Yet Another Feminism Thread

[Edda van Heefmstra Ruston]

Context is important, as always. One benefit it has over 'hysterical' is that it's not explicitly based on a root word meaning 'uterus'. However, it's probably a good idea to keep in mind whom you're calling overwrought, and why, and how often.

[Eponine]

I was trying to think of a synonym for hysterical for another post (not a gender related issue). Couldn't think of anything that meant quite the same thing, left in the dirty word.

[Weeping Sore]

I was trying to think of a synonym for hysterical for another post (not a gender related issue). Couldn't think of anything that meant quite the same thing, left in the dirty word.

What a penile thing to say.

edit: not as clever as I initially thought.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

I was trying to think of a synonym for hysterical for another post (not a gender related issue). Couldn't think of anything that meant quite the same thing, left in the dirty word.

Hysterical is very context-specific for me. . . .

Overwrought is less fraught, but I guess I see it applied in the sense of "overwrought prose" most often (and the authors to which it is applied tend to be of either gender).

[karaddin]

Can I just point out I didn't fucking call Nestor a white knight, i described the hypothetical behaviour of the guy in the hypothetical scenario jumping in to white knight. It was my take on the scenario gotsi was describing and since you agree it does happen I don't see how that's so horrible.

[TerraPrime]

Re: Nestor

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?

Like racist actions, the intent of the actor is irrelevant. One can propagate racism without personal animosity against black people as a group. So the man who's jumping in to defend the woman does not need to harbor sexist ideas on a personal level to commit actions that are sexist.

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.

I think there is an element of damned if you do, and damned if you don't. Each audience will react didfferently and each scenario might elicit a different reaction. There are no solid rules on this and it can feel like shifting quick sands at time. In general, I think it is safer to preface one's comment in some cases, such as "I don't know what Girl from the Summer Isle will say about this, but I think the idea that black people are good dancers seems to be one of those cases of complimentary racism, like Asians are good at math." This way you make clear that you're not speaking on behalf of someone else and you also leave room for the other person to follow up with his/her comment.

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.

Not silenced by force, no. And honestly, few instances still exist where the silencing is by force. Mostly, the silencing is done through informal social pressure, like say, female game developers being pressured into keeping quiet about the sexual harassment that they experience in their jobs. Still, I think it's naive to believe that merit trumps all in online discussions. It really doesn't. You can argue that it should, that it ought to, but it really doesn't. The only place where merit reigns supreme is in academic publications, imo. Anywhere else, the format and tone and the social factors of communication are important, too.

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

Can I just point out I didn't fucking call Nestor a white knight, i described the hypothetical behaviour of the guy in the hypothetical scenario jumping in to white knight. It was my take on the scenario gotsi was describing and since you agree it does happen I don't see how that's so horrible.

I don't think anyone is accusing you of calling me that. Certainly I didn't take anything you said to mean that, and I suspect if you had to characterize my comments so far you wouldn't be suggesting that I was saying the right things for the wrong reason - more like the wrong things, hopefully for the right reasons.

And just so it's perfectly clear - I don't think or feel as if I am being attacked personally. Brook made a comment which suggested that I was "mansplaining" and I took it for what it was worth. I appreciate the snark even though I disagree with the form and don't think it added anything productive to the conversation. But I don't feel attacked and it's certainly not my intention to personally attack anyone else.

[karaddin]

That's exactly how I would characterise it yes. And that was kat not brook :p

But we have just had a page of "white knighting" is an ad hominem and silences discourse etc, which would perhaps fit if I was throwing it at someone but while poorly chosen in context I hardly feel like it stifled debate.

As for your description of feminism, that's not really how I see so I guess we have different conceptions. I don't see how something that is so context dependent on the right ways to respond can be knowable in that manner.

But I'm half asleep and it might make more sense later.

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

That's exactly how I would characterise it yes. And that was kat not brook :P

But we have just had a page of "white knighting" is an ad hominem and silences discourse etc, which would perhaps fit if I was throwing it at someone but while poorly chosen in context I hardly feel like it stifled debate.

As for your description of feminism, that's not really how I see so I guess we have different conceptions. I don't see how something that is so context dependent on the right ways to respond can be knowable in that manner.

But I'm half asleep and it might make more sense later.

Honestly, I don't even remember attributing the "white knighting" comment to you. The thread started out with an article about the (my characterization here) toxic nature of some of the intra-feminist infighting. My posts on "mansplaining" and "white knighting" were more of a response to that than anything else, and I just latched on to the terms that were used as an example. I didn't mean to accuse you, specifically, of stifling debate. Nor do I think that every use of those phrases stifle debate. I do think they are, potentially, very unhealthy to constructive discourse.

And to be clear, I don't think I'm "describing feminism." Feminism is a tree with many branches, and my criticism of the use of certain language should not be construed as a wider criticism of the feminist project. As a self-identified queer (a bisexual, actually, who is now in a long-term hetero relationship), I owe a huge debt of personal gratitude to feminism, both on its own and also its contributions to the larger field of gender studies. I think it's fair to say that Gloria Steinem's "Women's Liberation Aims to Free Men Too" changed, if not my life, then my outlook on my life when I was very young and impressionable, and gave me a context with which to understand myself. I greatly appreciate bell hooks, Andrea Dworkin, and Catharine MacKinnon, even though I detest some of the political projects championed by the latter.

I admit that sometimes I get righteously peeved during these feminism discussions - not because I feel like I'm being attacked by some hateful outside force, but because I sometimes feel as if I'm being made to seem like an interloper in my own house.

[Kat]

The way "mansplaining" was explained to me was that it involved a man explaining feminist issues to a woman. Which has happened to me numerous times since I became a teacher. I've had a series of male bosses who lean toward the progressive side (as most people in education do in my extremely left-leaning area do.)

The most egregious was when I was student teaching: my demonstration teacher told me I needed to nip in the bud a student who would sometimes ask kind of smartass but science-related questions because he saw it as sexist behavior that set a poor example for other students in the class on how to treat women. I was arguing that it wasn't and that I had female students who would do the same thing and that I was perfectly capable of holding my own in a science conversation-- I had years of practice and I wasn't concerned about that in particular, but I'd be on the lookout for problematic behavior. He kept telling me repeatedly that in order to stick up for the cause of feminism I had to consider this behavior an offense against me, while I simply saw it as the student asking about science concepts during class discussions. This year I had lunch with him and recited for him a list of things that male students have said to me and other students that would be sexual harassment if from a co-worker and told him that I was more concerned about the effects of that than asking if ______ was an example of ______.

My boss has also tried to tell me to do X, Y and Z differently in order to be a better feminist in science, and he's never had any experience of doing science or being female, or read any of the numerous studies that I had about this subject since it's one I'm interested in as a feminist and teacher in the physical sciences. What has been most frustrating about this is that both were in positions of power over me/had the ability to evaluate my skills and behavior, so I couldn't even really argue back, lest I get judged for being argumentative/defensive/whateverthefuck keyword is for not a good, patient listener.

[karaddin]

You really need to use paragraphs if you want to teach better! (Is there a version of mansplaining for teaching a teacher? :p)

[Summah]

The situation we're talking about here is a comment made from one person to another, the person the comment was made to should be given the chance to respond first, beyond all the historical issues involved (silencing women and POC), it's also the polite thing to do. In a situation where a sexist or racist or other ist comment was made not to a specific person, but generally, well that's a different situation and those are the times that we think it's great if someone else speaks up and calls that person out on their racism/sexism, though it's always good to wait a few seconds and see if a woman or POC responds first. The other thing allies can do is agree with the woman or POC or called out the problematic comment, and expand on it if desired. So it's really not damned if you do, damned if you don't, it's context specific and is aided by the ability to read a situation and not behave like an ass.

@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.

I'm talking about situations where these people literally (in the literal sense) start speaking as soon as or even before the other person is finished speaking. I might delay my response by a few seconds after the first person finishes, but no more than that, so it's really not a question of me not responding so they do, but a question of that person wanting to get in first to score points or whatever, they are doing this deliberately.

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 it's not, especially about issues like this.

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?

Well women do microaggressions too, there were a bunch of you tube videos made a few years ago about this, the first one (that I heard of) was called shit white girls say to black girls.

Feminine reticence/deference is cultural, it's not something I grew up with, so I don't know what to tell you about that.

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?

Uh, well first you must wonder if she's being facetious, because I might say something like that in a sarcastic way depending on my mood and how ignorant and educatable I thought the person who made the original comment is. So if she's not saying it earnestly, then I don't think she'd get angry. If she is serious, she might be upset if he said something depending on personalities involved. But I think he should speak up or speak the first person if he wants to, maybe framing it in a scientific way about genetics not doing that sort of thing, but he shouldn't expect a good response. The white person speaking to the ignorant white person privately would solve some of your problem here.

[Maithanet]

You really need to use paragraphs if you want to teach better! (Is there a version of mansplaining for teaching a teacher? :P)

Lois Lane and Wonder Woman were talking about intersectionality. Clark Kent walked up and said "that's the interaction of multiple forms of discrimination!"

#supermansplaining

PS I made that up myself :P

[Weeping Sore]

Girl of the Summer Islands

I'm talking about situations where these people literally (in the literal sense) start speaking as soon as or even before the other person is finished speaking. I might delay my response by a few seconds after the first person finishes, but no more than that, so it's really not a question of me not responding so they do, but a question of that person wanting to get in first to score points or whatever, they are doing this deliberately.

This is exactly what I was talking about. Practically speaking, when the conversation starts occuring this way, you have to do likewise or you will not get a chance to speak.

[Kat]

That had paragraphs in my editing window. <_<

[Summah]

This is exactly what I was talking about. Practically speaking, when the conversation starts occuring this way, you have to do likewise or you will not get a chance to speak.

If you jump in on her in this situation, you're behaving disrespectfully and in a way participating in silencing a WOC, so unless you want to act like an asshole you have to just wait and speak right after her.

[Eponine]

It seems like personal preference to me. I mean, personally I'd rather someone else who wanted to speak out to just speak up, *especially* if he'd speak up if I were another white man, instead of deferring *especially* because I may be a woman of color. (I'm not sure of that - at least I'm sure I'm a woman, I'd really really rather not be evaluated on my race, which always gets conflated with culture.)

[Summah]

So then they really are damned if they do damned if they don't.

[Eponine]

Or we could not jump to ascribing bad motives to people.

[Summah]

I've had enough personal experience with this issue that I'm confident of my assessment of most of the people who do this.