In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

Three Reads

Lauren

I am exhausted from the trip out of town. Pics and stories to follow. In the meantime, check out these links.

A Brief Defense Of Feminism–From A Dude:

(1) “Feminist” can simply mean that you are an advocate for equal rights for women. Someone saying “I advocate equal rights for women” or the related thought that “I would like to be judged based on my merit, not my gender” does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that they will make you spell “women” funny, are working toward the destruction of the nuclear family, or feel that women are better than men. Despite the unfortunate encounter you may have had during a college Psych class with a self-identified feminist, or the wacky story of feminist excess in Seattle that was posted in the latest “Tales of Outrage” column in the local paper, I swear that this is true.

(2) In connection with (1): If your politics are right of center, and that has led people to automatically assume that you are a right-wing extremist nut who loves fascism, remember how stupid you thought that was. Then read (1) again.

This is one of many interesting conversations on sexism and feminism in the conservative blogosphere that occurred after our most recent flame war. If you do hop on over there and decide to make a comment, do me a favor and be kind.

Men and women are from the same planet after all. Like this really needed to be said.

Janet Shibley Hyde, professor of psychology at the University of Wisconsin- Madison, who led the study, said: “Popular media have portrayed men and women as psychologically different as two planets — Mars and Venus — but these differences are vastly overestimated. The two sexes are more similar in personality, communication cognitive ability and leadership than realised.”

Ryan suggests a liberal theme song.

67 thoughts on Three Reads

  4. Brandon, a lot of people are still waking up to the idea that feminism isn’t socially destructive. I say we encourage that instead of pooh-poohing it.

  6. The definition of “feminism” set out in #1of “A Brief Defense” above is pretty useless. I mean, is there really anyone out there, aside from al Qaeda or other assorted extremist sects, that doesn’t favor “equal rights for women”? If that’s the operant definition, then we’re all feminists. But I don’t think that’s the typical definition promulgated by most people who generally call themselves feminists.

  7. If that’s the operant definition, then we’re all feminists.

    That’s an interesting position.

    Well, to take one example: Favoring “equal rights for women” would include opposing gender-based discrimination in the workplace. Would you actually argue that such discrimination has been wholly eradicated, except for companies run by “al Qaeda or other assorted extremist sects”?

  8. Would you actually argue that such discrimination has been wholly eradicated?

    I don’t know whether it has or hasn’t. Certainly, it is far less prevalent now than it once was, and our laws have changed with time to punish it. But my point is,if you are going to say that supporting equal rights or opposing gender discrimination makes one a feminist, then the bar for entry into the “club”, so to speak, is set pretty low, indeed.

    Put another way, I support equal rights for all women. I am also a political conservative (speaking broadly). In no way do I consider myself to be a “feminist”, certainly not in the way people like Jill or Lauren use the term, and I’d wager that the vast majority of my political views do not comport with the agenda advocated by most current feminist groups. Is it your position that I am still, in fact, a “feminist”? That’s an argument I’d like to hear.

  9. Jon C.,

    Yes, that definition (and as I indicated in the subject post, “the related thought that ‘I would like to be judged based on my merit, not my gender’”) seems like a threshold that any sensible person would want to cross, doesn’t it? And a sentiment that can easily cross other political lines.

    That’s why I don’t understand why there’s so much knee-jerk hostility to the general concept of feminism (aside from understandable disputes regarding the different schools of thought collected within in it), nor do I understand why there’s so much defensiveness when it’s alleged that sexism is present.

    For example, when you say that pretty much everyone other than extremists meets the definition discussed above, it doesn’t strike me as a realistic view. It’s like a backlash against “radical” feminism has undermined our ability to acknowledge and address the bad things that do still go on out there.

  10. Interestingly, while we’re talking about feminists and what that word means, here’s a quote from an article I just ran across:

    In 1953 the organization adopted a rotating series of women’s names, planning to retire names of significant storms.

    Feminists urged the WMO to add men’s names, which was done in 1979. The boy-girl-boy-girl naming convention evolved to include French and Spanish names in the Atlantic system, reflecting the languages of the nations affected by Carribean hurricanes.

    Isn’t that interesting, that in a situation where (presumably white men) decided to give women all the names for a given event, feminists responded by noting it would not be equitable unless there were also masculine-gendered names on the list? Beats the hell out of me, but I thought it was a particuarly neat example of feminists espousing egalitarianism in a situation that didn’t stand to directly benefit women.

    (Please don’t read that as “there aren’t any examples…”, because that’s not what I mean at all!)

  11. So it is in fact your argument that I’m a feminist, my personal opinion to the contrary. Interesting.

    I think any discussion of hostility towards feminism has to start by looking at feminists themselves (excluding, er, me) and the ideas they espouse. After years of telling men they’re as necessary as bicycles to fish, and collectively holding all men responsible for any rape anywhere (yes, I have read feminist literature that argues that), I can’t see how you wouldn’t expect a backlash. Maybe the problem isn’t that people aren’t “getting” the feminist message…it’s that they’re getting it all too well.

  13. Jon C.,

    Remember your statement:

    I am also a political conservative (speaking broadly).

    Would you care to be defined by what every person who describes themselves as a conservative says or does?

    To argue against feminists as a whole based on certain things said by certain feminists is a fallacy. Ironically, note that an example of this fallacy provided in the linked article is Gudrun Schyman’s argument for “collectively holding all men responsible for any rape anywhere.”

    In other words, I think you’re engaging in the same type of generalization you’re condemning.

  14. I haven’t read a whole lot of feminist literature yet (I didn’t become interested/involved in feminism until I got to college, and I’m still here), but I’ve never read anything that holds all men responsible for all rapes.

    I have read stuff that says that the patriarchy is to blame for most rape (and I agree with that), but that is not the same thing. The best analogy I can think of is this: The United States as an entity is absolutely responsible for the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II, but not all Americans alive at the time were responsible. In the same way, a patriarchal society which tells men that they are entitled to do anything they want to women is responsible for a large number of rapes (and murders), but not every male is responsible.

    Hopefully that makes sense…

  15. I agree with Hubris and would like to add that the fish without a bicycle thing is a silly example. The idea behind that isn’t that men are irrelevant, but that women don’t need a man to define who they are. The idea is that women are human beings in their own right and don’t have to be dependent on men for an identity, a a livlihood, or anything else…

    There are radical feminists who genuinely dislike men. I’ve met maybe two of those in my entire life, even though I’ve lived in two cities a LOT of feminists in them. (Santa Cruz and San Francisco, California). Most feminists are sympathetic with how men are affected by patriarchy and want to dismantle patriarchy for everyone’s sake, not just women.

  16. I think for the basis of this discussion, we should do a bit of defining, like for instance what “dismantling patriarchy” means. For outsiders that phrase looks awfully dangerous.

  17. Isn’t that interesting, that in a situation where (presumably white men) decided to give women all the names for a given event, feminists responded by noting it would not be equitable unless there were also masculine-gendered names on the list? Beats the hell out of me, but I thought it was a particuarly neat example of feminists espousing egalitarianism in a situation that didn’t stand to directly benefit women.

    Say a lesbian-separatist farm decided to name the annual plagues of beet weevils after ex-boyfriends of collective members. E.g. “Myron was responsible for the loss of nearly one-fifth of the collective’s net profits in 1982.” Would that seem flattering to you? A storm is a destructive event. A horrible event. It’s misogynist to automatically associate those events with the female gender, especially since there’s no corresponding tradition for any positive “event.”

  18. Most feminists are sympathetic with how men are affected by patriarchy and want to dismantle patriarchy for everyone’s sake, not just women.

    I agree, alleyrat. This has long been a view I’ve held–that male chauvinism hurts men as well as women.

    The disturbing thing to me is that the backlash against feminism is in such full swing on the right that even studies that correlate sexism with negative consequences for men, such as the one Lauren linked a few days ago in the post “Nice Guys Really Do Finish Last,” are read by some conservatives as anti-male propaganda. (For a really barf-inducing misrepresentation of the study’s findings, see here–but don’t say I didn’t warn you about the upchucking.) That’s a dumb knee-jerk reaction, to say the least. And you’ve got to wonder: If attempting to demonstrate the benefits of sex equality to men elicits such a negative reaction, what does that do to answer Jon’s question:

    “I mean, is there really anyone out there, aside from al Qaeda or other assorted extremist sects, that doesn’t favor “equal rights for women”?”

    I don’t know, Jon, but there are apparently people who view the assertion that “. . . statistical analysis showed that variations between countries in rates of violence against women accounted for close to half (49 percent) of the variation in male death rates” as inherently anti-male.

    So I don’t think “Al Qaeda” is the only problem here.

  19. To those who suggested I’m overgeneralizing: I didn’t intend to to paint all feminists with a broad brush here- where exactly above did I say “all feminists think X”? What I am trying to get at is maybe- just maybe- there is a little bit of denial in the feminist community (within which, granted, there is a diversity of opinion) about whose responsibility it is that the public doesn’t take an overwhelmingly glowing view of “feminism”.

  20. I think for the basis of this discussion, we should do a bit of defining, like for instance what “dismantling patriarchy” means. For outsiders that phrase looks awfully dangerous.

    it means castrating all men and putting women in charge of everything.
    doesn’t it?

    I think that what I meant when I wrote it was breaking up the system that privileges heterosexual men and masculinity at the expense of women, femininity, and non-hetero sexuality, and that creates misogyny as an ideology in order to justify hetero male privileges. Which would not, of course, involve the dismantling of any actual men. For me, it’s about hard work at the idea level, at the legal level, at the policy level, etc, that produces a more just and equitable world for everyone.

    Does that help? I don’t want to scare anyone.

  21. For me, it’s about hard work at the idea level, at the legal level, at the policy level, etc, that produces a more just and equitable world for everyone.

    Ditto.

  22. Please… I’m a man working in a still predominantly female environment (nursing). While there’s few overt signs, there’s no question where I fall in the pecking order at work and I’m fairly certain my maleness has something to do with it. And, no, I’m don’t think I’m “sensitive”. There seems to be the assumption that women in charge don’t or can’t act the same way as men. Come off it… you saw “Disclosure”.

  23. Most feminists are sympathetic with how men are affected by patriarchy and want to dismantle patriarchy for everyone’s sake, not just women.

    Uh, that’s not the message we men hear, I don’t think

    .(For a really barf-inducing misrepresentation of the study’s findings, see here–but don’t say I didn’t warn you about the upchucking.) That’s a dumb knee-jerk reaction, to say the least.

    Look, this site presents, ah, let’s say the nuanced feminist’s views, but don’t tell me your average feminist on the street holds these views. Rather, they have their own knee-jerking going on (you know, the upraised fist, shouts of “down with men”, etc.). Let’s not pretend that’s not the norm, let alone extinct, feminist worldview…

  24. Rob, how often have you personally seen a feminist marching around with an upraised fist, shouting “Down with men!” in all seriousness?

  25. Uh, that’s not the message we men hear, I don’t think

    Blame Rush Limbaugh for that, not Susan Faludi. Or, wait, I have a better idea: blame yourself, and start doing some actual reading.

    Look, this site presents, ah, let’s say the nuanced feminist’s views, but don’t tell me your average feminist on the street holds these views. Rather, they have their own knee-jerking going on (you know, the upraised fist, shouts of “down with men”, etc.). Let’s not pretend that’s not the norm, let alone extinct, feminist worldview…

    It’s not pretense: it’s not the norm. There is no “Down with men!” outside of caricatures produced by anti-feminists who play on the all-too-inflammable anxieties of poor dupes like yourself. Those anti-feminists, just so you know, are perfectly happy to lump Lauren into the man-hating category. I’m sure she can show you some colorful emails.

    There are some feminists who dislike men, and some feminists who avowedly hate them. Those make up a very tiny number of the whole, like the number of lesbians who really are separatists. Even Twisty at “I Blame the Patriarchy” does not hate men, and she’s as salty and bloody-minded as they come. You’re just plain wrong here, and it’s a shame you don’t know it.

  26. Rob, how often have you personally seen a feminist marching around with an upraised fist, shouting “Down with men!” in all seriousness?

    Well, my gramma, but only when she doesn’t take her hypertension meds.

  27. Rob said: Uh, that’s not the message we men hear, I don’t think

    speak for yourself, dude.

    y’know, your place in the “pecking order” could have to do with many factors, your maleness notwithstanding. maybe it’s your lack of connection with reality displayed by your mistaking films for reality?

  28. You’re kidding! Protests I’ve seen in SF and Berkeley have numerous women who make a decidedly anti-male point in some way. OK, maybe not the fist, but certainly t-shirt rhetoric. And don’t tell me the feminists protesting Halliburton and Iraq aren’t protesting patriarchy as Origin Of All Things That Are Really Bad. One time, I had a woman shout anti-war slogans right at me through my car window. Now why was that? There’s no sticker on my car, I wasn’t wearing a uniform, no identifiers as a war supporter. But I am the Male, responsible for the world’s wrongs, and need to be scolded by the Woman who’s not going to put up with It anymore… or maybe I’m being sensitve, I dont know…

  29. t-shirt rhetoric! good lord! run for the hills!

    oh, i also wanted to say: The feminists protesting Halliburton and Iraq aren’t protesting patriarchy as Origin Of All Things That Are Really Bad. because that’s a ridiculously simplistic characterization & feminists are smarter than that.

  30. Blame Rush Limbaugh for that, not Susan Faludi.

    What? I don’t really listen to Limbaugh, he doesn’t speak for me, and I certainly don’t believe what comes out of his mouth. How obtuse of you to assume so. Why don’t I assume Camille Paglia speaks for you… How long have you been trafficking in stereotyping? I thought you were among the Enlightened? Or so you tell me…

    start doing some actual reading

    Why don’t you give me the Approved Reading List… elitist?

    maybe it’s your lack of connection with reality displayed by your mistaking films for reality?

    Next time, I’ll be sure to spell out “joke” so that you’re not left out of the loop. Sorry about that.

  31. Next time, I’ll be sure to spell out “joke” so that you’re not left out of the loop. Sorry about that.

    no problem. apology accepted. next time try offering actual evidence…

  32. feminists are smarter than that

    ALL feminists are not smarter than that… that’s impossible… next thing you’re going to tell me is ALL conservatives are stupid and ALL Repubs have never worked on honest day in their lives.

  33. actually, it’s quite easy to be smarter than the ridiculous caricatures you’ve produced – you just have to actually think for a second.

    ok, i’ve got to have something better to do than this. bye.

  34. What? I don’t really listen to Limbaugh, he doesn’t speak for me, and I certainly don’t believe what comes out of his mouth. How obtuse of you to assume so. Why don’t I assume Camille Paglia speaks for you… How long have you been trafficking in stereotyping? I thought you were among the Enlightened? Or so you tell me…

    I blame him for helping to create the media image that all feminists hate men. Maybe you haven’t been listening to him, but you’ve definitely been spending time with someone a great deal like him, if you seriously think that feminists march around with fists upraised, shouting “Down With Men!”

    And, dude. Dude. If you think Camille Paglia is an example of “feminist,” “doctrinaire feminist,” “second-wave feminist,” or “man-hating feminist,” you are too fucking ignorant for words. That’s an error on the order of confusing Katie Roiphe with Kate Millett. You’ve just provided prima facie evidence that your source material is as full of holes as Limbaugh’s anti-feminist screeds. Paglia’s closer to your side of the debate than mine. She believes that all feminists are man-haters. Seriously, crack a book already, will you? Read Stiffed. Or any of the other feminist texts out there.

  35. Patriarchy /= men, any more than apartheid = white people. See here for an explanation.

    It’s also rather telling that you can’t come up with a single specific example of any of this “tshirt rhetoric.” That right there is backpedaling.

    One time, I had a woman shout anti-war slogans right at me through my car window. Now why was that? There’s no sticker on my car, I wasn’t wearing a uniform, no identifiers as a war supporter. But I am the Male, responsible for the world’s wrongs, and need to be scolded by the Woman who’s not going to put up with It anymore… or maybe I’m being sensitve, I dont know…

    You’re an American, and a member of the voting public. That means that you are the proper targe of any anti-war protest. Your mistake is in taking this personally or in assuming that she was hating on you because you’re a guy.

  36. Your mistake is in taking this personally or in assuming that she was hating on you because you’re a guy.

    …and you’re assuming she wasn’t. Please, let’s agree that you’ll continue to remain steeped in your assumptions, while I’ll cling ever tenuously to mine…

  37. Protests I’ve seen in SF and Berkeley have numerous women who make a decidedly anti-male point in some way.

    Oh, but they don’t march around with fists raised shouting “Down with men!” like some sort of …feminazi caricature? I see.

  38. Read Stiffed.

    OK, that’s the first Approved-Enlightened-Reading-List manual to be swallowed whole as to be admitted by the like-minded folk who frequent this blog… any others that I should read and see as being the Whole Truth to life, as I obviously have gone my entire existence without knowing this uber-consciousness. Jeez, condescend much?

  39. speak for yourself, dude.

    Jam, I checked your site out. I’m getting a vibe from you that’s very……….hostile……………………

  40. …and you’re assuming she wasn’t. Please, let’s agree that you’ll continue to remain steeped in your assumptions, while I’ll cling ever tenuously to mine…

    When you come up with an example of a woman who blamed you as a man for both the evils of the patriarchy and the Iraq war, I’ll agree with you. The burden of proof rests on you, because you were the one who wanted to use her as evidence that all feminists hate men. This doesn’t work because you don’t know that she’s a feminist or that she was yelling at you because you were a man. You also admit that she made no personal attack against you, and that she said nothing about men or feminism. “Anti-war slogans” are general.

    OK, that’s the first Approved-Enlightened-Reading-List manual to be swallowed whole as to be admitted by the like-minded folk who frequent this blog… any others that I should read and see as being the Whole Truth to life, as I obviously have gone my entire existence without knowing this uber-consciousness. Jeez, condescend much?

    Only to people who make it painfully clear that they don’t know anything about feminism. I wouldn’t presume to tell lesbian separatists that I know more about lesbian separatism than they do without having read any separatist theory. Stiffed, since you can’t be bothered to stroll on over to Amazon, is a book by a very-much-second-wave feminist all about how the patriarchy damages men. Its premise assumes that (a) the patriarchy is not men (b) patriarchal misogyny cannot be solved by hating men. It’s not a manual, merely evidence that you’re full of shit. You could pick up any number of other feminist texts, prove yourself wrong, and pick up some interesting ideas in the process. Far be it from me to insist on any particular one. Knock yourself out!

  41. that all feminists hate men

    never said that…

    Only to people who make it painfully clear that they don’t know anything about feminism.

    Well, I guess you can go about your day in smug superiority over the knuckle-dragger. To say that I can’t be bothered to pick up a feminist text to “prove myself wrong” is a non-sequitur (“first-wave”, I believe), but that’s to be understood coming from a feminist-Bible thumper like yourself. To proclaim that a feminist book IS the evidence that I’m full of shit is to expose yourself as no different than the conservative blowhards that you hate so much. Face it, you’ve become what you despise.

  42. Blame Rush Limbaugh for that, not Susan Faludi. Or, wait, I have a better idea: blame yourself, and start doing some actual reading.

    Yeah, see that’s kinda what I was talking about in my earlier comment (#20). If the feminist’s immediate reaction when confronted with a critique and/or misunderstanding of feminism is “you’re an idiot” or “it’s all Limbaugh’s fault”, is it any wonder feminism ain’t exactly all the rage? Put another way, what does it say for you that you’re basically arguing an entire movement of “empowered” women is collectively less capable of framing the issues than one guy with a radio show?

  43. If the feminist’s immediate reaction when confronted with a critique and/or misunderstanding of feminism is “you’re an idiot” or “it’s all Limbaugh’s fault”, is it any wonder feminism ain’t exactly all the rage?

    Imagine I’m saying this very, very slowly:

    What I think Piny is trying to get across to both you and Rob is that you are mistaken about the nature and aims of the feminist movement (I’m sure Piny will correct me if I’m wrong).

    Piny’s been responding to your “critiques” by noting that you’re both beating the tar out of strawmen with this “feminists hate teh mens” schtick. You and Rob both seem to be saying “No, really, you do hate the men, and that’s (understandably) offensive to us.” Has it occurred to either of you yet that you’re on a feminist weblog where, thus far, not one feminist has said anything about hating men? That is, has it occurred to you yet that maybe Piny has a point and you’re, you know, wrong?

    Whether the misrepresentations and negative stereotypes about feminism come from Limbaugh or the Tooth Fairy or Santa Claus hardly matters, because by your own comments here, it’s evident you’ve bought into them. It’s funny how you’d rather retain those stereotypes than consider the statements of actual, self-identified feminists. This is as if I asked a Nader-voting pal “What do Republicans believe?” instead of asking, say, Republicans.

  44. “oh, yeah her”: I think you’re attributing views to me that I’ve never stated. If you look above through my comments in this thread, nowhere will you see me saying anything to the effect of “all feminists hate men”. I wouldn’t say this because I know it not to be true- partly because I worked for a year alongside a very talented, smart feminist who did not hate men at all (that would be Jill). I even explicitly acknowledged that not all feminists hold the same opinions. True, I did reference some claims that I have heard (some) feminists bat around, one regarding holding men generally responsible for rape, but are you going to blame me merely for repeating statements that come out of the feminist side of the aisle?

    Your reply misses the mark, because it is not my intention to say what feminist views are or aren’t. Rather, it is my intention to shed some light on why exactly it is that many people hold a generally less-than-favorable perception of feminism, writ large. We have your and piny’s response to this: it’s because Rush Limbaugh (or others like him) are perverting and caricaturing the feminist message to the great unwashed. I, in turn, am suggesting the oh-so-radical proposition that maybe it’s something more than that, and that feminists need to look within.

    To adopt an analogy from my side of the aisle: many (though not most) people, especially a lot of people in communities of color, take the view that the Republican party is a racist party. I know this not to be true, and in fact a fair reading of history raises many more questions about the Democratic party’s spotty racial past than the GOP’s. However, I hold the Republican party accountable when it doesn’t do enough to counter these misperceptions and fails to reach out to these communities (although under RNC chairman Mehlman there have been some positive developments to this effect). Critiquing the GOP for not doing enough outreach on racial issues is not the same thing as thinking the GOP is racist. Does this give you a better idea of what I’m saying?

  45. never said that…

    Oh, excuse me. That’s not what you were saying at all. Marching around shouting about the downfall of a group, and verbally abusing random members, is completely different from hating them. I mean, look at the KKK.

    There is no feminist bible. There is a large group of associated texts which agree on some things and disagree–profoundly–on others. Think of feminism as like theology. You’ve got Thomas Aquinas and Bukko Dendo Kyokai, Martin Buber and Jeremy Bentham, Starhawk and Mother Theresa. One cannot be extrapolated to the other. The problem is not that you have no understanding of orthodox feminism; there is no orthodoxy. The problem is that you haven’t read any feminists at all. Your opinion isn’t reasoned but contrary. It’s ignorant.

    Your conception of feminism imposes a view that is inaccurate both because it is monolithic where feminism is mulifarious and because the views you attribute to it are virtually unheard-of. It is as though you assumed that virtually all religious people were just like a tiny, obscure, contrary sect of believers in a singular conception of God.

    Yeah, see that’s kinda what I was talking about in my earlier comment (#20). If the feminist’s immediate reaction when confronted with a critique and/or misunderstanding of feminism is “you’re an idiot” or “it’s all Limbaugh’s fault”, is it any wonder feminism ain’t exactly all the rage? Put another way, what does it say for you that you’re basically arguing an entire movement of “empowered” women is collectively less capable of framing the issues than one guy with a radio show?

    There’s nothing shameful about acknowledging that people respond better to a spokesman who confirms their prejudices than to a spokeswoman who attacks them. There’s also nothing shameful about failing to reach someone as willfully, lazily, belligerently ignorant as Rob. He has never heard of Susan Faludi. He does not know what he’s talking about. Would you go onto a message board about the literature of the diaspora if you’d never even heard of, let alone read, Howe or Singer? I’d be ashamed.

    What does it say about his teachability that he responds to every, “No, that’s not true, you’re mistaken,” from actual feminists with, “But there was this woman! On the street! Who yelled at me! About things which some feminists have associated with the patriarchy! Ergo, feminists are anti-male!” I should respond to this as a serious argument? There is no solving this kind of prejudice. Mary Daly and Catherine MacKinnon could show up on Rob’s door with a tin of lemon squares and a lifetime subscription to Hustler, and one bad encounter with a hardassed meter-maid would still convince the man that feminists don’t like men or want anything to do with them. He’s the Annie Jacobsen of anti-feminism.

    You want to solve this problem? Attack him for being so obstinately misinformed. Don’t attack us for pointing it out. Allowing him to equate hostility towards the ignorance of one man with hostility towards men in general wouldn’t help him to understand what man-hating actually looks like.

    And thanks very much, oyh.

  46. I guess I give up. Y’all are right. There’s absolutely nothing amiss with modern feminism. It does not suffer from a crisis of perception. Feminists are doing an excellent job of getting their messages across, with whatever failings on this score being entirely due to the Robs of the world. Feminism as a political force continues to exert strong influence in America, as evidenced by the outcomes of the last several election cycles.

    And we have always been at war with Eurasia.

  47. wow, piny summed me up beautifully… and I now stand corrected. No feminist anywhere has ever said “Down with men” with an upraised fist, not even symbolically. Nor have their ever been men-haters in their midst. I made it all up and I am contrite in my ignorant little mind. Maybe this cup of warm beer will help me forget my sins….

  48. You didn’t say some feminists or a few feminists. You said that the women marching around with upraised fists, shouting “Down with Men,” make up the representative majority of feminists, that women like that are average, and Lauren is not:

    Look, this site presents, ah, let’s say the nuanced feminist’s views, but don’t tell me your average feminist on the street holds these views. Rather, they have their own knee-jerking going on (you know, the upraised fist, shouts of “down with men”, etc.). Let’s not pretend that’s not the norm, let alone extinct, feminist worldview…

    And you think this way because you have no knowledge of feminism. You’re like an aspiring theological scholar who has never cracked the Bible or the Bhagavad-Gita, the Quran or the Book of Mormon, or any of the hundreds of thousands of theological and historical texts that have followed them. As Jon points out, that won’t keep people from listening to what you have to say–if you can develop a similar take on Islam, you’ll have yourself fodder for several years’ worth of National Review columns. But it doesn’t mean that people who do know have to pay attention, or cloak justifiable scorn for your scorn for investigation in generous words.

    I’ll say it again: go do some reading. Look at books by mainstream feminists (Gloria Steinem, bell hooks, Susan Faludi, any number of other brilliant women), and see if you can still hold the same view of feminism. See if nothing is challenged. See if they don’t ask you some interesting questions. If you don’t think you have any obligation to fact-check your own beliefs, there’s no point in dealing with you at all.

  49. I guess I give up. Y’all are right. There’s absolutely nothing amiss with modern feminism. It does not suffer from a crisis of perception. Feminists are doing an excellent job of getting their messages across, with whatever failings on this score being entirely due to the Robs of the world. Feminism as a political force continues to exert strong influence in America, as evidenced by the outcomes of the last several election cycles.

    Actually, I can lay some of the blame at your feet, given the support the Robs of this world–and the Rob on this message board–draw from people like you.

    I understand what you’re saying. I just don’t see any reason to believe that Rob would have been better reached with a little more courtesy. I can’t do his work for him, and he’s more than proven that he’s unwilling to do it himself.

  50. Actually, I take that back. I know that courtesy wouldn’t have worked. Assuming Rob read the first twenty or so comments on this board, he had seen several committed feminists talking in extremely polite terms about how men are not the same as the patriarchy, most feminists do not hate men, and how important it is that we work to make men understand that.

    To argue against feminists as a whole based on certain things said by certain feminists is a fallacy. Ironically, note that an example of this fallacy provided in the linked article is Gudrun Schyman’s argument for “collectively holding all men responsible for any rape anywhere.”

    I haven’t read a whole lot of feminist literature yet (I didn’t become interested/involved in feminism until I got to college, and I’m still here), but I’ve never read anything that holds all men responsible for all rapes.

    I have read stuff that says that the patriarchy is to blame for most rape (and I agree with that), but that is not the same thing. The best analogy I can think of is this: The United States as an entity is absolutely responsible for the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II, but not all Americans alive at the time were responsible. In the same way, a patriarchal society which tells men that they are entitled to do anything they want to women is responsible for a large number of rapes (and murders), but not every male is responsible.

    There are radical feminists who genuinely dislike men. I’ve met maybe two of those in my entire life, even though I’ve lived in two cities a LOT of feminists in them. (Santa Cruz and San Francisco, California). Most feminists are sympathetic with how men are affected by patriarchy and want to dismantle patriarchy for everyone’s sake, not just women.

    I think for the basis of this discussion, we should do a bit of defining, like for instance what “dismantling patriarchy” means. For outsiders that phrase looks awfully dangerous.

    I think that what I meant when I wrote it was breaking up the system that privileges heterosexual men and masculinity at the expense of women, femininity, and non-hetero sexuality, and that creates misogyny as an ideology in order to justify hetero male privileges. Which would not, of course, involve the dismantling of any actual men. For me, it’s about hard work at the idea level, at the legal level, at the policy level, etc, that produces a more just and equitable world for everyone.

    This is how feminists respond to questions like, “Do you hate all men?” And it was how feminists responded to the question when it first appeared on this board. Rob, in fact, was the first person to dismiss everyone with “Please….” and completely ignore all of the reasoned, polite, anti-anti-male answers he had at his disposal. So did you, in fact:

    If the feminist’s immediate reaction when confronted with a critique and/or misunderstanding of feminism is “you’re an idiot” or “it’s all Limbaugh’s fault”, is it any wonder feminism ain’t exactly all the rage?

    My Limbaugh comment was not immediate, and most of the feminists here were much nicer than Rob deserved. But yeah, it was definitely the comparison to Rush Limbaugh that caused Rob to hang on to his beliefs that feminists are anti-male.

  51. And you think this way because you have no knowledge of feminism.

    …and that’s why I’m at this site, Sherlock. I wanted to find out how today’s feminist mind thinks. Where is it written that I need to read reams of feminist literature before doing that? I missed that disclaimer. Do you read economic books before spouting off on what you think about the economy? piny, I seriously doubt you could stifle your opinion. You’re a blowhard who’s self-importance is clouding your ability to reason in any rational way. You’re right about one thing: everyone else here has been very nice. It’s what attracted me to the site in the first place. Don’t worry, you haven’t affected that one bit. If I see you again on some blog dealing with medicine or engineering, I won’t smugly dismiss you for your topical stupidity.

  52. I wanted to find out how today’s feminist mind thinks. Where is it written that I need to read reams of feminist literature before doing that? I missed that disclaimer. Do you read economic books before spouting off on what you think about the economy?

    Come off it, Mr. “Please, let’s not pretend.” You didn’t come here with questions–and you outright rejected the views of all of the “today’s feminists” on this comments thread. You came here with assertions which were demonstrably wrong. You do not need to read “reams” of feminist literature before hanging out on feminist message boards and participating in discussions about what should and should not be a feminist belief. You do need to read some feminist literature before you get to say you know what the “norm” of feminism is, or how most feminists feel and think.

    And yes, I would read up on the economy before I made bold to tell CPAs and amateur economists how the economy functions or what economists think, just as I would read Singer before telling my Jewish-American lit professor what I think Singer was trying to say. I would not form an opinion on, say, Arundhati Roy after reading nothing but a couple of Townhall columns on the free-market economy as it functions in India. I would not form an opinion on Islam after reading Cal Thomas op-eds. I would not form an opinion on American feminist work on the sex trade in other countries after reading about Paul Kristoff’s journey to Thailand. And, unlike you, I would not decide that I knew what most feminists were like before reading any feminist thinkers or historians.

    You don’t have any reason to believe what you believe–and a bunch of people who have experience with source material telling you that you are wrong, wrong, wrong–and yet you insist that you are right and that your views deserve respect. That’s ludicrous.

  53. You do need to read some feminist literature before you get to say you know what the “norm” of feminism is, or how most feminists feel and think.

    Guess what, genius. I get to say whatever I want whenever I want, just like your narrow ass…. at least until I get banned. Nevertheless, YOU are not the gatekeeper, Sparky… YOU seem to be the only person with a problem, so stand

    downYou came here with assertions which were demonstrably wrong.

    Where? The ONLY thing you’ve persuaded me of is your ability to throw around hyperbole and stereotyping… and an annoying need to broadcast how well-read you are. Big deal. There are a lot of well-read people in the world who are still mouth-breathers. The jury’s still out, pal… Of course, you wouldn’t read Townhall or Cal Thomas as you look down your nose at such conservative swill. You think you can call down the thunder from your pseudoWhite Tower as some authority figure. I ran into folks like you all the time when I worked in prison. Delusions of grandeur.

  56. Rob, under the “Feminism” category archive on this site is a slew of links that can give you a basic primer with commonly held feminist beliefs. When we write and discuss at this blog, we assume that everyone here has a basic grasp on the history of and language of feminist thought.

    If you want some basics, see this one and this one for what feminism doesn’t purport.

    Then there’s this and this.

    For something less horrifyingly feminist, unless you have an aversion to sexual innuendo, see this.

    Unfortunately, many of my old posts and comments were lost in the great move from MT to WordPress. If you have any questions or comments about those old posts, feel free to comment here. I can qualify or further explain any of my statements.

    Others can feel free to disagree with anything I have said as well. We’re not a single-minded movement, though we generally agree on most things (porn is another story).

  57. Guess what, genius. I get to say whatever I want whenever I want, just like your narrow ass…. at least until I get banned. Nevertheless, YOU are not the gatekeeper, Sparky… YOU seem to be the only person with a problem, so stand

    Of course. Then we get to ridicule you for it, because what you’re saying makes no sense. This is not about what speech is and is not protected, but what arguments are and are not worthy of respect. Yours are unsupported, and therefore unworthy of respect.

    The ONLY thing you’ve persuaded me of is your ability to throw around hyperbole and stereotyping…

    This is hyperbole and stereotyping:

    Look, this site presents, ah, let’s say the nuanced feminist’s views, but don’t tell me your average feminist on the street holds these views. Rather, they have their own knee-jerking going on (you know, the upraised fist, shouts of “down with men”, etc.). Let’s not pretend that’s not the norm, let alone extinct, feminist worldview…

    There are a lot of well-read people in the world who are still mouth-breathers. The jury’s still out, pal… Of course, you wouldn’t read Townhall or Cal Thomas as you look down your nose at such conservative swill. You think you can call down the thunder from your pseudoWhite Tower as some authority figure.

    But there are no insightful people with no knowledge of that which they are critiquing. I don’t know whether or not more reading or daily interaction with Muslims would make Cal Thomas less of a bigot. I do know that unless and until he interacts with Muslims and reads Muslim thinkers, he will be uninformed; if he continues to be uninformed and yet insist that he is an authority, he will be a bigot.

    I brought those writers up–Kristof is arguably a liberal, btw–as an example of people who have less direct experience than is necessary to be an authority on their subject matter. I would not talk to Kristoff about feminist thinking on sex work because Kristoff is not a feminist. I would read Catherine MacKinnon or other feminists who have written about sex work. Or do a little online research about feminist efforts in sex work. Or ask feminists on message boards if feminists have any activist interest in sex work. Similarly, and to take an example that won’t leave you frothing at the mouth, I would not form opinions on Mormonism after reading nothing but Under the Banner of Heaven.

    You haven’t done any of those things around feminism, but you still think you can say definitively that most feminists are or are not a certain way. Like I said, that’s ludicrous.

    I am not setting myself up as an authority figure–I keep saying not that you should rely on my word, but that you should go do research yourself. You have every right, of course, to form your own opinions. You do not get to demand respect for opinions with no basis in fact.

  58. …so what you guys are saying is that no one can “know” what feminism is just by being a part of our culture and seeing how it’s portrayed in the popular media or how it’s played out in our everyday relationships. Since I don’t read the latest feminist tome, I have to remain out of the loop. The latest inclinations of feminism by the latest “it” figure in the movement are all that counts. That’s elitism and it speaks volumes.

  59. No, what we are saying is that this is an ever-changing and diverse movement of thought that cannot be deduced from secondhand resources or from outdated constructs of feminism.

  60. …well then, the links you just gave me are already presumably too old. How do I know what’s outdated? Why do people read the classics? What could I possibly learn from dead white men? Is this where this is headed?

  61. Yes, exactly as Lauren said. And I hate to keep belaboring this point, but if you did some reading–check out Where the Girls Are, by Susan J. Douglas, Bitch magazine, mediagirl, or this blog–you’d find that feminists have a lot of interesting stuff to say about how feminism is portrayed in the mass media. In short, no, you definitely cannot look at pop culture to get an accurate picture of feminism. Like I’m saying, you’re wrong. Your generalization is inaccurate. It does not describe most feminists, the norm of feminism, or mainstream feminism. Therefore, if those are your sources, those sources are misleading.

    And stop trying to make it sound like I’m telling you to write a dissertation. There are many shades of grey between “nothing” and “everything ever listed on a women’s studies syllabus.”

  62. Lauren, since my comment is “awaiting moderation”: Am I pissing you off? I really don’t mean to cross any lines here. I understand if you want me to stop.

  64. Rob,

    I think the disconnect in the conversation is occurring because you led off by setting up a straw man argument “[t]here seems to be the assumption that women in charge don’t or can’t act the same way as men” (I will grant that you added the qualifier “seems,” but it’s still a straw man). You continue with straw man assertions like:

    “No feminist anywhere has ever said ‘Down with men’ with an upraised fist, not even symbolically. Nor have their ever been men-haters in their midst. I made it all up and I am contrite in my ignorant little mind.”

    I think this is why people are suggesting that you read up on the subject, in order to address actual feminist arguments/messages.

    I don’t know most of the people here, but I would guess many of them would agree that (1) women can also be sexist and (2) there are some examples of radical feminists that do dislike and stereotype men.

    You’re mostly arguing against positions that haven’t been stated here, and that really can’t lead anywhere.

  65. …well then, the links you just gave me are already presumably too old. How do I know what’s outdated? Why do people read the classics? What could I possibly learn from dead white men? Is this where this is headed?

    Not putting words in other people’s mouths is also a good way to foster rather than hinder debate. I’m not sure I know of many dead white men who write about feminism, heartfelt wishes for Pat Robertson’s health notwithstanding. Again, we are not complaining that you’ve latched onto one view or sect of feminism, but that you haven’t done your homework on any of them.

    Lauren didn’t mean ever-changing and diverse like Sybil. Diverse and changing over time like any broad category: religion, art, civil rights, African-American literature, psychology. It wouldn’t make sense to argue that those categories are the same as Zoroastrianism, Kandinsky, the Magna Carta, Ralph Ellison, or Freud respectively. Nor does it make sense to extrapolate a very limited sample–and so far you haven’t even given us a specific one–to the broad category of feminism. She gave you a good place to start.

  66. Lauren, I read the links you posted. I can appreciate what you’re doing with this blog. As someone with kids and a taste for life outside the fast track, I’m attracted to your mothering and your gardening. I thought you guys handled yourselves great with the Goldstein thing. I appreciate your vocal efforts at knocking down stereotypes from both sides. You agree that labels such as “Christian” and “feminist” have become critiques in and of themselves to the detriment of the involved parties.
    Unfortunately, your readers aren’t grasping those concepts:

    (I’m making the assumption that the men at MND, like most men, regularly look at pornography.)

    Personally, I think pornography is degrading to men and women alike. It’s also detrimental to families, thus society as a whole. I used to partake as a single man and I think it stunted me for a time. It has a horrible effect on boys’ and girls’ relationships with each other. I also do not worship the waif woman, as that phenomenon causes unnecessary pressure on young girls. My thing is protecting kids from harmful influences until they are old enough to handle it. I know it’s old-fashioned, but there it is. I guess, once again, I don’t fit a stereotype put forth by your readers who, by their own reckoning, claim not to have hang-ups over stereotypes! Anyone who is claiming the moral high ground should be consistent. If all stereotypes are bad, then they’re bad for everyone.

    About MND… I couldn’t get passed the blatant personal attacks to see if there was anything that might have made any sense.

    It seems we both have the same problem when wandering into the other camp.

    The problem is that women can be accused of being man-haters if they advocate for equal rights for women instead of genuinely, truly hating men.

    …much like men can be accused of hating women for not taking up the cause of feminism. Doesn’t mean I think they deserve less than me. Doesn’t mean I beat or rape my wife. I don’t think I’m committing a thought crime because I believe in traditional roles, although many would have me believe that. I’ve worked under female supervisors before and had no problem with that. Meritocracy dictates that they belonged in that position. Again, stereotype disproven.

    …terms like “ultraconservative” or “gun nut” seem to carry less of a negative connotation than “feminist” amongst the press-fed rabble.

    …this person was kidding, right? I’d say they’re about equal… it’s all about perceptions, isn’t it?

    “Feminism is for everybody.”

    If it’s for everybody, why’s it called feminism? Wouldn’t “gender equality” be more accurate? Don’t feminists decry any organization with “men” in the title, with snarky asides to circle jerks and whatnot?

    Is it not the point that feminism is seen as challenging mens power in their fight for equality?

    This is precisely the point and is the popular notion of feminism by the unwashed masses or, as piny might say, “flyover country”. However, as we are currently being groomed for our first female President, I’d go ahead and change “patriarchy” to “oligarchy”. You can’t have the leader of the free world be a female in a patriarchy.
    There was this, though, from Echidne:

    Yes, feminists like that do actually exist!

    So the man-haters do exist. They are not a figment of my imagination nor a media machination. This was my original point, probably poorly phrased.
    It seems most of your readers respond more favorably to your snarkier stuff. Is that a misperception on my part?
    As to “Where Are The Feminists?”, you admit that NOW is the most prominent feminist group, but does not speak for all feminists. How did they get to be the loudest and most prominent? You also admit that they espouse a far-left ideology. Do you suppose that NOW could be responsible for most men’s or, for that matter, most people’s opinions regarding feminism? Or is that the person’s fault for thinking the country’s most prominent feminist group probably represents mainstream feminism?
    OK, you waited until the end of the article to give me the good stuff. Our beliefs are very similar at this level. But I couldn’t help but notice that you sound more like a libertarian than a liberal (I think you did claim liberal status). With your strong feelings about government intrusion, you are no liberal, not by today’s definition.
    Lauren, I may not agree with you about a lot of things, but you certainly are the exception to the rule. You’re not shrill and it made me want to stick around and hear more. I consider that far more progress in bridging the gap than 99% of the rest of the world will ever accomplish. I feel like you’ve had to hold my hand and I’m sorry about that. You do a great job and I hope I haven’t offended you. Good luck to you and your family…

  67. So the man-haters do exist. They are not a figment of my imagination nor a media machination. This was my original point, probably poorly phrased.

    I’ll respond to the rest of this later, but I wanted to comment on this first: that was not what you said at all, and you had ample opportunity to clarify your point.

    This was what you said, italics mine:

    Look, this site presents, ah, let’s say the nuanced feminist’s views, but don’t tell me your average feminist on the street holds these views. Rather, they have their own knee-jerking going on (you know, the upraised fist, shouts of “down with men”, etc.). Let’s not pretend that’s not the norm, let alone extinct, feminist worldview…

    The norm. Average. You described the man-hating feminists as the representative majority of feminism, and stuck to that story for the rest of the comments thread. That’s not at all the same as saying that man-hating feminists exist, period, which point other commenters have long since conceded. Don’t revise your own perfectly unambiguous statements against a transcript everyone can read; admit that you said something untrue because you didn’t bother to find the truth out, and apologize.

    Also–my family’s from Rochester and Lawrence. My favorite museums are the Chicago Art Institute and the DIA, respectively. The years I spent in MI were some of the happiest of my life, and I’d go back to “flyover country” if I could afford it. But just keep it up with the unfounded assertions, buddy. I’ll just keep pointing out where you’re completely wrong.

Comments are currently closed.