with its content. It's well phrased, logical, and it all seems to be very good ideas. I think most people(and please don't take this as an attack or anything) just probably doubt or malign your intentions. When they read this they don't think to themselves 'oh this is obvious tripe the poor girl must have the IQ of pommegranite' they're much more likely thinking 'bitch'. That I admit just so theres no confusion was my first reaction. I'm sorry, it was rude and closeminded of me. I think that you're a nice person, and that this post comes from a good place, with good intent. I hope that my response was relatively free of annoying maleness or priviledge, if not please just point it out to me and I promise I'll try to fix it. I not always so great at knowing when/if I've shelved my priviledge so I really appreciate any feedback as far as thats concerned.

PS This may seem like nitpicking but I actually thought you were a mod when I first looked at your post, mostly due to the layout. I obviously checked it out and found you weren't. I just thought that might be where some of the hostility from some of the other members is coming from?

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]yakkette
2004-10-05 03:58 am UTC (link)
There seems to be some confusion that my personal suggestions based on the observations of many women here regarding the behavior of many men is somehow some absolute, enforcable set of rules. No, I'm not a mod, and I know the mods would never moderate the community based on these rules because it's impractical and not really in line with the nature of this community.

I think of it more as my little fantasy. This is how I really wish men would act in these communities. It's certainly better than my alternate response: that maybe men really don't have a place in feminism, which is how I feel when I get really frustrated by repeatedly witnessing the behavior listed in the suggestions.

I appreciate your response. It's tough and uncomforable for a person who thinks of themselves as a general all-around nice guy to be confronted with a list of behaviors that they might see a little of themselves in. It creates the defensiveness that's really clear above - despite the fact that I certainly wasn't singling out one individual, nor was I claiming that all men in the community show these any or all of these behaviors. I tend to think that the people having hostile responses are doing so because they realize that yeah, this does apply to them.

It's always a constant struggle for anyone of any privileged group to keep that in check when dealing with an underprivileged group, and that's true no matter what kind of privilege we're talking about. All we can do is try our best.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]madamjolie
2004-10-05 03:45 am UTC (link)
Did half of the people commenting even read the damn post?

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]yakkette
2004-10-05 04:10 am UTC (link)
No, but I do appreciate that they're proving my points.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]madamjolie, 2004-10-05 02:19 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]ladycakes, 2004-10-05 08:36 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]madamjolie, 2004-10-06 03:59 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]ladycakes, 2004-10-06 03:17 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]yakkette, 2004-10-05 09:04 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]madamjolie, 2004-10-06 04:04 am UTC

[info]vic_fontaine_
2004-10-05 04:35 am UTC (link)
I think all these suggestions are quite reasonable and well thought-out.

(Reply to this)


[info]everwatcher
2004-10-05 05:54 am UTC (link)
Are you absolutely sure that this essay was posted to the correct community?

Some of your essay's content was sensible enough, and is certainly worth following. (Oddly enough, I actually have considered some of your other advice to me from past entries.) Point #9 is quite noteworthy; it's almost as if I included that while editing your first draft of this piece.

What's "identity politics"? I can't remember reading of it at any time during my [info]feminist membership.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]yakkette
2004-10-05 06:21 am UTC (link)
Are you absolutely sure that this essay was posted to the correct community?

Unfortunately, yes. It's sad.

"Identity politics" is a term often used by "progressive" heterosexual white males who want to get BEYOND concepts like misogyny and racism and heterosexism. You see, we're latching on to our identitity instead of considering the big picture! We're being silly! We should be able to rise above the oppression we face due to our identity and realize of course, that the person using the term is absolutely right about everything forever.

At least, that's the way it seems to be used. It's not used often in this community, but often enough, and in a recent post. I've had it thrown at me by other het white males in the context of being angry about various injustices. It's a bullshit term, much like "political correctness", used to make marginalized groups feel that they are somehow less rational for being justifiably angry.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]faepuck
2004-10-05 06:27 am UTC (link)
Respectfully, I have to ask why "I thought it was about EQUALITY!" isn't a welcome statement.

Is it not, really, about equality? Is equality not the ultimate goal? Isn't it something all genders should try actively working toward?

I'm a little attuned to the dissenting voices on this matter, so it may take an atypical amount of patience to hear me out. But with posts that do nothing but say "men are allowed to do this and this, say this and this, and nothing else," the spirit of gender equality isn't exactly shining through, I think.

I'd like to respond to each of your points (at least, the ones I disagree with), but I've noticed that that behavior leads to banning, so I'm not up for it.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]yakkette
2004-10-05 06:40 am UTC (link)
"It's all about EQUALITY!" seems to be a common cry whenever women try to deal with the issues that specifically address women. It's a diversion tactic. Yes, it is about equality - that doesn't need to be repeated endlessly. We all know that, and we all get it, and most of us seem to realize that the only way an oppressed group can achieve equality is to focus on fighting their own oppression - not by pandering to the dominant group.

Feel free to respond to the points you disagree with. Nobody is getting banned for disagreeing (and I'm not even a mod. Hell, I'd say most of the mods don't even like me. I don't wield banning influence here.) but a few long-time trolls were banned for finally being blatant enough assholes for someone to take notice.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(part 1) - [info]faepuck, 2004-10-05 07:27 am UTC
Re: (part 1) - [info]yakkette, 2004-10-05 07:41 am UTC
Re: (part 1) - [info]evil_laugher, 2004-10-05 07:42 am UTC
(part 2) - [info]faepuck, 2004-10-05 07:28 am UTC
Re: (part 2) - [info]yakkette, 2004-10-05 07:46 am UTC
Re: (part 2) - [info]dancingdrew, 2004-10-05 07:56 am UTC
Re: (part 2) - [info]yakkette, 2004-10-05 08:40 am UTC
Re: (part 2) - [info]hothead, 2004-10-05 01:35 pm UTC
Re: (part 2) - [info]kattlady, 2004-10-05 07:12 pm UTC
Re: (part 2) - [info]katiger, 2004-10-07 07:58 am UTC
Re: (part 2) - [info]faepuck, 2004-10-07 10:31 pm UTC

[info]blunder_buss
2004-10-05 06:57 am UTC (link)
Yakette, I love you. I worship you. I shall add this to my memories and make a shrine in your name.

And half the people replying to this topic hurt me. Ow.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]yakkette
2004-10-05 07:29 am UTC (link)
don't worry - you can lessons from them and learn to be a Master Of Logic And Speaking With Unneccessarily Large Words and become really, really offended when someone is - gasp - UNCIVIL to you on teh intraweb.

dancing ninja turtles rule.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]fridgedicebunny, 2004-10-05 05:02 pm UTC
sigh...
[info]sarathinks
2004-10-05 10:46 am UTC (link)
I THINK YOU GUYZ ALL JUST PROVED THE POINTS OF THIS POST. THANK YOU FOR VOLUNTEERING.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: sigh...
[info]yakkette
2004-10-05 08:36 pm UTC (link)
It's too easy, huh? Maybe I was subconciously trying to get them to confirm my suspicions.

Or maybe they just can't read without reacting for two seconds.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

It's something like hitting your head against a wall, repeatedly. - [info]sarathinks, 2004-10-05 09:53 pm UTC

[info]goodlookinout
2004-10-05 01:47 pm UTC (link)
excellent! :)

(Reply to this)


[info]transformergeek
2004-10-05 04:25 pm UTC (link)
Hmmm...

I think the initial instinctive feeling of being attacked on my part wasn't unnatural. I just needed to stop and realize that you were really only referring to men take the focus of this community away from feminism and toward themselves, and not toward men in general.

But I have to agree with [info]2peculiar on one point. I don't view feminism as something solely about women. I do see it as an issue involving the relationship between both genders. Sorry to use one of your hated phrases... but I do think it's about equality, and I don't think you can have that if you're only involving half the picture.

I also want to thank [info]kamuela for clarifying the bit about individual sexism and institutional sexism. I tend to get a little huffy when I hear people say things like "women can't be sexist" or "people of color can't be racist" because I forget that, to these people, the terms sexist and racist are meant on a grand scale, and not on an individual level. Sometimes when I hear someone say "women can't be sexist," I take it to mean "individual women are incapable of being prejudiced or discriminatory against individual men." Usually when I take a step back and analyze the situation it makes more sense... but I agree that not omitting the word "institutional" is something that could probably save a lot of headaches. If you were to ask the average person what they thought sexism meant, I'm fairly certain that most people tend to think of it as something that happens on an individual level. But then again, I could be completely wrong.

As for resisting the unconscious urge to dominate... I think that could have been phrased a little less... harshly. You say "It's what you've been programmed to do." Are you implying that all men share this unconscious urge to dominate? I don't think you were, but that's the impression that I got.

And I just wanted to say that corollary to rule 11 made me chuckle, because I know people who fit into that category. Its just funny that that even has to be a part of the list.

Sorry if I'm breaking rule 5.

Peace

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]yakkette
2004-10-05 07:40 pm UTC (link)
My problem with people saying that feminism isn't about women is that it's taking away from why feminism exists in the first place. Women are unequal to men. Feminism is the movement to achieve said equality. Hence it's name - I mean, we explain this whenever newbies come going "OMG isn't feminism a sexist term, why can't we call it humanism?!?" We call it feminism because it's a movement dealing with how women are unequal to men - not the other way around. Men and women aren't equally unequal to each other (I can't even parse that, but I think you know what I mean.)

Now I'm happy to agree that men are harmed by gender roles - but the basic premise of feminism is accepting that men do in fact hold the vast majority of power in society, so the only way men can free htemselves from those gender roles is by confronting themselves and other men. It's true that women perpetuate gender roles, but we apparently don't even have enough power to change that for ourselves, let alone for others.

Feminism is about equality in the sense that it's not about female domination, but I reject very strongly that it should become the liberation movement of both women AND men. Men should start their own liberation movement and be allies to feminists and vice versa.

To say that feminism should be equally about men and women ignores the fact that women are the marginalized group here, and once again the focus is removed from women - in the one sphere where that should be a given!

Hopefully that's a decent explanation of what I mean.

I could've phrased the dominate rule differently - I was trying to be a little tounge in cheek and funny but apparently people took it the wrong way - like the 'penis' comments. that wasn't supposed to be serious. I do think that men are raised to control and dominate their 'lessers' and for many this is an unconcious process (which again is better than implying that men do this conciously!) but it's oen that hopefully feminist men would be aware of. I mean, it happens ALL THE TIME here - I don't see why men would be so insistent on making this all about them if they weren't attempting on some level to dominate or control. of course men aren't going to respond nicely to this theory because few people run around going "OMG my plan to dominate is working!" It's not on purpose.

and yeah, thet idea is that this wasn't neccessarily directed at anyone - but if you see any of your behavior reflected than it's partially directed at you. apparently a lot of people saw some of their behavior reflected back on them and got very, very, very defensive. that's understandable, but I don't really have of a ton of sympathy. I think the guys who 'get it' - and I pretty much include you in that category - were able to take a step back and realize that this wasn't an attack on them, but an attack on a kind of behavior that some members of their sex engage in.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]transformergeek, 2004-10-06 12:07 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]yakkette, 2004-10-06 03:31 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]transformergeek, 2004-10-06 04:47 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]yakkette, 2004-10-06 07:36 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]kamuela, 2004-10-06 11:42 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]transformergeek, 2004-10-06 12:32 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]kamuela, 2004-10-06 12:45 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]transformergeek, 2004-10-06 04:16 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]kamuela, 2004-10-06 12:49 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]yakkette, 2004-10-07 05:50 am UTC

[info]haveaball
2004-10-05 07:29 pm UTC (link)
uhhhh.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]yakkette
2004-10-05 08:37 pm UTC (link)
booga?

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]cabrutus
2004-10-05 09:07 pm UTC (link)
First, a sort of caveat or at least background: while I do not consider myself qualified enough to be called a feminist philosopher, yet, I do study and work with many feminist philosophers. Several of my closest friends in the department are feminist philosophy grad students, and I work with Alison Jaggar, who seems to have taught the first university feminist philosophy course in the United States or possibly ever. I've also worked with Lynn Hankinson-Nelson, a prominent feminist philosopher of science. So I'm not completely an outsider, but not an expert, either, of course.

Now, you've adduced a very important and helpful list, I think, one that everyone should read. Just a couple of comments:
There is no such thing as "reverse sexism." Don't even think of trying that one on us. The fact that an individual man can be harmed by an individual woman does not override an entire misogynistic social system. [Emphasis original.]
Let's be careful here. Real "reverse sexism" would be something like treating someone unfairly better because of her sex or gender, and I agree that that's not really a useful term. But I hope you don't mean to claim that women don't discriminate against men. It certainly happens less often than men discriminating against women, and moreover, is far less institutionalized than men discriminating against women, but it's certainly not unheard-of, much less in principle impossible. I'm not sure, pace a more recent post, that any and all -isms are necessarily institutionalized.
Resist the unconscious urge to dominate. It's what you've been programmed to do, but this is not the place for it. [Emphasis original.]
Some feminists would look askance at the view according to which men have been programmed to dominate women, especially on some readings of the genesis of that programming. The view might seem prohibitively essentialist. If your sense of programming is biological, especially so. But if you mean this programming is societally instituted or some sort of Nussbaumian "adaptive prefence," I think these feminists would be much more comfortable with your statement. Even so, I would be interested to see psychological or sociological studies that indicate to what degree men really are socially programmed to dominate people, or women in particular.

In terms of suggestions for adding to the list, the only one I can think of is a general point about the discourse itself. Many feminist philosophers hold that the way the average woman approaches discourse itself, evaluation of evidence, dialectic, rhetoric, etc., is often quite different from how the average man approaches those pursuits. So men in this community should expect that what they view as "default" methods for evaluating evidence or claims may not be universally or immediately accepted, or even accepted at all. This may be a (surmountable) obstacle to debate, especially on the more theoretical level.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]yakkette
2004-10-07 06:02 am UTC (link)
Most of these rules make more sense in the context of having observed this community for a while. When I referenced "reverse sexism" I'm not talking about what it REALLY means or SHOULD mean, but rather how it's used - as whining, basically. Which is why I included those "quotes" around it!

But I hope you don't mean to claim that women don't discriminate against men. It certainly happens less often than men discriminating against women, and moreover, is far less institutionalized than men discriminating against women, but it's certainly not unheard-of, much less in principle impossible. I'm not sure, pace a more recent post, that any and all -isms are necessarily institutionalized.
Other posts and comments have argued this point - I guess you didn't read them. Regardless, basic feminist theory (and really, the theory of most liberation movements of marginalized groups) make a distinct seperation between institutionalized oppression and individual prejuduice. Of course women CAN be sexist against men on an individual level. My point was that it's not at all comparable to the institutionalized sexism women face as a group - and that anyone trying to making an argument otherwise is either ignorant, sexist, or both.

Some feminists would look askance at the view according to which men have been programmed to dominate women, especially on some readings of the genesis ....
I'm in a feminist community. Perhaps I should have qualified my wording better, but there are certain things that I take for granted. For instance that "sexism" refers to true institutionalized sexism, or that within feminist circles, biological determinism is generally rejected.

I do not mean to imply that men are born to dominate. I do believe they are trained and raised and socialized to dominate, and are often completely unaware of this - which is why I said "subconcious" and not "deliberate." I don't think men are coming in here going "Oh ho ho! I am going to dominate these uppity feminists!" I do think a lot of men come in here with heapfuls of privilege and are completely unaware of it, and often end up steering conversations and threads to end up being about THEIR issues and problems instead of women's. This IS a form of control - even if it's not deliberate.

Regardless, there's been a lot of criticism of that suggestion so I realize my wording is probably problematic. If I were to revise this list for publishing, I'd reword that. Any suggestions?

In terms of suggestions for adding to the list, the only one I can think of is a general point about the discourse itself. Many feminist philosophers hold that the way the average woman approaches discourse itself, evaluation of evidence, dialectic, rhetoric, etc., is often quite different from how the average man approaches those pursuits. So men in this community should expect that what they view as "default" methods for evaluating evidence or claims may not be universally or immediately accepted, or even accepted at all. This may be a (surmountable) obstacle to debate, especially on the more theoretical level.
Excellent point. I've tried to argue this - poorly - with a few male posters who seem to think that bafflegabbing and relying on their definition of "logic" is the "correct" way to approach an argument - but I lack the vocabulary to word such arguments. You seem pretty gifted with words yourself - any idea on how to consolidate this idea into something that would fit an easily readable and accessible list like the one I made above?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]cabrutus, 2004-10-11 04:31 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]tull, 2006-06-11 07:01 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]cabrutus, 2006-06-12 06:39 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]yakkette, 2004-10-07 06:07 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]cabrutus, 2004-10-11 04:45 am UTC

Page 1 of 2
<<[1] [2] >>

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…