]You obviously don't have connections to feminist blogs on twitter or tumblr, where the term originated. ...True.
EDIT: I should add that I am not a woman, or what I consider a feminist. I believe in equality, but don't tent to identify with groups that have the "ist" suffix.So... "some blogs" is the best you got? Then Huffpost and other "news" organizations talking about what some blog wrote? Is there perhaps some organization? Oprah? Anything with a shred of credibility?
"Some bloggers" created something. Trashing "Feminists" over it is the textbook definition of strawman. I think you are being fooled.
Tumblr feminists blogs are a fairly well defined group. Just because they are not one you are familiar with does not mean they are some imaginary straw man. Just like Paizo messageboard posters is a defined group, but most people would have no idea who we are.
NOTE: There was also a "don't be a jerk" transportation campaign a while back, but there is no government policy against being a jerk. Advertisment does not equal policy.
Define: Policy - a course or principle of action adopted or proposed by a government, party, business, or individual.
I said it affected policy. It affected how they spent their budget. That is by definition affecting policy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Stuff
I apologize BlackOuroboros. I used the term, and included text to its historical definition, for the reasons I had stated in the original post, not for shock value. I feel that Malcolm X's explanation of the term is very relevant to almost any non-equal power structure.
Also, I'm not trying to silence anyone. I fully encourage people to disagree with me. I wouldn't really bother posting stuff if everyone agreed with me all the time.
Again, sorry if I offended you.
EDIT: Here is the link to the speech:
wiki
|
StuffI apologize BlackOuroboros. I used the term, and included a link to its historical definition, for the reasons I had stated in the original post, not for shock value. I feel that Malcolm X's explanation of the term is very relevant to almost any non-equal power structure.
Also, I'm not trying to silence anyone. I fully encourage people to disagree with me. I wouldn't really bother posting stuff if everyone agreed with me all the time.
Again, sorry if I offended you.
I came on a bit strong as well, so I apologize about that. I've seen the "you don't agree with me so you don't get a say" statement made in earnest enough times that I have a knee-jerk reaction to it.
I came on a bit strong as well, so I apologize about that. I've seen the "you don't agree with me so you don't get a say" statement made in earnest enough times that I have a knee-jerk reaction to it.StuffI apologize BlackOuroboros. I used the term, and included a link to its historical definition, for the reasons I had stated in the original post, not for shock value. I feel that Malcolm X's explanation of the term is very relevant to almost any non-equal power structure.
Also, I'm not trying to silence anyone. I fully encourage people to disagree with me. I wouldn't really bother posting stuff if everyone agreed with me all the time.
Again, sorry if I offended you.
I found this article a couple of days ago and it sums up a lot of my feelings towards the current culture. I don't fully agree with everything he says, but I feel a lot of the observations are accurate.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fergurg, the phenomenon your citing from coulter is known as poes law
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I have that knee-jerk reaction sometimes. When I read down the national review online site and saw some article about protecting the Koch Bros. Freedom and some photo of Grover Norquist, I threw up in my mouth a little. But if everyone thought the same, things would be pretty boring.
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are certainly fuzzy bits around the edges of our gender classification system - and some "primitive" cultures had their own ways of addressing those, but for the basic view from 10,000 feet (or 10,000 years into the past) those fuzzy bits really aren't too relevant. Unless you're going to argue that people back then didn't also grasp the two basic divisions, while possibly acknowledging some others.So, while I'm glad you put "primitive" in quotes to acknowledge the often problematic use of that term in describing people, the term "two basic divisions" seems weird to me because it still relies on a binary idea of gender and sex. There are contemporary cultures across the world that have more than two genders, and they don't consider those gender options to be "male, female, and then the other one(s)." I dunno, I would have more to say about this but I guess it all just boils down to: "the gender binary is bad and outright dangerous and other lethal for anyone who doesn't conform to it."Not arguing that (and couldn't really come up with a better word than primitive, it got the meaning across at least.)
There are plenty of cultures, past and present that acknowledge more than two genders, though what those genders are is not particularly consistent. There are no cultures, past or present, that I'm aware of, that don't include male and female among the genders they recognize and those genders cover the vast majority of individuals, again in every case I'm aware of. I don't want to dismiss those who conform to it, but when we're dealing with deep history or other cultures where we don't have detailed knowledge it's a mistake to dismiss that basic division. We don't know the details how any given Neolithic culture constructed gender, but to suggest that they didn't have male and female genders that broke down on basically biological line is a pretty radical notion and would require some serious evidence. How they classified those who didn't conform in one way or another is something we probably will never know, but it's not likely to have had much effect on how traditional gender roles developed - though it certainly would have had huge effect on individuals at the time.
Again, view from 10,000' here. The big picture can be seen in broad strokes. The details not so clear.
Fair points. And I don't think you're arguing in favor of the gender binary, and it is interesting to think of how cultures typically conceive of genders with at least two options of male and female.
Still, though, I think using the term "basic division" is potentially othering? I feel like the basic structure of gender categories consist of both biological sex, gendered social roles, and masculine/feminine presentation. The existence of the feminine female/masculine male genders across several (if not all?) cultures shouldn't lead to that pair being conceived of as basic, or default, or "normal" is principally what I'm getting at here. And again, I don't necessarily think that's what you're arguing, but I think it's something that's important to keep in mind.
TL;DR down with the gender binary.
It is impossible to be sexist toward men in the same way that it is impossible to be racist toward white people or classist toward the ruling class. Please note that I'm using these "-ist" terms in the context of their existence as oppressive systems, not as simple prejudice.
Because the system never favors women in western society... It's not like women suffer lighter sentences for the exact same crimes or anything... Nope. The Patriarchy (tm) always rigs the game in favor of those evil manspreading males...
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 32
|
It is impossible to be sexist toward men in the same way that it is impossible to be racist toward white people or classist toward the ruling class. Please note that I'm using these "-ist" terms in the context of their existence as oppressive systems, not as simple prejudice.Because the system never favors women in western society... It's not like women suffer lighter sentences for the exact same crimes or anything...
Nope. The Patriarchy (tm) always rigs the game in favor of those evil manspreading males...
What crimes are you referring to? For certain crimes, I grant that this is possible, I just don't know what they are. Although, have you heard of Susan B. Anthony?
I know, for instance, that men who beat or murder their intimate partners with their bare hands (including strangulation) receive less jail time and less harsh sentences than women who murder or injure abusive male partners with guns, because they are often less physically able to defend themselves without a weapon. But shooting someone is for some reason not as serious a crime as strangling someone.
What crimes are you referring to? For certain crimes, I grant that this is possible, I just don't know what they are. Although, have you heard of Susan B. Anthony?It is impossible to be sexist toward men in the same way that it is impossible to be racist toward white people or classist toward the ruling class. Please note that I'm using these "-ist" terms in the context of their existence as oppressive systems, not as simple prejudice.Because the system never favors women in western society... It's not like women suffer lighter sentences for the exact same crimes or anything...
Nope. The Patriarchy (tm) always rigs the game in favor of those evil manspreading males...
Try... "pretty much all of them". In fact, women who are arrested are much more likely to avoid being charged or convicted than their male counterparts.
I know, for instance, that men who beat or murder their intimate partners with their bare hands (including strangulation) receive less jail time and less harsh sentences than women who murder or injure abusive male partners with guns, because they are often less physically able to defend themselves without a weapon. But shooting someone is for some reason not as serious a crime as strangling someone.
I'm not sure if that's true, but try comparing the same crime, in the same circumstances.
Mecha, I'm honestly curious about my questions to follow, not being snarky, and I don't want to derail the thread, so feel free to reply by PM. If you're more comfortable answering here in front of everyone, that's cool too.
In an earlier post you talk about the basic structure of gender categories consisting of biological sex, gendered social roles and masculine/feminine presentation. Did you intentionally list those in order of precedence, or is that something I'm inferring? That is, biological sex is a physical fact, and pretty easily defined, whereas feminine/masculine presentation depends pretty directly on gendered social roles, and seems to me to be entirely a cultural construct.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As a hypothetical discussion since I'm not familiar with the statistics, that's just the flip side of the same coin of sexism being bad.
Men receive harsher sentences then women because they're perceived as stronger, more responsible, better able to handle it (or women receive lighter ones because they're weaker, less responsible for their actions, or need to be protected; pick your perspective) is an element of sexism. It's similar to the practical effects of pleading the belly in common law. It's similar to the anecdotal bias towards women who better fit traditional gender roles in family court (again, I'm not familiar with the statistics although I think evidence of the bias here is better supported).
And yet... You don't see feminists fighting to be treated equally on this matter.
Hmmm... I wonder why...
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yo Hitdice, don't worry, you don't come across as snarky at all. This seems like a perfect topic for this thread. After all, one can't talk about gender/sex politics without (at least implicitly) talking about what it means to be a certain gender/sex, or how society defines gender/sex.
I didn't list those in any particular order, but "biological sex" is, I think, harder to grasp in the context of being a social construct than the concepts of masculinity and femininity (at least, they were for me!). So, here's the thing about biological sex: it, like gender, is a social construct.
What I mean by that is that biology is very complicated, and the things that constitute a person's sex include (but are not even necessarily limited to) genitalia, secondary sexual characteristics, hormones (hormones are a BIG one), physical brain structure, and chromosomes. So while a person's physical, biological realities are "facts," their assignment to a particular sex are culturally constructed. As an illustration, let's take two examples. Example the first: there is a condition whereby someone with the XY chromosome--typically considered the male chromosome--was an embryo whose brain and body, for some reason, just did not produce the levels of testosterone needed to cause the growth of a penis. Instead they produce the hormonal levels that are typical of most cisgender women. So this person is born, labeled female because of the infant's vagina, and often grows up identifying as a woman, with a body that reads as female according to what we have defined as "what female bodies look like." However, they have the XY chromosome and undescended testes. Many of them, I believe, identify as cisgender women and experience lives as women. The "biological fact" of their body is culturally constructed as female, even though it is chromosomally unusual.
Example the second (and this one is medically violent, just a heads up): a child is born, and the doctor, as is typical procedure, assigns the baby a sex by visual examination of its genitals. This child is intersex (I have read that they are about as common as redheads), which can mean a lot of things, but essentially doctors determine sex by the size of the clitoris or penis (which are pretty much grown by the body from the same "base" material). Often intersex children have genitalia that are in-between the "proper" sizes to be considered either "male" or "female," and so some doctors surgically remove (i.e. mutilate) the child's "excess" genital material and call them female (sometimes without parental consent!!!). This child's sex is determined by the doctor's cultural conception of what male and female are depending solely on their genitals, and in this case the result is physical violence.
Example the third: transgender folk often undergo hormone replacement therapy to change their bodies. However, a trans person does not change their body from one gender to the other: they just are whatever gender they are. For instance, a trans woman who has undergone hormone therapy and surgery is just as much a woman as she was before she did any of that. She is a biological being, yes? And her body is hers. Therefore, the biological fact of her body is that she is a biological creature, and therefore a biological woman. This is why it is demeaning and insulting to claim, for instance, that a trans woman is not "biologically" a woman--usually what this means when people say it is "not born with a vagina," which is untrue.
Does that make any sense, Hitdice? I hope I've explained it well?
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As a hypothetical discussion since I'm not familiar with the statistics, that's just the flip side of the same coin of sexism being bad.
Men receive harsher sentences then women because they're perceived as stronger, more responsible, better able to handle it (or women receive lighter ones because they're weaker, less responsible for their actions, or need to be protected; pick your perspective) is an element of sexism. It's similar to the practical effects of pleading the belly in common law. It's similar to the anecdotal bias towards women who better fit traditional gender roles in family court (again, I'm not familiar with the statistics although I think evidence of the bias here is better supported).
And yet... You don't see feminists fighting to be treated equally on this matter.
Hmmm... I wonder why...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As a hypothetical discussion since I'm not familiar with the statistics, that's just the flip side of the same coin of sexism being bad.
Men receive harsher sentences then women because they're perceived as stronger, more responsible, better able to handle it (or women receive lighter ones because they're weaker, less responsible for their actions, or need to be protected; pick your perspective) is an element of sexism. It's similar to the practical effects of pleading the belly in common law. It's similar to the anecdotal bias towards women who better fit traditional gender roles in family court (again, I'm not familiar with the statistics although I think evidence of the bias here is better supported).
And yet... You don't see feminists fighting to be treated equally on this matter.
Hmmm... I wonder why...
Perhaps you'd be happier if feminists first fixed all of men's problems and only then worried about women?
Of course feminists are actually fighting to fix the suggested root cause of that matter - if women are no longer perceived to be weaker, less responsible for their actions, or in need of protection, that will lead to the changes you want.
I would probably be happier if a movement that is supposed about equality focused on equality, instead of things like "manspreading". Or if they actually tried to fight for equality instead of blaming men for all evil in the world while trying to portray themselves as poor, helpless victims and martyrs who bravely fight The Patriarchy (tm).
"What's that? Child-brides? Actual rape cultures where men proudly boast about raping women? Laws that punish women for disobeying their husbands? Laws that forbid women from going to school or even leaving their homes alone?"
"Nah, fighting those things is too difficult, and they happen too far... But, I still want to feel like a brave little martyr, so... Let's call men sexist oppressors because they like video-games with male protagonists and wear tacky shirts."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
She's on a US coin, for f++*'s sake.As a hypothetical discussion since I'm not familiar with the statistics, that's just the flip side of the same coin of sexism being bad.
Men receive harsher sentences then women because they're perceived as stronger, more responsible, better able to handle it (or women receive lighter ones because they're weaker, less responsible for their actions, or need to be protected; pick your perspective) is an element of sexism. It's similar to the practical effects of pleading the belly in common law. It's similar to the anecdotal bias towards women who better fit traditional gender roles in family court (again, I'm not familiar with the statistics although I think evidence of the bias here is better supported).
And yet... You don't see feminists fighting to be treated equally on this matter.
Hmmm... I wonder why...
Oh, I know who she is... But her existence doesn't change the reality of tumblr feminism.
I'm not surprised by the existence of admirable women. I never denied their existence. *I* never accused a whole gender of being composed of bigots. In fact, I'd say about 50% of all admirable people in history were female.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Got enough straw, there, Lemmy?
...Says the one who claims all men sitting with spread legs are doing so specifically because they think women deserve less space.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Got enough straw, there, Lemmy?...Says the one who claims all men sitting with spread legs are doing so specifically because they think women deserve less space.
I'm willing to drop this and put an end to this train before it gets out of control if you are.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 32
|
She's on a US coin, for f!+!'s sake.What does Sacagawea have to do with this?
* Hides.
*Throws coins at*
"Nah, fighting those things is too difficult, and they happen too far...
...and then if you did fight it, you'd be a racist.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is a difficult thing to change the world. On the other hand, it has probably never been easier. In any case, when you do try to change it, you really can't afford to antagonize those who would be your allies. Further, seeing as most of the problems facing us all derive from the practice of discrimination (in its most simplistic form: making distinctions between groups and attaching value judgements to them), it behooves every world-changer to avoid further contributing to said practice. To me, that has always been the principle that everyone should have the same opportunities and that formal society should not make such distinctions. There shouldn't be nobles that get special treatment by the laws, for example. See, we are getting better at interacting with one another, not worse. The desire to improve the world is strong and undeniable. However, it takes time, and there are still many cul de sacs along the way.
I know I don't speak the jargon. I see only ideologically motivated, government supported bigotry and group think there, and never felt there was anything in it that would improve things. That said, I agree with the general (stated) goal, to make society better for everyone. The idea of the all important gender roles is a stifling one and absolutely harmful.
I can understand the temptation to gather the like-minded through referring to a common enemy. That is leadership 101, but it is also a way to get enemies. There is a price to pay for it, especially if you are not extremely careful to specify precisely those who already are your enemies. Once you start generalizing to declare entire societal groups, you contribute to division and discrimination.
It is also important to realize that all of us are individuals. We judge things by what we see around ourselves. Again, it is tempting to generalize, but others WILL NOT have your bases for judgement, and if they do not recognize your reasoning, you will miss them, especially if they feel targeted as a problem by you.
So, as for "it is impossible to discriminate against white men", that is b#~@~*!*, no matter what the gender theorists have defined it as so as not to have to deal with it. I doubt anyone would find it difficult to find white men with a situation so bad, caused by societal disregard for them, that if they had been women, the feminist would have seen it as a serious problem. The traditional answer to this is "well, they would have been worse off if they had been women", which is pretty useless as an argument. If someone suffers, they don't suffer because they have it worse than someone else, at least not primarily. It would be pretty ridiculous to say "I have more than I'd ever need, but I still suffer, because Warren Buffet". No, people suffer because they hurt and don't get what they need.
Fight, and fight hard, to make things better, but do not make enemies where none exist. Tribalism is the evil we should all be fighting, and holds no solutions for anyone.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hmmm.
Harrassment--Well, I don't think I do that.
Baiting--Guilty as charged.
Profanity/Vulgar Speech--Ummm [Looks around]
Malicious Speech--Well, I do advocate class war quite a bit...
Impersonation--I only used my Evil Houstonderek avatar four times!
Personal Content--I prefer to let it all hang out.
Spam--Does communist propaganda count?
Illegal Activity--[bubble bubble bubble]
I can't believe I've been on here for, like, five years now, and I've never read that document. And now that I've read it, I can't believe I've been on here for, like, five years.
Mea culpa, Paizo.com.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've had someone call me a Tumblr Feminist in a derogatory way recently, not sure why though, only like 30% of my stuff is feminist blogs. The other 70% is video games and pornography. It was interesting to see which one of those three things offended them the most though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would probably be happier if a movement that is supposed about equality focused on equality, instead of things like "manspreading". Or if they actually tried to fight for equality instead of blaming men for all evil in the world while trying to portray themselves as poor, helpless victims and martyrs who bravely fight The Patriarchy (tm)."What's that? Child-brides? Actual rape cultures where men proudly boast about raping women? Laws that punish women for disobeying their husbands? Laws that forbid women from going to school or even leaving their homes alone?"
"Nah, fighting those things is too difficult, and they happen too far... But, I still want to feel like a brave little martyr, so... Let's call men sexist oppressors because they like video-games with male...
Can we agree that 'manspreading' is exaggerated, but also recognize that the reaction to it is also exaggerated? This is not a major concern of any feminists I've seen online, and the only time I've heard of it is folks like you in this thread insisting that the entire body of online social-media feminism consists of the fight against manspreading.
As for people in other countries, Dear Muslima. It is possible to oppose violent, horrific sexism in other countries while also working to reduce microagressions and other subtler forms of discrimination in our own country, which happens to be the one where we have a chance to make actual change -- all we can do for other countries is express disapproval and support local activists. (Women in, for example, Pakistan don't want westerners come in to 'save' them from their culture. They want to change their culture themselves.)
... Which is the reason conventional wisdom on multi-front wars is: don't. And if you do, make sure you have allies to help you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
God I hate the term microaggressions.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 32
|
God I hate the term microaggressions.
What you rather we call small instances of racism, sexism, and ableism in the form of oppression-normalizing jokes and "innocent" remarks? I can't think of anything catchier.
EDIT: Oh! We could call them dick-jokes! Not to be confused with phallic puns and innuendos, dick-jokes are what we call mean jokes told by racist and sexist dicks!
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 32
|
Call them what they are, and stop fixating on catch-phrases. In the end, they do far more harm than good.God I hate the term microaggressions.What you rather we call small instances of racism, sexism, and ableism in the form of oppression-normalizing jokes and "innocent" remarks? I can't think of anything catchier.
EDIT: Oh! We could call them dick-jokes! Not to be confused with phallic puns and innuendos, dick-jokes are what we call mean jokes told by racist and sexist dicks!
Honest question: how?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honest question: how?Call them what they are, and stop fixating on catch-phrases. In the end, they do far more harm than good.God I hate the term microaggressions.What you rather we call small instances of racism, sexism, and ableism in the form of oppression-normalizing jokes and "innocent" remarks? I can't think of anything catchier.
EDIT: Oh! We could call them dick-jokes! Not to be confused with phallic puns and innuendos, dick-jokes are what we call mean jokes told by racist and sexist dicks!
Microagression as a term implies that a behavior is consciously designed to be aggressive, and applies no distinction to levels of behavior. Many of the times it is used are in fairly benign applications, lumping them in with much more serious problems. In this thread we have examples of a guy sitting with his legs spread apart naturally on a mostly empty subway and a guy silently doing a doubletake of a sexily dressed woman being labeled the same thing as a guy actively crowding the people next to him making them visibly uncomfortable and a guy stalking a woman for 5 minutes after she refused to talk to him. Lumping these types of things into the same category results in people not taking them seriously.