Yet Another Feminism Thread

[brook]

Poor kid! What a horrible situation for him to be in.

It's one of those policies where I can absolutely agree with the aim but it's just not a solution. It's also further complicated here because it is specifically targeted at aboriginal communities.

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

Ok how about this. Back on page 1 we were discussing excessive angry responses and how we can try tone it down and make these discussions more civil and productive. I'm unimpressed with the way you are insisting that your point of view is right over the voice of a woman of colour talking about how she would like to be allowed to respond to casual racism. I understand that your intent is not to be an asshole, that you wish to fight bigotry and that some of the language you use pisses me off because of your profession (most of the board lawyers have certain argumentative techniques that always piss me off), so letting go of that annoyance.

Another thing that was discussed is how for those in a position of privilege to be a good advocate for those less privileged they need to listen to those they are attempting to advocate for. Are you white? I sure as fuck am, so I'm going to listen to a woman of colour and try take on board her feedback. You are however gay, and I would expect any straight ally getting feedback of this nature to try and listen to your feedback as well - and hell that even applies in this case, you do like having someone jump in but it's not a glaring line where you must always jump in or you must never jump in, we can have a nuanced view here. I'm a trans woman, and if the question is coming from a random coworker and was blatantly hateful or disrespectful I'd want another colleague to call that out because I'm probably going to end up with HR sitting us down for a chat if I respond to it. If a member of my family asks something that's unintentionally disrespectful I'll want to reply to that myself and try explain why it's disrespectful.

See, here's the problem. If you think that feminism is a knowable or discoverable thing like other disciplines such as history, or anthropology, and to be clear, I very much do think so - then the yardstick by which you measure comments in a discussion about the topic is the correctness or merit of the comment, not the personal characteristics of the person making the comment. And I think it is to feminism's extreme detriment that someone would even suggest that a person's comment is more worthy of consideration because they're female, or black, or gay, or whatever.

And frankly, I think this is a much larger problem with the narrow sector of online feminist discourse that we see, which takes most of the rules of normal discussion and debate and pretends they don't exist. "White knighting" - for example, is an incredibly toxic and obnoxious phrase to use in the context of a normal discussion, because it's really nothing but a particularly insulting form of ad hominem. I can think of few other subject areas where people are attacked for expressing the correct position merely because someone else believes they are doing so with the wrong motive. Not only is it usually impossible to prove someone's internal motivations, but it also operates as a particularly divisive form of gender division.

The idea of "mansplaining" is another one of those terms which frequently amounts to nothing more than a woman being offended that a man is talking to her about feminism, as if one's knowledge of a subject is primarily determined by the possession of a penis or a vagina. And don't get me wrong - I have no doubt that there are men out there that condescend to women about every topic under the sun, including feminism. And I think it's appropriate and right to call people out on that when it happens. But I think it's silly and potentially very offensive to reduce the idea to "mansplaining" and then to use that, generally, to refer (as it is being done here, in this thread) any man expressing an idea about feminism to a woman.

And I get that there is a place for this kind of stuff. I sat around in enough "safe spaces" and "sharing circles" in my life, beating out kumbayas on the drums, and listening to people bitch and moan about things in a shorthand in ways that brokered no room for criticism. Not a huge fan, but I've experienced it enough. But this is not, or at least should not be, the type of safe space where I can bitch about "breeders" or have my comments dismissed as "mansplaining" without receiving some critical feedback. The normal rules of discourse should apply here, and "mansplaining" should be challenged as inherently sexist term and "white knighting" should be challenged as a vicious and usually unsubstantiated form of ad hominem. And people here should be judged on the quality of their ideas and the content of their conversation and not, you know, the color of their skin or the presence of particular genitalia.

[Weeping Sore]

@NestorMakhnosLovechild -

Couldn't agree more with your last post, but you may want to avoid equating genitals with gender here.

I think a man should always keep in mind that the tendency to burst into the conversation with an assertive opinion is somewhat culturally conditioned, i.e., admired in men and criticized in women. Though I lean more toward encouraging women to be more assertive rather than demanding more deference or passivity from men. I daresay you encounter a lot of assertive, argumentative women in your profession, but there is still a lot of cultural inhibition out there against a woman speaking her mind.

[Robin Of House Hill]

Nestor,

People are rarely judged on the quality of the ideas they speak, but more usually on how those ideas benefit the listener.

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

@NestorMakhnosLovechild -

Couldn't agree more with your last post, but you may want to avoid equating genitals with gender here.

I think a man should always keep in mind that the tendency to burst into the conversation with an assertive opinion is somewhat culturally conditioned, i.e., admired in men and criticized in women. Though I lean more toward encouraging women to be more assertive rather than demanding more deference or passivity from men. I daresay you encounter a lot of assertive, argumentative women in your profession, but there is still a lot of cultural inhibition out there against a woman speaking her mind.

I absolutely agree that people should try to be aware of their cultural conditioning. You are also absolutely right about the experience of my profession. I live in a very blue state and practice law in a field where there are many, many female practitioners who have zero problem whatsoever giving you a metaphorical black eye. My first employer was an absolutely brilliant female trial attorney. She had no problems ripping you to shreds in Court and then going out for a drink with you after to bullshit. And while there is still obviously a lot of institutional sexism in the legal world (the partner lists of the larger law firms in my area are dominated by men), in the field that I practice in, you just don't generally see it from practitioners.

[Weeping Sore]

I absolutely agree that people should try to be aware of their cultural conditioning. You are also absolutely right about the experience of my profession. I live in a very blue state and practice law in a field where there are many, many female practitioners who have zero problem whatsoever giving you a metaphorical black eye. My first employer was an absolutely brilliant female trial attorney. She had no problems ripping you to shreds in Court and then going out for a drink with you after to bullshit. And while there is still obviously a lot of institutional sexism in the legal world (the partner lists of the larger law firms in my area are dominated by men), in the field that I practice in, you just don't generally see it from practitioners.

As someone who is very comfortable dealing with "strong women", (my mother was a judge, btw) I've often found myself ignorant of more stereotypical feminine-coded behavior. (shit, what was that thread Raidne started awhile back? Zero Dead Even rule, something like that?) You find yourself in a problematic position if you're a man saying "I like strong, assertive women but I can't put up with deferential, self-abasing, or passive-aggressive women" There might be something to the idea that out-moded feminine-coded behaviors are a factor holding back the feminist movement itself.

edit: some snark removed.

[Summah]

I was debating whether responding to these would encourage continuing this frustrating discussion, but I found that I really didn't want to not respond.

To be clear, the situation that Girl of the Summer Islands presented was not that someone asked her a question, and then someone else jumped in and answered the question for her. The situation was that someone made a comment to her espousing a racial stereotype (that she must be a good dancer because she was black). That's not a question, and by its nature, doesn't even necessarily invite a response. To object to that comment and the assumptions underlying it doesn't mean that you don't think Girl of the Summer Islands is incapable of responding or that your opinion is more important (whatever that's even supposed to mean, in practice). It just means that you object to the comment.

Really? Because I definitely respond to things like that, usually by questioning people until they see it's a stereotype. And yes jumping in to comment first without even waiting a few seconds to see if I'll reply does imply that someone thinks exactly those things.

Seriously - you live on bizarro world. On the planet I live in, I find that people are generally happy when, if they find themselves the target of racial, sexual, heterosexist, etc. prejudice, a third party immediately jumps in to condemn the offense and lend them support. And I've been on both sides of that fence, and I was equally grateful when someone threw a homophobic comment my way and a straight acquaintance immediately jumped in to let the person know they could go fuck off.

It depends on the situation, but actually in my experience people often say thank you (and not mean it) because they don't feel like dealing with explaining why not giving them a chance to reply first is not cool. If this person were a good friend of mine or waited a few seconds and I didn't reply fine have at it or say something after I do. I consider this kind of jumping in immediately a form of microagression, which is very difficult to call people out on, because generally they can't see and admit that it's a microagression. And because it's not big or overt.

See - that's the difference, actually. I think the most meritorious speaker is the person with the most appropriate thing to say. I don't think the most meritorious speaker is the one who was insulted or offended against merely because they happen to have been the target of a racist or sexist comment.

Really? So you think that the most meritorious speaker in this type of situation is a white person? Really? Is that why white people will listen to Tim Wise and ignore someone like Ta-Nahesi Coates?

I think it depends on how its said. It's similar to white knighting in that respect. Are you coming off with general concern, or are you just an interrupting mannerless jerk trying to win imaginary social points?

In my experience it's almost always the latter, other people usually wait to see if I'll say something first.

Really you've only ever seen it used by anti feminists? Because I've seen it used plenty more than that. If someone is more interested in scoring points by being a crusader than they are in how that actually makes the person they are supposedly helping feel, then I think that says something nasty about them. If they are really interested in helping that person they will want to do things that actually help, not just make them warm and fuzzy.

And maybe I feel a bit nasty about these sorts of people because I see them pretending to help, then abusing the fuck out of people I know for not sufficiently valuing their allyship. Perhaps I have different fucking experiences to you that have left me jaded, but I'm far from the only one that sees that shit. Now can you get off my ass, I already tried to back off Nestor and get back to friendlier discourse before you went back quoting from earlier in the thread.

I've had those types of experiences too.

See, here's the problem. If you think that feminism is a knowable or discoverable thing like other disciplines such as history, or anthropology, and to be clear, I very much do think so - then the yardstick by which you measure comments in a discussion about the topic is the correctness or merit of the comment, not the personal characteristics of the person making the comment. And I think it is to feminism's extreme detriment that someone would even suggest that a person's comment is more worthy of consideration because they're female, or black, or gay, or whatever.

If we're speaking about a subject like actually experiencing racism then yes I believe the responses of POC are more worthy of consideration because they've actually experienced it. If we're talking about racism in the abstract it would be different. There is a lot of historical baggage here and white people and men etc are listened to and taken more seriously and their comments are considered more worthy because of that status, perhaps that alone should tell us we need to listen to other voices and not just the white guy who jumped in first without giving someone else a chance to respond.

[TerraPrime]

There is a lot of historical baggage here and white people and men etc are listened to and taken more seriously and their comments are considered more worthy because of that status, perhaps that alone should tell us we need to listen to other voices and not just the white guy who jumped in first without giving someone else a chance to respond.

Yes.

White-knighting is real. So is mansplaining.

The key is not that someone else provides a correct response, or a good critique. The problem is that it usurps the opportunity for a member of the minority to assert his/herself in the process, and it is a disempowering act against the minority person. I don't object to white-knighting because I dislike someone else getting the right answer. I object to it because it is another form of chivalry, which is derived from a sexist construct.

Or, as an example, recall the scenes from Tropic Thunder where Robert Downing' Jr.'s character speaks with authority and privilege on how racism affects black Americans.

That said, much depends on context and specific interactions.

For instance, I sometimes stay silent on issues of race and sexual orientation at some professional settings because of the potential liability of speaking out on the issue as a member of that group. Someone from the outgroup, on the other hand, will not have a problem and so their voice to counter the comment might be very useful. In those cases I wouldn't consider it white-knighting.

Ultimately, I think it comes down to empathy and awareness of one's own privileges. My male privilege allows my voice to be heard more readily, and so it is my duty to make sure that I don't allow that privilege to dominate how I behave.

[Weeping Sore]

@Girl of the Summer Islands-

Any problem with suggesting you simply jump in sooner yourself? I'm afraid any kind of argument is a series of micro-aggressions, and I'm always amazed by how often one has to borderline (or not-so-borderline) interrupt someone to get their point in.

ETA: The above is deliberately open to critique, and I think TP did a nice job addressing it. I think those who enjoy arguing (NML, we'll include you here) like to imagine the argument itself as independent of people and their feelings.

But I'll repeat: is feminine(?) reticence/deference in argument/conversation a weakness to be overcome, or a model for males to follow in checking their (micro)aggression?

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

Yes.

White-knighting is real. So is mansplaining.

The key is not that someone else provides a correct response, or a good critique. The problem is that it usurps the opportunity for a member of the minority to assert his/herself in the process, and it is a disempowering act against the minority person. I don't object to white-knighting because I dislike someone else getting the right answer. I object to it because it is another form of chivalry, which is derived from a sexist construct.

Or, as an example, recall the scenes from Tropic Thunder where Robert Downing' Jr.'s character speaks with authority and privilege on how racism affects black Americans.

That said, much depends on context and specific interactions.

For instance, I sometimes stay silent on issues of race and sexual orientation at some professional settings because of the potential liability of speaking out on the issue as a member of that group. Someone from the outgroup, on the other hand, will not have a problem and so their voice to counter the comment might be very useful. In those cases I wouldn't consider it white-knighting.

Ultimately, I think it comes down to empathy and awareness of one's own privileges. My male privilege allows my voice to be heard more readily, and so it is my duty to make sure that I don't allow that privilege to dominate how I behave.

Not to be flip, but of course "white knighting" and "mansplaining" are real things. People do or say the right thing for the wrong reason (white knighting) and condescend to others (mansplaining) all the time. The problem is that these are useless, counterproductive, and in this case, overtly prejudiced discussion tools. If you want to sit around in a share-circle and complain about how someone mansplained something to you at work in a supportive, "safe" space. Great. But when you're having what's supposed to be an exchange of ideas with someone, you are doing it wrong if your response to what someone says is that they have the wrong internal motivation (unless, of course, your goal is just to insult them, which i suspect is often the case).

The problem with your understanding of "white knighting" should be obvious. How do you determine whether someone is vocalizing an objection to sexist behavior is doing so out of "chivalry" - presumably the belief that men, specifically, are charged with protecting women, specifically vs. a more generalized belief that sexist bullshit should be immediately and loudly criticized so that the perpetrator knows that their behavior is not acceptable? I think it's interesting that in discussions of rape and rape culture, it's very common to hear that women shouldn't have the burden of avoiding or educating men on issues of rape, and that men should be "policing their own" and making sure they create a culture amongst other men that makes clear where appropriate sexual boundaries are. Yet, men speaking out in opposing to sexism and sexist language in real time, when it occurs, is apparently not applauded as fostering an environment where male peers are immediately informed that their behavior is unacceptable, but rather viewed as yet another insidious male attempt to disempower women. It really is a damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario, at least if you believe the microfraction of self-described online feminists that hold it to be so. My lived experience suggests the opposite is the case.

And here, in this thread - I think it's especially inappropriate to smear around this nonsense. Nobody is being silenced here because they're not a man. If someone wants to pick apart the content of my arguments, and not just the imagined motivations behind it, they are absolutely free to do so - and heck, I encourage it.

[Weeping Sore]

Are these terms really such a plague?

If you're accused of "white-knighting" you can always reply with "I was just saying what I think is right. I didn't mean to prevent you from contributing your thoughts."

If you're accused of "mansplaining" you can reply with "I'm sorry if something about my manner came across as condescending. I was just trying to convey my understanding of the issue."

[Eponine]

So what if the black woman replies - you're totally right, I AM awesome at dancing, it's in my genes - does the other party then have to be silent about the racism? Since if he now mentions it, he's also implicitly also criticizing the response of the woman of color?

[Sci-2]

Are these terms really such a plague?

If you're accused of "white-knighting" you can always reply with "I was just saying what I think is right. I didn't mean to prevent you from contributing your thoughts."

If you're accused of "mansplaining" you can reply with "I'm sorry if something about my manner came across as condescending. I was just trying to convey my understanding of the issue."

I think the issue is when this verbiage is used excessively it begins to stifle argument and participation.

There are times when very specific tones can be seen as mansplaining, whitesplaining, etc but I do think simply dismissing an argument in such manner is less productive if the goal is to bring more people into the progressive fold.

[DanteGabriel]

Are these terms really such a plague?

If you're accused of "white-knighting" you can always reply with "I was just saying what I think is right. I didn't mean to prevent you from contributing your thoughts."

If you're accused of "mansplaining" you can reply with "I'm sorry if something about my manner came across as condescending. I was just trying to convey my understanding of the issue."

I try to avoid getting involved in these threads because, well, basically the last couple of pages, but -- surely it's better to avoid using the terms "white knighting" and "mansplaining" and to correct someone's behavior without pejoratives, than it is to simply coach men to take such accusations in stride, isn't it?

[Weeping Sore]

I think the issue is when this verbiage is used excessively it begins to stifle argument and participation.

Agreed.

[Sci-2]

I try to avoid getting involved in these threads because, well, basically the last couple of pages

Yeah, I mean we're both people of color and I had a similar reaction to all the privilege talk. I agreed with Nestor, but the thought of drowning in the identity politics language - something I think I'm relatively supportive of - made me hesitant to post.

[Weeping Sore]

I try to avoid getting involved in these threads because, well, basically the last couple of pages, but -- surely it's better to avoid using the terms "white knighting" and "mansplaining" and to correct someone's behavior without pejoratives, than it is to simply coach men to take such accusations in stride, isn't it?

No reason to not discourage their use with one hand and recommend taking accusations in stride with the other. Men aren't well-served by trying to play the victim card in a feminist discussion.

[DanteGabriel]

No reason to not discourage their use with one hand and recommend taking accusations in stride with the other. Men aren't well-served by trying to play the victim card in a feminist discussion.

Oh jeez. So it's "playing the victim card" to say that using pejorative language and imputing negative motivations is not productive and is likely to shut down or debase discussion rather than open someone's mind or make them receptive to critique of their methods?

Seriously -- your previous question -- "Are these terms really such a plague?" Do you think it'd be cool to ask, "Hey, words like 'hysterical' or 'bitchy' -- are those terms really such a plague?"

[Weeping Sore]

Oh jeez. So it's "playing the victim card" to say that using pejorative language and imputing negative motivations is not productive and is likely to shut down or debase discussion rather than open someone's mind or make them receptive to critique of their methods?

Seriously -- your previous question -- "Are these terms really such a plague?" Do you think it'd be cool to ask, "Hey, words like 'hysterical' or 'bitchy' -- are those terms really such a plague?"

I think any of the terms you're mentioning have the potential to discredit the person who's throwing them around. In my opinion it's best to keep the list of forbidden words short, and face your accuser with equanimity.

To the extent that "white-knighting" and "mansplaining" (does anyone really take the latter seriously? maybe I'm wrong) describe actual phenomena, I feel like their use could sometimes be warranted, but I agree they tend not to elevate the discussion.

So you're saying "hysterical" is out. Can we use "overwrought"?

[DanteGabriel]

So you're saying "hysterical" is out. Can we use "overwrought"?

I'm pretty sure I'm not qualified to make that judgment.