Anti-feminist anger, p2

[Guest Raidne]

Well, Tempra, you've already said that you have no respect for anything the "fringe elements" has to say, and you've now identified me as a member of the "fringe element" so I think you defined yourself right out of any continuation of the conversation.

Or, to put it as you would, "lulz you R so crzy I no have to respondz to anythings you sayz."

[Kalbear]

?????? Really, there aren't enough question marks in the world. Plus, didn't a lot happen in other countries around that time?

There were quite a few laws and victories - but a lot of them aren't really that well publicized. Title IX, for example, has more notoriety as the thing that took away unlimited scholarships for football.

And part of it is the success. Feminists in the second wave got almost everything they went after; discrimination laws, equal pay rights, illegalization of rape. But nothing like women's suffrage or the civil right's act. There was a lot of meat there, but nothing in one big spot.

You said this, but gave no indication of numbers. What's the scale here? What percentage of the over all feminist movement do people who qualify as "extremists" represent?

I have no idea. Considering how many people act with feminist ideals but don't self-classify themselves as feminists, it's very difficult to say. I will say that radical feminists certainly have the more vocal part, either by manipulation via the media or by their own choice. I admit it may be entirely a perception issue. My gut feeling is that those women who are willing to call themselves feminists are more likely to be doing so with the decision to be that kind of extremist feminist.

I don't see the benefits of dissociating the movement from groups that are deemed "embarrassing." They are, whether we like it or not, part of the family. It'd be hypocritical of a movement that rests on promulgating respect for each person's choices regardless of whether these choices conform to nominal social structures or not to then turn around and establish a strict and exclusive membership litmus-tests, telling one woman that she is a feminist and the other that she is not. The proper strategy is not to dissociate oneself from the "embarrassing" segments of the movement, because whence comes this "embarrassment" if not the very same systemic anti-woman attitude, consciously manifested or unconsciously existing by default, trying to silence them? The dissociation will only embolden the attempts to silence the pro-equity side.

That's fine, but it also means you get the bad parts too. Not having a single message or set of goals, a unified notion of what you want to achieve - and not being able to say 'this is off message' means that you aren't going to be as politically viable.

And maybe that's okay. Maybe it's fine to be very heterogeneous and diverse, and celebrate diversity without backbiting. But unfortunately that also means accepting feminists who are happy to criticize your feminist views too.

On the feminist side, I think there's a clear difference between supporting the equality of the sexes to supporting going outside of social norms, and that one does not necessarily follow the other. But I guess that's more my view than a mainstream one.

This pointing to unlikable portions of a movement is a classic divide-and-conquer strategy, you know. It happens to all social movements. LBGT are asked to hide their drag-queens and their bull-dykes, too, and thank Dog only the dimwits in the Log Cabin believe that they can achieve equality by marginalizing members of their own group.

It might be a strategy, but it's not necessarily all about the evil others that are doing it to you. Process changes when the mainstream accepts a value. Being shocking can add shock value, but it can also alienate.

Heh. One reason I hardly respond to any particular thing said in these threads is the hypocritical nature of so many negative comments about the movement or feminism. So much of it is so very patronizing as well, to say the least.

It's tough for me, and I usually don't participate in these kinds of threads. I've tried not to label extreme feminism as bad exactly - just politically counterproductive. But there's always the issue of the person with privilege telling those without how they can and can't protest or what's most acceptable for them. At the same time, it's important to recognize how those with privilege will react, because like it or not they are the ones that are going to likely decide policy.

[potsherds]

It's tough for me, and I usually don't participate in these kinds of threads. I've tried not to label extreme feminism as bad exactly - just politically counterproductive. But there's always the issue of the person with privilege telling those without how they can and can't protest or what's most acceptable for them.

Kal, I really don't want you to think I was addressing you. You are one of the least patronizing and hypocritical commenters here. It's very obvious to me that you're being careful how you state things because you're aware of your own privilege. It's really actually nice when you comment because you're one of few people who really seem to get this.

At the same time, it's important to recognize how those with privilege will react, because like it or not they are the ones that are going to likely decide policy.

I'm sure you understand how much this feels like an unwinnable battle, as a result. The absolute dearth of male allies (or at least ones that will speak up *ahem*), give me the impression, personally, that those that care are those without power in the current system, so it's useless. As a result, I actually relate to what Raidne and I would consider radical feminists -- the separatists. This issue of having little voice in the current system -- and by system I mean our culture as a whole -- sure can make me think how nice it would be to just opt out. I wouldn't do that because that's fairly defeatist (although I sure as hell relish being single over dealing with a guy that doesn't 'get it'), and does nothing to help future women, or women in other cultures, but I understand the idea.

[Tempra]

Well, Tempra, you've already said that you have no respect for anything the "fringe elements" has to say, and you've now identified me as a member of the "fringe element" so I think you defined yourself right out of any continuation of the conversation.

Or, to put it as you would, "lulz you R so crzy I no have to respondz to anythings you sayz."

I'll probably get modded for this, but are you tired, dumb or just angry right now? If you don't like my response, say so. If you don't want to continue the discussion, don't. But for christ sakes don't make up stupid sounding shit and pretend that's how I would word it. Or worse, call me an ass. Grow up, please.

[Guest Raidne]

And part of it is the success. Feminists in the second wave got almost everything they went after; discrimination laws, equal pay rights, illegalization of rape. But nothing like women's suffrage or the civil right's act. There was a lot of meat there, but nothing in one big spot.

We seem to have some crossed wires here. The Civil Rights Act is the law that made it illegal to discriminate on the basis of sex or gender. So for me you're saying that the Civil Rights Act wasn't as big of a deal as the Civil Rights Act. ?

At the same time, it's important to recognize how those with privilege will react, because like it or not they are the ones that are going to likely decide policy.

Well, actually, in this one case, women aren't really as obligated to do that. A lot of the people with privilege are feminists - the Secretary of State, the First Lady, the Speaker of the House, etc. And women constitute half of the voting population. Sure, Phyllis Schafly is female, but a lot of men are also feminists without the need for concessions that make the whole equal rights thing palatable to their male egos. Kal, I tend to think that you lean too far towards the victimization of women when you start off in this direction.

We're in a good spot. We're not really in need of any big favors from anyone. A lot of it now is just social change that takes time and generations, and a few key pieces of legislation that face opposition because they are somewhat anti-capitalist, not because they promote gender equality, e.g. equal paid parental leave.

[Guest Raidne]

I'll probably get modded for this, but are you tired, dumb or just angry right now? If you don't like my response, say so. If you don't want to continue the discussion, don't. But for christ sakes don't make up stupid sounding shit and pretend that's how I would word it. Or worse, call me an ass. Grow up, please.

Ass. ;)

He he.

[Kalbear]

I'm sure you understand how much this feels like an unwinnable battle, as a result. The absolute dearth of male allies (or at least ones that will speak up *ahem*), give me the impression, personally, that those that care are those without power in the current system, so it's useless. As a result, I actually relate to what Raidne and I would consider radical feminists -- the separatists. This issue of having little voice in the current system -- and by system I mean our culture as a whole -- sure can make me think how nice it would be to just opt out. I wouldn't do that because that's fairly defeatist (although I sure as hell relish being single over dealing with a guy that doesn't 'get it'), and does nothing to help future women, or women in other cultures, but I understand the idea.

Yeah, it's a tough one. It comes down to whether you feel that the system can be fixed to include and promote feminism or the system is the inherent cause of sexism, and as long as the system exists it will facilitate it. That's the central reasoning behind the linguistic changes, after all (or at least one of them, the other main one is inclusion). I still think that there's nothing so systemic in our system that it can't be modified to deal with most every issue, but I also think that there's a lot of cultural baggage that needs to be dealt with first. And it's likely that the next feminist revolution - if one occurs - will be a sociological one, not a political one.

Or it will come because men want traditionally feminine-role rights. Which would be kind of awesome, honestly.

And thanks for the kind words. Even if I'm aware of that, it still doesn't change the perception; my awareness of having privilege doesn't remove it, after all. And much like the stupid Bakker stuff, even if what I'm saying is nice and well-worded at the end of the day I'm a guy telling women what they should and shouldn't do.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Uh huh. Survey: how many self-identified feminists agree with this statement:

"The use of gender-specific language often implies male superiority or reflects an unequal state of society"

First of all, I don't think "self-identified" feminists are the right group to be defining what those terms mean. I rather suspect that the left's idea of what constitutes a "radical" conservative or "radical" Republicans is a bit different from how they'd self-describe.

Leaving that aside, that survey question is miles away from the point you made. It is so vague that it permits the answerer to read anything he/she wants into it. Maybe some people answering that question would be thinking of the former use of "his" as the default pronoun, or "man" instead of "person". I wouldn't consider it "radical" to object to such usages. But then, that's not what you said.

I think your poll result might change a bit if you actually asked people about the exact language you used. "Should all people should be referred to as "wym", and males referred to as "menwyn"? I'm guessing that even among self-described feminist, the answers for those two different questions would be significantly different.

[Kalbear]

We seem to have some crossed wires here. The Civil Rights Act is the law that made it illegal to discriminate on the basis of sex or gender. So for me you're saying that the Civil Rights Act wasn't as big of a deal as the Civil Rights Act. ?

How many people associate the Civil Rights act with women?

If you asked 100 people what they thought of when you said 'civil rights', how many would state ANYTHING about women?

Well, actually, in this one case, women aren't really as obligated to do that. A lot of the people with privilege are feminists - the Secretary of State, the First Lady, the Speaker of the House, etc. And women constitute half of the voting population. Sure, Phyllis Schafly is female, but a lot of men are also feminists without the need for concessions that make the whole equal rights thing palatable to their male egos. Kal, I tend to think that you lean too far towards the victimization of women when you start off in this direction.

Sorry. I was referring to the white male privilege, not those in power. Yes, there are a lot of women in powerful situations, but that does mean they have those privileges (and having to say that they're women and identify them in specific roles should indicate that).

My point is that one way or another, to get political changes the changes need to be palatable to the mainstream. And most of those people are those who either have privilege (and thus are included when something like an anthem says 'thy sons') or those who don't have a problem with it for whatever reason.

We're in a good spot. We're not really in need of any big favors from anyone. A lot of it now is just social change that takes time and generations, and a few key pieces of legislation that face opposition because they are somewhat anti-capitalist, not because they promote gender equality, e.g. equal paid parental leave.

I think that feminism is largely in a decent spot. I still think there's a lot of systemic discrimination, and quite a bit of it is harmful. But it's tough to separate that from just blowing everything up.

[Guest Raidne]

First of all, I don't think "self-identified" feminists are the right group to be defining what those terms mean. I rather suspect that the left's idea of what constitutes a "radical" conservative or "radical" Republicans is a bit different from how they'd self-describe.

What? If the majority of feminists are committed to the cause of gender-nuetral language, doesn't that by definition make it not extremist?

I mean, if the majority of self-identified conservatives want to privatize social security, than it is, by definition, mainstream. There's no external objective arbiter of what is "moderate" and what is "extremist."

Leaving that aside, that survey question is miles away from the point you made. It is so vague that it permits the answerer to read anything he/she wants into it.

It's one of the first few sentences in the Wikipedia article titled "gender nuetrality in language." The idea of "womyn" came about because feminists didn't want the term that described their sex to be a derivative of "men." Simiarly, Wym is used in the book Egalia's Daughters because it's a dystopia where men are put into the position women have in our culture, so the word for "men" has to be "menwym" so it's derivative of "wym." But, the unifying idea is that gender neutrality in langauge is important. That's the whole point there, not that feminists have an overwhleming affection for the letter "y."

And, in that spirit, please use s/he and not he/she. I mean, honestly.

Would you feel better if I asked how many people of all kinds agreed with that?

Maybe some people answering that question would be thinking of the former use of "his" as the default pronoun, or "man" instead of "person". I wouldn't consider it "radical" to object to such usages. But then, that's not what you said.

As they damn well should be. Because that's the issue.

"Should all people should be referred to as "wym", and males referred to as "menwyn"? I'm guessing that even among self-described feminist, the answers for those two different questions would be significantly different.

What if I asked it like this: "Would it be of surpassing coolness if, in every March, women's history, the default pronoun for a person was "wym" and the pronoun denoting maleness was "menwym"?"

ETA: Kal, I have been so involved with Title VII jurisprudence for so long that I absolutely could not tell you what most people think of when they hear "Civil Rights Act of 1964," but to me, the idea that people wouldn't know that it ended workplace discrimination against women is unimaginable.

But apparently I should prepare myself to be depressed.

Let's ask FLOW.

[a wooden chair]

Or it will come because men want traditionally feminine-role rights. Which would be kind of awesome, honestly.

And thanks for the kind words. Even if I'm aware of that, it still doesn't change the perception; my awareness of having privilege doesn't remove it, after all. And much like the stupid Bakker stuff, even if what I'm saying is nice and well-worded at the end of the day I'm a guy telling women what they should and shouldn't do.

I know I'm quoting you Kalbear but you needn't be the one to enlighten me if you'd rather the Wym do it. Aside from physical differences that obvious genetic engineering and cybernetics will resolve (I.E. Pregnancies) what are the "Traditional" feminine role-rights?

[Lady Blackfish]

The moderates get lumped in with the radicals, which affects the perception of the term in the minds of a lot of people.

But this doesn't say anything about what to do about it. We've established a double-bind here, as far as I can tell. "I agree with a lot of what feminists say and do and think but because people don't understand what a lot of feminists say and do and think I don't want to be associated with them."

As far as I can tell, the point seems to be that since people think feminism is unreasonable, we should ... affirm that misconception? If you say to me, "I associate feminism with XYZ unreasonable goals" and I respond to you that you are misinformed, surely the most productive path to take the conversation is NOT "But I have reasons to feel this way! A lot of people feel this way!"

Either it is an appropriate image of feminism, or it isn't. Right? It doesn't seem to me like it solves anything to keep going:

"But feminists do all this cool stuff!"

"But nobody thinks so!"

Should we not, instead, inform people about feminism? Encourage them to listen, and not respond with knee-jerk "Feminists are shrill harpy shrews who kill their own message"? To the earlier point that feminism needs to clarify its message to make it more "sellable", I have to say that I don't think we can get around the fundamental trueism that a lot of feminism's message is simply not palatable to the mainstream, because the mainstream is not as egalitarian as it likes to think it is. Raidne's right, the language neutrality issue isn't exactly a radical position, but it doesn't mean that feminists don't also care about what people are seeing here as "bigger issues".

[Guest Raidne]

Think "stay-at-home Dad."

ETA: Or "bottom." It would be great if more men would volunteer for that one and give Tempra a break already.

[a wooden chair]

Think "stay-at-home Dad."

ETA: Or "bottom." It would be great if more men would volunteer for that one and give Tempra a break already.

I was raised in a fairly equal household when it comes to gender equality so I'm all for being a stay at home dad.

Can't be the whole bottom though because I've only been classified as the hole portion for most of my life.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

ETA: Kal, I have been so involved with Title VII jurisprudence for so long that I absolutely could not tell you what most people think of when they hear "Civil Rights Act of 1964," but to me, the idea that people wouldn't know that it ended workplace discrimination against women is unimaginable.

But apparently I should prepare myself to be depressed.

Let's ask FLOW.

I think Kal is probably right. I mean, the image most people have of the civil rights movement, as that is commonly understood, is MLK, Birmingham, etc. And that is a racial connotation. You had the whole "Equal Rights Amendment", which occured after the 1964 CRA, and which would seem to suggest by its title that the 1964 Act somehow must not have applied to women.

Lawyers know otherwise, but I'm not at all sure the majority of Americans know that the law that provided civil rights for raical minorities is the exact same law that provided them for women. They know those rights exist, but they may not know its all the same law.

[Kalbear]

I know I'm quoting you Kalbear but you needn't be the one to enlighten me if you'd rather the Wym do it. Aside from physical differences that obvious genetic engineering and cybernetics will resolve (I.E. Pregnancies) what are the "Traditional" feminine role-rights?

Stay-at home dad is one.

Paternity leave for new children & rights thereof.

Divorce rights and 'fit parent' rights, and allowances of custody.

Clothing freedom. Think about this one; think about all the different things women can wear.

There are many others, but those are some ideas.

[Lady Blackfish]

You know, I don't have a problem with people not calling themselves feminists. If you call yourself a humanist, an egalitarian, or nothing at all, whatever, that's your choice. I don't think it's necessary to shy away from the word "feminist", but nor do I think it's more important than working for common interests regardless of labels.

I do have a problem with people propagating incorrect or skewed ideas of feminism. We have established that feminism has a PR problem, and that we are aware of it. Now, do you agree with that image of feminism, or not? Do you think it is accurate, or not? Because if you think it is accurate, then you are going to say so and we would theoretically have a debate about the realities of the feminist movement. If you don't agree that the image of feminism is warranted, then what are you doing contributing to that image? Regardless of the image of feminism, you can't represent the actualities of feminism without deciding what you think about the actualities of feminism. And if you don't educate yourself about the actualities of feminism, I think that's called not doing your research.

People who call themselves feminists do have a role to play in how people perceive feminists, but their part is to speak out as self-identifying feminists, so they can't concede ground to the "Oh no, not another feminist! Sit down and stop whining already!" contingent. You, the bystander on the sidelines, must understand that part of the problem the feminist has is that s/he is caught in a lose-lose double-bind.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

But this doesn't say anything about what to do about it. We've established a double-bind here, as far as I can tell. "I agree with a lot of what feminists say and do and think but because people don't understand what a lot of feminists say and do and think I don't want to be associated with them."

Personally, I think you drop the label and just advocate issues that you care about without labelling them "feminist". In a sense, it is kind of what the left has done by abandoning the tainted "liberal" in favor of "progressive".

[Guest Raidne]

I keep hearing this, but I still call myself a liberal, and I've never heard anyone do otherwise except at fundraisers.

ETA: I would be willing to use something more inclusive in the interest of including men who dislike rigid gender roles, but I'm never going to be convinced that I should drop the term because the conservatives have mucked it up.

[Lady Blackfish]

It's just odd, if I can't convince you that "feminist" isn't evil, how can I hope to convince you of all these other important issues? And if you would listen to what I say about those important issues, why would you not listen about this "feminist" thing?

PS -- While I agree that the Civil Rights era is more associated with race than with gender in the average person's mind, I find it hard to believe that people don't associate workplace-oriented feminist achievements with the 60s and 70s. Even if you can't say what exactly was included in the Civil Rights Act or know the ins and outs of the Equal Rights Ammendment, at some point popular conceptions went from the 1950s housewife in a floral print dress to the 1980s career woman in a power suit. Can I take this question to the floor? Is anyone out there really totally unaware that feminists achieved institutional gains in the workplace around the middle-later part of the century?