Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!

Started by Pope Pixie Pickle, August 07, 2012, 11:33:24 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Signora Pæsior

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 02:43:25 PM
Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 15, 2012, 02:38:41 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 02:27:25 PM
Quote from: Signor Paesior on August 15, 2012, 02:22:07 PM
"Hey there, I see that you're currently victim to the horrors of Auschwitz. I can imagine how that must feel for you. While not a resident myself,  I am going to tell you all about Auschwitz as the local authority on Auschwitz. What's that? No, I think you're wrong about that detail. Why does that upset you? How come your side of the Auschwitz yay or nay argument is the best and I have to listen to you? If you want your situation to get better, you need to be more respectful towards people who aren't in Auschwitz when they explain Auschwitz to you.What do you mean I can't be an official Auschwitz ally if I go about misrepresenting Auschwitz and insist that the interpretation from within is somehow invalid?" to expand on the already fairly dangerous comparison.

Roger, I'm not reading that into it at all. Maybe I'm more familiar with the positions being represented here and there's a miscommunication I'm reading past. Comparing quotes of statements to those of replies and interpretations is a bit beyond the capabilities of my phone, but the thread reads like "men can absolutely be helpful and involved but cannot be primary sources on the experiences of women", "hey, fuck you for excluding me."

That, of course, has nothing to do with anything I said.

It does, however, bring up an interesting question:  Why are men supposed to be incapable of being primary sources on eglatarianism?  Or is the current definition (in this thread) of feminism gone from "eglatarianism" to "Women's historical and current problems"?

I've heard both definitions of feminism.  One is inclusive, and one is exclusive.  I prefer the inclusive version that states a goal of "all people of all genders, races, and orientations are and should be considered equal members in society".

For me, feminism is intersectional. It acknowledges that while women are systemically oppressed by patriarchy, it's pretty shit for men too. Intersectional feminism also means I don't have to choose between Being A Woman and Being Queer at any given point for the purposes of activism. But (and this is more of a point for people who think that there's a finite amount of privilege to go around so YOU CAN'T HAVE MINE, which no one on this thread has done, but it's the easiest way for me to explain my point at 1.40am); feminism focuses on women's rights rather than the harm patriarchy does to all genders in much the same way the gay rights movement focuses on the queer community rather than people of all sexual orientations -- because when we don't have equal rights, the focus is on those who are suffering under that to bring them up to the level of the privileged.

Well, for me, I have now been told by Signor Paisor and yourself that I am a ball of preconceived notions, because those notions (that I never expressed in any way, shape, or form), because another poster who happens to be of my gender expressed those notions.

Roger, I do not believe that at any point (please quote me if I'm wrong, it's rather late here) I said that you, or all men, are "a ball of preconceived notions". I was paraphrasing the arguments being made in the thread thus far, none of which were made by you.

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 02:45:05 PM
Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 15, 2012, 02:41:55 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 02:37:00 PM
Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 15, 2012, 02:30:20 PM
"Here are my preconceived notions that I'm going to use to explain why I think feminism is shit!"

Please quote where I said anything remotely close to that.

...you didn't? That was an overly-simplified version of the last two pages of this thread as I see them, which you weren't involved in (I think) until you called out the thread as turning into self-parody.

How was what I said oversimplified?  Shall I present direct quotes?  Or would you prefer to simply continue issuing me my opinion?

I was saying that what I said was oversimplified. Was that not clear from the fact that I was replying to something where you quoted said over-simplification directly?
Petrochemical Pheremone Buzzard of the Poisoned Water Hole

Pæs

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 02:51:39 PM
Quote from: Signor Paesior on August 15, 2012, 02:51:04 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 02:43:25 PM
Well, for me, I have now been told by Signor Paisor and yourself that I am a ball of preconceived notions, because those notions (that I never expressed in any way, shape, or form), because another poster who happens to be of my gender expressed those notions.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 02:45:05 PM
Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 15, 2012, 02:41:55 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 02:37:00 PM
Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 15, 2012, 02:30:20 PM
"Here are my preconceived notions that I'm going to use to explain why I think feminism is shit!"

Please quote where I said anything remotely close to that.

...you didn't? That was an overly-simplified version of the last two pages of this thread as I see them, which you weren't involved in (I think) until you called out the thread as turning into self-parody.

How was what I said oversimplified?  Shall I present direct quotes?  Or would you prefer to simply continue issuing me my opinion?
If it were anyone else, I would call a strawman including claims of misrepresentation a fairly amusing troll. I'm STILL trying to examine where you are getting your bad data from, but operating on it any further is just going to read like deliberate dishonesty.

Well, then, I guess I'd better leave you folks to it.
Um, okay then. If you ever want to come back and examine whether anyone actually issued you an opinion, I'm cool with discussing whatever issue we ran into here. It's the responses to those requests to stop and consider whether we are being clear with further "well, fine, tell me what I think" that would look like using claims of derailment to derail if I didn"t think you have more respect for the topic (which I do).

Pæs

Quote from: Gen. Disregard on August 15, 2012, 02:48:18 PM
I don't read ANYONE in this thread bashing Feminism, big F.  What I see are some expressing that any strain or version of feminism, little f, that is practiced to exclude men because they are men and don't have the experience of being women, is a strain that is probably too insular for it's own good.

Who is advocating the exclusion of men and will anyone with that point of contention quote the offending suggestion so it can be clarified or defended?

Pæs

Sleeping now.

Mebbe someone can repair this discussion so it's all pretty for me in the morning.

The Good Reverend Roger

#454
Quote from: Signor Paesior on August 15, 2012, 03:08:04 PM
Quote from: Gen. Disregard on August 15, 2012, 02:48:18 PM
I don't read ANYONE in this thread bashing Feminism, big F.  What I see are some expressing that any strain or version of feminism, little f, that is practiced to exclude men because they are men and don't have the experience of being women, is a strain that is probably too insular for it's own good.

Who is advocating the exclusion of men and will anyone with that point of contention quote the offending suggestion so it can be clarified or defended?

Well, here's one:

Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 15, 2012, 12:22:11 PM

The only thing I would add is that in my experience, the best male allies are the ones who come in knowing that they're going to have to earn trust from some feminists and just, you know, quietly do that instead of whining about how Really Really Nice They Are, Why Are You Oppressing Me With Your Mistrust.

To everyone who agrees with the above statement:

I am not fucking required to gain anyone's trust.  I am required as a biped to be an eglatarian, defined as "all human beings are equal and to be judged - when judgement is necessary - according to their individual merits".  I do not require that anyone trust me for me to do that.  I am not joining a club, or even an organization.  Your or anyone else's "trust" is meaningless in this context.  I am an elgatarian because it is the right thing to do.

So, you know, fuck this "alliance" business.  I am going to do what works, which is to set an example, and not tolerate inequality in my workplace, the crew I run, my family, my home, or my social circle.  Alliances lead to dominance games, and it's become fairly self-evident, at least in this group, that this becomes counterproductive and requires a uniform. 

So you can take your trust requirement and shove it where the sun doesn't shine.  I'm not doing this for you, and I do not require the approval of other feminists to be a feminist.

And if that's not good enough, then too fucking bad.

There are other examples upthread.  I can get into them, if you like.
" It's just that Depeche Mode were a bunch of optimistic loveburgers."
- TGRR, shaming himself forever, 7/8/2017

"Billy, when I say that ethics is our number one priority and safety is also our number one priority, you should take that to mean exactly what I said. Also quality. That's our number one priority as well. Don't look at me that way, you're in the corporate world now and this is how it works."
- TGRR, raising the bar at work.

Pope Pixie Pickle

Quote from: Gen. Disregard on August 15, 2012, 02:48:18 PM
I don't read ANYONE in this thread bashing Feminism, big F.  What I see are some expressing that any strain or version of feminism, little f, that is practiced to exclude men because they are men and don't have the experience of being women, is a strain that is probably too insular for it's own good.


I think ANY movement designed to better the lives of any subset of humans can be bettered by having people who aren't necessarily part of the affected group, but who have the passion and the skill sets to advance the cause.  The people from the affected group will have the unique experiential knowledge, but they may not have the advocacy or media savy that an "outsider" would have. 


It just helps to make a well-rounded and robust approach, as anyone who does any kind of grass roots work will tell you.

I agree with this. The people with the privilege and the skills still need to listen to the main core of the movement/s, and take what they say seriously.

I'm about to compile a bunch of stuff that is designed for dude-peoples to grasp feminist ideas, and on how to be a good ally. I'm specifically choosing the less academic style of texts, without too much of the particular and specific-to-feminist-discussions language, as I have found that it can be an obstacle to some people. Terms such as patriarchy, rape culture and so on can come across as very loaded, and I'd like to avoid that as much as physically possible. What I want to do is to attempt to bypass the kneejerk reactions and get to a place of self analysis and contemplation. People may not entirely grasp a lived experience, but a teaspoon of understanding of that experience from those who haven't had it is better than none.  This is where I hope to get to initially, because that teaspoons worth of understanding is the basis for building on more and actually making progress.

Oh and Roger, i think most of the last 2 pages were referring to P3nt's take on it, rather than you.  You are a decent guy and it SHOULD be the default position, but in my experience, it's not always the case.   


The Good Reverend Roger

Quote from: Pixie on August 15, 2012, 03:18:09 PM
Oh and Roger, i think most of the last 2 pages were referring to P3nt's take on it, rather than you.  You are a decent guy and it SHOULD be the default position, but in my experience, it's not always the case.

Actually, I've spend most of my life as a bit of a monster.  I am about as "decent" as William Calley.

And I think you're working off of false positives, here.  In my experience, 80-90% of men are what you would call "decent"1.  The ones who AREN'T are the ones who get noticed.

I am not suggesting blind faith.  I am not suggesting you let strangers at parties mix your drinks out of your sight, any more than I'd suggest you tape a hundred pound note to your head and walk through London alleyways at night.  I AM suggesting that one key component of eglatarianism is that everyone is innocent until proven to be a swine (again, this does not preclude caution).


1  This doesn't include Phoenix.  They're up to their arseholes in religious weirdos there that make the Taliban look like Leo Buscaglia.
" It's just that Depeche Mode were a bunch of optimistic loveburgers."
- TGRR, shaming himself forever, 7/8/2017

"Billy, when I say that ethics is our number one priority and safety is also our number one priority, you should take that to mean exactly what I said. Also quality. That's our number one priority as well. Don't look at me that way, you're in the corporate world now and this is how it works."
- TGRR, raising the bar at work.

Bebek Sincap Ratatosk

Oh come on Spags, this was a really good conversation... let's not ruin it before 50 pages!!! :D

I keep seeing layers in the conversation of people talking past each other. The women are making some excellent points, the guys are making some excellent points... but both sides seem to be misinterpreting the intent behind those points (in my opinion).

First off, I have to say that if I had lived my whole life being treated differently because of my race, sex etc that would feel pretty shitty and I would be pissed off about it. So full points to the girls as to why this is an intense issue.

Secondly, if I go through my day thinking people are equal and treating people as equal and then some person says "Well, you say curse word X and therefore are a misogynist and are coming from 'privilege'" then I'm gonna get defensive.

In my opinion, its probably better for the health of this debate to recognize both of these points. The women might yell a bit louder or make some insulting remarks, because they've been abused by society. Anyone coming out of an abusive situation tends to yell pretty loudly about it, even if its not the best tactic for convincing other people. The guys might be a little defensive, especially if they are told subjective opinions as fact "If you say cunt/pussy etc you ARE a misogynist", "If you aren't a woman you CAN'T understand...", simply because they feel like they're being attacked and lumped in with the knuckle dragging, male monkeys that embarrass the hell out of the rest of us guys.

Cain said e-Prime would be useful in this and I think he's right. (though I didn't want to say it since me and e-Prime comments turn threads into hours of drift.)

But, lets compare:

"If you say cunt/pussy etc you ARE a misogynist"

"If you use cunt/pussy as a slur, you appear misogynistic to many women."

The first is an opinion, being presented as fact. The second is fact being presented as fact.

That being said, I think especially here in this debate that getting defensive and digging in your heels as a guy isn't really useful. I may get shit on for this (and I hope not because I'm not trying to be misogynistic here) but if you're dealing with people that have been abused, you gotta make some allowances for behavior. Women have been abused, they're pissed, they might say shit that sounds like angry accusations and might even hurt, but FFS, let it go. Read through the anger and see what they're trying to say. I for one have been enjoying the hell out of this thread and the earlier one. It's really made me focus on a topic I hadn't paid much attention to previously.
- I don't see race. I just see cars going around in a circle.

"Back in my day, crazy meant something. Now everyone is crazy" - Charlie Manson

Placid Dingo

Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 15, 2012, 02:00:12 PM
Quote from: Gen. Disregard on August 15, 2012, 01:50:43 PM
Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 15, 2012, 01:23:32 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 15, 2012, 01:03:31 PM
it's actually complete bullshit. You have to go through something to experience it, yes but to understand? To empathise? Fuck no. I wasn't in Auschwitz but do I understand what happened and why it was wrong?

I don't actually think that any intellectual understanding of the horrors of Auschwitz is even remotely comparable to the utter, utter terror of actually living through it. Like, at all. Even the most imaginative person's "understanding and empathy" will summon approximately 1/1999th of the feeling than an actual memory of actual lived experience.

I'm not even going to touch the rest of your post, because every point you've made has already been raised, countered and refuted and at this point I can only assume that you are deliberately and willfully not absorbing what Garbo, Pixie and others are telling you.


That's bullshit.  Of course we can't fully understand the actual level of emotional and physical trauma suffered.  But we CAN, intellectually, understand, as Pent said, the ideas, the fundamentals, and the nature of what was happening, why, and why it was wrong. 


Otherwise, we should go ahead and cancel every history class everywhere forever.

I think this http://www.shakesville.com/2009/08/terrible-bargain-we-have-regretfully.html has probably the best articulation of why "we understand intellectually!" is problematic as hell:
Quote
There are the occasions that men—intellectual men, clever men, engaged men—insist on playing devil's advocate, desirous of a debate on some aspect of feminist theory or reproductive rights or some other subject generally filed under the heading: Women's Issues. These intellectual, clever, engaged men want to endlessly probe my argument for weaknesses, want to wrestle over details, want to argue just for fun—and they wonder, these intellectual, clever, engaged men, why my voice keeps raising and why my face is flushed and why, after an hour of fighting my corner, hot tears burn the corners of my eyes. Why do you have to take this stuff so personally? ask the intellectual, clever, and engaged men, who have never considered that the content of the abstract exercise that's so much fun for them is the stuff of my life.

It's this simple: as a cis man, you have never had to experience life as a woman. I can't understand why so many men get so butthurt when we tell you this, as though we're excluding you from the magical club of oppression.

I think it was around here Paes. Personally I suspect the example given is a bad one as the men in question are not so much trying to assume that they can understand the experience of being a woman as just being shithouse at being empathetic.

Empathy is an emotional understanding, really. And some things don't have an obvious emotional impact. For example, dudes always coming onto me is such a foreign concept as far as a negative goes because in the opposite scenario, if I'm always getting cracked onto by women, I'd be over the moon. So it takes those conversations with women to be able to understand where a perspective comes from, for a woman. But I don't know how that means that a man, listening to a woman, empathetic and intellectually understanding of a situation, is unable to 'truely understand' well enough to be an effective part of Feminism. I don't if that's what's being suggested, but I suspect something similar to that is what's being conveyed.

Also, I sleep now too.
Haven't paid rent since 2014 with ONE WEIRD TRICK.

Pope Pixie Pickle

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 03:16:36 PM

To everyone who agrees with the above statement:

I am not fucking required to gain anyone's trust.  I am required as a biped to be an eglatarian, defined as "all human beings are equal and to be judged - when judgement is necessary - according to their individual merits".  I do not require that anyone trust me for me to do that.  I am not joining a club, or even an organization.  Your or anyone else's "trust" is meaningless in this context.  I am an elgatarian because it is the right thing to do.

So, you know, fuck this "alliance" business.  I am going to do what works, which is to set an example, and not tolerate inequality in my workplace, the crew I run, my family, my home, or my social circle.
  Alliances lead to dominance games, and it's become fairly self-evident, at least in this group, that this becomes counterproductive and requires a uniform. 

So you can take your trust requirement and shove it where the sun doesn't shine.  I'm not doing this for you.

And if that's not good enough, then too fucking bad.

There are other examples upthread.  I can get into them, if you like.

As to the bolded bit...

You're already riding the correct motorcycle as an ally as far as I am concerned. YOU already get it, and you aren't demanding cookies for being decent, which is awesome.




Signora Pæsior

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 03:16:36 PM
Quote from: Signor Paesior on August 15, 2012, 03:08:04 PM
Quote from: Gen. Disregard on August 15, 2012, 02:48:18 PM
I don't read ANYONE in this thread bashing Feminism, big F.  What I see are some expressing that any strain or version of feminism, little f, that is practiced to exclude men because they are men and don't have the experience of being women, is a strain that is probably too insular for it's own good.

Who is advocating the exclusion of men and will anyone with that point of contention quote the offending suggestion so it can be clarified or defended?

Well, here's one:

Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 15, 2012, 12:22:11 PM

The only thing I would add is that in my experience, the best male allies are the ones who come in knowing that they're going to have to earn trust from some feminists and just, you know, quietly do that instead of whining about how Really Really Nice They Are, Why Are You Oppressing Me With Your Mistrust.

To everyone who agrees with the above statement:

I am not fucking required to gain anyone's trust.  I am required as a biped to be an eglatarian, defined as "all human beings are equal and to be judged - when judgement is necessary - according to their individual merits".  I do not require that anyone trust me for me to do that.  I am not joining a club, or even an organization.  Your or anyone else's "trust" is meaningless in this context.  I am an elgatarian because it is the right thing to do.

So, you know, fuck this "alliance" business.  I am going to do what works, which is to set an example, and not tolerate inequality in my workplace, the crew I run, my family, my home, or my social circle.  Alliances lead to dominance games, and it's become fairly self-evident, at least in this group, that this becomes counterproductive and requires a uniform. 

So you can take your trust requirement and shove it where the sun doesn't shine.  I'm not doing this for you, and I do not require the approval of other feminists to be a feminist.

And if that's not good enough, then too fucking bad.

There are other examples upthread.  I can get into them, if you like.

Right. I thought the meaning of that quote was fairly clear based on the context it was posted in, but in case not, let me restate my position.

Men who come into feminist spaces should not immediately expect, nor feel entitled to, the blind faith or trust that they will be a Good Male Feminist* from the get-go.

Even restating that, considering my statement was "the best male allies", which well and truly allows for the participation of men in feminism, I'm really unclear as to how this is evidence of my advocation the exclusion of men.

*There's an interesting discussion to be had around the fact that we hold cis male feminists to a higher standard than pretty much anyone else, rightly or wrongly, but it's probably a discussion for another thread.
Petrochemical Pheremone Buzzard of the Poisoned Water Hole

Bebek Sincap Ratatosk

I think Dingo made a good point. Just because I can't intimately and completely share the same reality with with women on this topic, doesn't mean I can't empathize that our society is shitty towards women in general. Just because women may seem a little aggressively accusatory towards guys on this topic, doesn't mean we should drop trying to empathize. However, just because the guys can't completely understand the experience, doesn't mean that they can't "get it".

Signora also made a good point in clearing up what was intended, because I read the original comment as Roger did. Thanks for that.
- I don't see race. I just see cars going around in a circle.

"Back in my day, crazy meant something. Now everyone is crazy" - Charlie Manson

Signora Pæsior

Quote from: Placid Dingo on August 15, 2012, 03:27:29 PM
But I don't know how that means that a man, listening to a woman, empathetic and intellectually understanding of a situation, is unable to 'truely understand' well enough to be an effective part of Feminism. I don't if that's what's being suggested, but I suspect something similar to that is what's being conveyed.

I certainly didn't mean to suggest that men cannot truly understand enough to be an effective part of feminism. What I was trying to point out (poorly, it seems) is that a man's intellectual, empathetic understanding should always take a back seat in feminist discussions to the actual lived experiences of women.
Petrochemical Pheremone Buzzard of the Poisoned Water Hole

Pope Pixie Pickle

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 03:24:41 PM
Quote from: Pixie on August 15, 2012, 03:18:09 PM
Oh and Roger, i think most of the last 2 pages were referring to P3nt's take on it, rather than you.  You are a decent guy and it SHOULD be the default position, but in my experience, it's not always the case.

And I think you're working off of false positives, here.  In my experience, 80-90% of men are what you would call "decent"1.  The ones who AREN'T are the ones who get noticed.


In certain situations, a false positive is better than the outcome of failing to spot someone who is dangerous.  It sucks to be the false positive, for sure, but if it's a choice between reading someone too harshly, or not reading a fucking asshole harshly enough, I'm sorry I had to bail on the hidden decent person, but the asshole doesn't usually overtly advertise his assholeness. If it comes down to my basic survival and well being I'm going to act on the false positive.

http://yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com/2009/11/12/meet-the-predators/

This article pretty much explains why.



Anna Mae Bollocks

Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 15, 2012, 05:18:57 AM
Quote from: Net on August 15, 2012, 05:08:53 AM
The following is a rationalization that my brain came up with. I know it's not right in spite of there being a little truth to it, but I thought I'd offer it up as an example of a way that patriarchal ideas can manifest. I'm also depositing it here for the sake of dissection.

Women tend to be physically smaller and have less upper body strength than men, so why is it such a no-no to link femininity to weakness? On one hand I hear women saying that men don't understand how inequality in strength and size fuels feelings of vulnerability around men, yet women seem to not want womanhood or femininity otherwise linked with weakness.

Unfortunately, it's entirely appropriate for women to be concerned about being physically overpowered as it's basic fact that most men are stronger than most women. For the average man, such a concern is less warranted as he's likely to have a more even match when push comes to shove. So when guys disparage one another using words conceptually linked to women it seems less about putting women down and more an inference that what is an appropriate concern for a woman is often not an appropriate concern for man.

OK, I'm going to do one of those comparisons that people hate so much. Before I do, I want to make clear that I am doing this purely because I find it incredibly effective in highlighting the issue in terms that most of us are already familiar with, and not because I in any way think you endorse these views.

QuoteBlacks tend to be lower income and have less material wealth than whites, so why is it such a no-no to link blackness to poverty? On one hand I hear blacks saying that whites don't understand how inequality in income and assets fuels feelings of oppression and disparity around whites, yet blacks seem to not want African origins or dark skin otherwise linked with poverty.

Unfortunately, it's entirely appropriate for blacks to be concerned about being economically discriminated against as it's basic fact that most whites are paid more than most blacks. For the average white person, such a concern is less warranted as they're likely to have a more even match when applying for work. So when whites disparage one another using words conceptually linked to blacks it seems less about putting blacks down and more an inference that what is an appropriate concern for a black person is often not an appropriate concern for a white person.

Question (not gauntlet): Aren't there more poor Blacks because of a rigged social/economic system? If everybody had the same advantages here, the numbers would be different, obviously. Men don't have more upper-body strength because of better nutrition or because gyms keep women out, so I'm not sure about this analogy.

I don't have a problem with being seen as inherently physically weaker, it doesn't mean "inferior" anyway. We have other things we tend to do better, we're just as good, but not identical. I like being able to ask guys to to heavy lifting because they know it's easier for them. It would be another story if I'd grown up watching boys get better food and play outdoors while I was locked in a room mending socks or something.
Scantily-Clad Inspector of Gigantic and Unnecessary Cashews, Texas Division