Anti-Feminist Anger

[palimpsest.]

I know this is the wrong place to bring up the "Catelyn debate", but many readers (both male and misguided females) loathe the feminine Catelyn and blame her for things that aren't really her fault. Likewise, Sansa used to be widely hated for heing an airheaded girly-girl, while the tomboyish Arya is popular. Even though both of them, at least in AGOT, are arrogant spoiled brats.

But the Catelyn hate is not really about her femininity. Readers, at least that's how I understand it, are sick of her constant whining. It was pretty much the same with Fitz in Hobb's trilogies - I often hear people say that the books are very good, but that Fitz is sometimes an annoying whiner. Same with Sansa being a spoiled brat. Nobody likes brats, nobody likes whiners, and I'm pretty sure we know both men and women who are either of those.

[kungtotte]

It should be noted that I just called the champions of the anthem-cause silly, I didn't try to dictate anyone's feelings over it.

[Guest Raidne]

It should be noted that I just called the champions of the anthem-cause silly, I didn't try to dictate anyone's feelings over it.

Oh, so they must have, like, really funny haircuts or something?

[Blaine]

No, but it can give you an insight into why people campaign for what they do. They obviously think it's important to change the anthem, right? And if it's so trivial, what's the BFD? Why not just do it if there's no impact but it makes a section of the population feel more inclusive? Why place a value judgement on it and then say that the feminist movement should be out doing more important things? (Instructing the marginalised group on how they can be better activists is insulting by the way)

See, over and over I hear... "if it's no big deal, then just do it." But that's patently ridiculous. You don't just go changing national anthems every other week for perceived slights. As was said earlier, the "why bother changing" argument has inertia on its side, therefore requiring a certain amount of effort and a lot of noise to be made by the "change it" argument.

Regardless, if hearing that someone disagrees with your opinion that it is not only important but a BFD is insulting, then maybe activism isn't for you.

Yes, you are speaking from a place of privilege and part of that privilege is being able to ignore something that doesn't impact you. I suppose I'm just incredibly confused that you think the dominant group gets to tell the marginalised group what is and is not marginalising them.

To use an example Eefa uses. If you step on my toe and I say 'ow that hurts' you don't get to tell me that it doesn't. Make sense?

Sure. But you don't get to say "this floor hurts my foot" and have everyone disagree with you - then still put everyone to work replacing the floor for you.

Shouting "I'm being marginalised!" isn't a magic ticket that opens every door.

Just so you know that there isn't a minute in the day when I don't listen to what men say through books, tv, news. Men's stories and opinons are prevalent and in the majority throughout our culture. I don't think it's unreasonable to say that sometimes men's opinions aren't the most important ones.

You didn't say that. You said "you don't get to have an opinion." Which is a different thing entirely.

Also, I'm not sure if you meant it to come across as "Placate us and maybe we'll give you what you're asking for, but only if you ask us nicely", cause it surely does.

If you see it that way, it surely could. Or you could see it as it was intended, which is "where is the inclusion I keep hearing so much about?"

(I know of course that this post is gonna get me flamed to hell and back. And I'll probably even be called a misandrist, so be it.)

I won't be doing any flaming or name-calling. And I don't see that your opinion is misandrist - but I disagree with your approach on how to accomplish change. Phrases like "you don't get to have an opinion" and "of course you think that, you're a male" are essentially saying, "I don't care about men. I don't respect men"

Again, no one's telling you how you should feel. They're just disagreeing with you. Any activist worth the name should be able to understand that without immediately assuming they're telling you can't feel that way.

[Guest Raidne]

Again, no one's telling you how you should feel. They're just disagreeing with you. Any activist worth the name should be able to understand that without immediately assuming they're telling you can't feel that way.

You came in a little late to the party on that one.

Like we said, once it's agreed that something is sexist or everyone agrees that the floor is foot-hurting, the degree of pain caused is totally subjective.

If something isn't sexist, or the floor should not be capable of foot-hurting, then great, let's have a discussion about that.

I also think it would be helpful if we talked about objective/subjective and not facts/feelings.

[Blaine]

You came in a little late to the party on that one.

Like we said, once it's agreed that something is sexist or everyone agrees that the floor is foot-hurting, the degree of pain caused is totally subjective.

Totally subjective? So unequal pay vs. being left out of a line in an anthem is subjective? Really?

I also think it would be helpful if we talked about objective/subjective and not facts/feelings.

I agree. But I'm not referring to things in "degrees of pain", but rather "urgent vs. non-urgent." It's basic triage.

[Guest Raidne]

Totally subjective? So unequal pay vs. being left out of a line in an anthem is subjective? Really?

Blaine, we've already passed laws guaranteeing equal pay for equal work. Recently, in the United States, we even repealed the Supreme Court's insidious application of the statute of limitations to pay suits so women can file suit for pay disparities that accumulate over time. I think the reverse was actually the law for...two years? Trust me, we're on it.

At that point, to do anything about pay discrimination, we have to address things like the time women take off for child care, and that they tend to do it more than men do, the hours women put in for the same job vs. the hours men put in, etc., etc., etc.

At this point, it's a social issue. There's not a lot we can do about it from a legislative perspective. If you ideas, I'm all ears.

But fixing these pernicious little language issues, well, that's easy. Were I hazard my own opinion on its importance, I'd say it's about equivalent to the effort it would take to fix it.

It's like, if, you know, all the Native American tribes in this country got together and decided we should finally change the name of the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Would you really have a problem, or would you tell them to STFU and get back to addressing their huge problems with unemployment, alcoholism, and the fact that they've been dispossed of all their land by a capitalist system that they never found to be valid?

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Blaine, we've already passed laws guaranteeing equal pay for equal work. Recently, in the United States, we even repealed the Supreme Court insidious application of the statute of limitations to pay suits so women can file suit for pay disparities that accumulate over time. I think the reverse was actually the law for...two years? Trust me, we're on it.

At that point, to do anything about pay discrimination, we have to address things like the time women take off for child care, and that they tend to do it more than men do, the hours women put in for the same job vs. the hours men put in, etc., etc., etc.

At this point, it's a social issue. There's not a lot we can do about it from a legislative perspective. If you ideas, I'm all ears.

But fixing these pernicious little language issues, well, that's easy. Were I hazard my own opinion on its importance, I'd say it's about equivalent to the effort it would take to fix it.

An honest question here. Are the feminists who oppose things like the anthem equally opposed to "Mother Earth". "Lady Liberty", referring to ships and most nations in the feminine, etc.?

[Guest Raidne]

Hey if you really want to throw us for a loop, ask us how we feel about masculine and feminine articles in romance languages, or masculine and feminine declensions in Latin.

I don't really have a problem with either of those as it evokes the idea of woman being the one who gives birth. I don't have a problem with phallic symbols like the huge one I'm going to see when I walk outside in about 15 minutes either.

[john]

My personal take on it is this (and reading around various feminst blogs has informed this opinion). It's not about encouraging girls to play with trucks or boys to play with Barbie dolls. It's saying that no matter if you're a boy, girl or intersexed you can play with any damn toy you please without it having a value judgement of 'oh she's a tomboy' or 'oh he's a cissy'. Or casually re-inforcing these genderised behaviours by taking the doll away from the boy and giving him a truck with the phrase 'this is what you should be playing with'.

N

Sure, I agree with that. But do you need to enforce those attitudes (by swapping over toys or haircuts or whatever else) or do you just need to display them and the kid'll get the message anyway.

*Sigh* No, no, that's not the suggestion. Girls are encouraged to play with dolls, boys are encouraged to play with trucks - by advertising, by grandparents from previous generations, friends, and by a million other social cues. So, if you want your daughter to be able to identify her interests on a nuetral field, you expose her to a range of toys and activities.

But it seems to me that what you're doing here is going from treating her like a female commodity to treating her like a gender aware commodity. I mean, are you saying that you need to compensate for gender bias in society by going the other way? Surely the solution for that is to teach her about bias.

Oh fine, we'll just give up on gender equality until the rest of the world is perfect. Spoken just like a union representative from the middle of last century.

Seems more like gender representation than gender equality. What does equality want with national anthems?

[MinDonner]

An honest question here. Are the feminists who oppose things like the anthem equally opposed to "Mother Earth". "Lady Liberty", referring to ships and most nations in the feminine, etc.?

Personally? No. But then no-one would ever refer to me (or you?) as Mother Earth or Lady Liberty, so I'm not sure what your point is. Unlike a phrase like "sons of Canada", which IS supposed to refer to the population at large, but in fact only references half of them.

[King Nobody]

My biggest problem with feminism, aside from the radicals, is that most often, from what I have seen, they don't want equality. They want equality in the areas where women have it bad. In our modern society women really aren't oppressed anymore, and there is inequality among the genders, but the amount of this inequality is fairly equal for both men and women.

Another thing that kind of bothers me about feminism is some of the attitudes feminist women have, for example, one that I have saw on this board even, which is full of the usually reasonable kind of feminist, is the whole "Oh my god that guy is talking to me and he doesn't even know me! What a misogynist." thing.

[MinDonner]

My biggest problem with feminism, aside from the radicals, is that most often, from what I have seen, they don't want equality. They want equality in the areas where women have it bad. In our modern society women really aren't oppressed anymore, and there is inequality among the genders, but the amount of this inequality is fairly equal for both men and women.

Another thing that kind of bothers me about feminism is some of the attitudes feminist women have, for example, one that I have saw on this board even, which is full of the usually reasonable kind of feminist, is the whole "Oh my god that guy is talking to me and he doesn't even know me! What a misogynist." thing.

:lmao:

Oh, man, have you even read the thread? Or did you just see "anti-feminist anger" in the title and just feel you HAD to stick your oar in?

[Guest Raidne]

Surely the solution for that is to teach her about bias.

Good idea. I'll educate my toddler about gender bias. You remind me of my friend who swears that at whatever age his children will be able to watch whatever media they want - Faces of Death to three year olds, whatever - and he'll just talk to them and reason with them about it afterward.

At any rate, surely the solution is for her to grow up with as little bias as possible.

How is this not obvious?

Seems more like gender representation than gender equality. What does equality want with national anthems?

Please, enlighten me as to the distinction between gender representation and gender equality. As so much of my experience on the issue has to do with adverse impact, I may have lost sight of the possibility of this distinction.

ETA: :lol: And I was *just wondering* what would be enough that I would get sick and tired of trotting out the same arguments over and over. What post would be so far gone that I would just let it go? Thank you, KN. Thank you indeed.

On that note, I'm going home.

[Blaine]

Blaine, we've already passed laws guaranteeing equal pay for equal work. Recently, in the United States, we even repealed the Supreme Court's insidious application of the statute of limitations to pay suits so women can file suit for pay disparities that accumulate over time. I think the reverse was actually the law for...two years? Trust me, we're on it.

At that point, to do anything about pay discrimination, we have to address things like the time women take off for child care, and that they tend to do it more than men do, the hours women put in for the same job vs. the hours men put in, etc., etc., etc.

At this point, it's a social issue. There's not a lot we can do about it from a legislative perspective. If you ideas, I'm all ears.

Weirdly enough, you think legislation and I think messaging. I think the message of feminism is weakened by placing every issue with equal weight or total subjectivity.

Passing laws is great, but changing opinions of the populace takes focus and a certain amount of prioritizing between issues. Being reactive to every possible element of society not being perfectly equal tends to drown out the larger messages in a sea of noise. The non-zealous lose interest and people quit hearing what you have to say or begin disregarding it.

Messages work on the bed of nails theory. Make a hundred points and people can walk right over it without anything sinking in. Make one single, well-crafted point and you penetrate with your message.

It's like, if, you know, all the Native American tribes in this country got together and decided we should finally change the name of the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Would you really have a problem, or would you tell them to STFU and get back to addressing their huge problems with unemployment, alcoholism, and the fact that they've been dispossed of all their land by a capitalist system that they never found to be valid?

You speak as though I'm resistant to all change for some reason. Ease up. I'm not "The Man." Or at least no one ever gave me the keys to the secret white guy island villain lair.

Changing the name of the Bureau of Indian Affairs affects basically, only them. So I doubt there would be any resistance to speak of. But of course not. But I would think that there probably are more pressing, dangerous issues that are destroying their culture that need help more urgently. But that's an easy win.

Now, to make it more fairly analogous, if some Native Americans got together and decided to pressure everyone in the U.S.A. to change a line in national anthem to include them more specifically, I would disagree that it was an issue that seemed more important than other urgent problems on reservations.

[King Nobody]

:lmao:

Oh, man, have you even read the thread? Or did you just see "anti-feminist anger" in the title and just feel you HAD to stick your oar in?

I sure did, notice in the first post where it says,

What's your views on this?

It's okay if you missed it, I'll wait while you go back to read it. And yes, I read the entire thread, that's why I came into it so late, forgive me if I responded to the OP rather than continuing discussion about a national anthem which has a thread of it's own right now.

[Guest Raidne]

Oh fine. Blaine, the civil rights movement, and the women's movement itself, are both excellent examples of how societal change follows legal change, and not the other way around.

I'm not the thought police - I don't want to tell people how to think. I just want a better framework. I struggled for a long time with the idea that perhaps we should enforce laws preventing hate speech against women and other groups, but I just can't go there.

Otherwise, I do what I can in my own life. I try to make good points here. What else is there? How do you envision this messaging? I admit it, I'm intrigued.

On the BofIA, hell, at least your consistent. You win that one.

[Blaine]

Oh fine. Blaine, the civil rights movement, and the women's movement itself, are both excellent examples of how societal change follows legal change, and not the other way around.

To a lawyer, sure. To the average person, it's the vivid images of Martin Luther King Jr. and the bus riots. These are things we use to teach children why it's important. Not just reading them the law.

I'm not the thought police - I don't want to tell people how to think. I just want a better framework. I struggled for a long time with the idea that perhaps we should enforce laws preventing hate speech against women and other groups, but I just can't go there.

Otherwise, I do what I can in my own life. I try to make good points here. What else is there? How do you envision this messaging? I admit it, I'm intrigued.

I'm not the thought police, but I wonder if laws would allow me to create them? Geez. :P

I'm not the thought police either, but influence is where I work. How I envision messaging that works is the same way everyone other political party, interest group or brand advertising does. Talking points. Smart images and headlines that resonate with people. Consistency. Repetition. Leadership. Winning over your critics or at the very least, swaying public support to your side.

That requires prioritizing or "choosing battles" to be effective.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

I don't really see how it is different than the flap over the Virigina State song (now emeritus) that was raging for several years during the 1990s. Virgina's State song used to be Carry Me Back to Old Virginia. The lyrics romanticized slavery and to modern eyes seemed both outdated and offensive. There were several proposals to modify the lyrics, all defeated, and finally a bill was passed that "retired" the song as state song without replacing it (which, by the way, should have been done years earlier IMHO).

A state or country's anthem or song is deeply symbolic. We totemize and fetishize anthems, flags, etc. (whether or not it makes sense to do so).

I think that words are very important, sometimes as important or more important than actions (but I'm a lawyer, so it's a hazard of the trade). Words are particular important in shaping community (that is, words describe the conditions of inclusion in, and exclusion from, a community). A set of words (set to music, but words nonetheless) that is a totem of a very large and hopefully inclusive community (that is, a nation) is important to me, not just as a woman and a feminist, but also as a human being.

[john]

Good idea. I'll educate my toddler about gender bias. You remind me of my friend who swears that at whatever age his children will be able to watch whatever media they want - Faces of Death to three year olds, whatever - and he'll just talk to them and reason with them about it afterward.

At any rate, surely the solution is for her to grow up with as little bias as possible.

How is this not obvious?

Well i doubt it would be easy. Not as easy as buying her a toy truck, certainly

Please, enlighten me as to the distinction between gender representation and gender equality. As so much of my experience on the issue has to do with adverse impact, I may have lost sight of the possibility of this distinction.

I think there's a difference between women being treated like men and men and women being treated equally. There's a suggestion of categorisation still about the former, like women are playing catch up with men instead of advocating a new set of ideas. And the anthem thing seems to fall into that.