Wanted: Sage Advice
Published by Lisa Kansas October 4th, 2008 in Punkass!, Blogitics, FeminismI recently wrote a review of Glenn Sacks’ “men’s rights” blog, and in this review I alluded to an experience I had some years back on another “men’s rights” site. As it turns out, the “men’s rights” blogosphere is an even smaller world than the feminist blogosphere is, and the long and short of it is that as a result of that I ran smack dab into an old MRA debating buddy of mine (which was actually kinda cool!). Now, Glenn, in his response to me on his blog, casually invited me to post the periodic article in his “Feminist Dissident” category; I ended up declining, but now, I’m reconsidering (assuming that the offer’s still open, of course). So I figured, who better to ask than the collective wisdom of the wild-eyed tree-worshipping baby-killing awesome and articulate PunkAssers?
Here are the reasons I initially declined the offer:
1. I found Glenn’s tone on his blog, when discussing feminists, to flip-flop between condescending and venomous, and his portrayal of feminism to be shallow and stereotypical. This did not indicate to me any real desire to explore the issues facing men as a gender from the feminist point of view; rather more a desire to make the straw target of feminism on his site more appealing to his readers by taping a real live feminist to its backside.
2. I read over the comments sections of a few of his “Feminist Dissident” posts and found them to mostly consist of either “feminists are giant oozing boogers” or “women period are giant oozing boogers.” This did not indicate to me any willingness or interest on the part of his readers to engage in meaningful debate about the role and ideals of feminism in terms of the issues facing men as a gender.
3. I read over the comments sections of some more of his general posts and found them to mostly consist of the same oozing booger representation, especially focused on women as a gender, not just feminism, which indicated to me that a large proportion of his readership are total misogynists, which made posting to them about as constructive and appealing as it would be for a black person to post to a bunch of die-hard KKK members.
Now, here are the reasons I am reconsidering:
1. My old MRA debating buddy has chimed in to request that I do indeed make my presence known as a contributor to Glenn’s “Feminist Dissident” category. This buddy is a “known quantity” to me; as in, I know from extensive past experience that while he can simply be a total wiener, particularly if he’s had a bad day, he also does have a genuine interest in exploring how actual feminism impacts the issues facing men as a gender today, and he will actually address said ideas when presented to him rather than simply sneering at the author of said ideas and calling her a feminist booger.
2. A few other of his buddies have hopped over and, in a very courteous and straightforward fashion, have stated that they too would like to see a real idea exchange presented in the “Feminist Dissident” category, and have backed this up by actually presenting a real idea exchange here on PunkAssBlog as an example.
3. It’s really fun to periodically write for an extremely critical audience, as long as the criticism is of one’s ideas and not the mere fact of one’s existence. (That is boring and pointless.)
One more consideration:
1. My old MRA buddy and his buddies have alluded to the presence of either folks that remember me from my earlier feminist-on-an-MRA-site days and still hold a wee bit of a grudge or folks that have developed a fresh hatred of me based primarily on the current blogular exchange over at Glenn’s site, which would make any genuine idea exchange much harder to keep from devolving into a big giant personal attack. This would not make me c-r-y, but I also would not find it particularly appealing or interesting.
So, PunkAssers…share your wisdom…help me find some direction here! 
My guess is that you wouldn’t even be asking if you didn’t want to do it.
You went out looking for MRA sites in the past. Clearly some part of you likes engaging in this debate with them. Of your own initiative, you’ve already started down this road– why not see where it goes?
Provided Sacks still wants you to do it, just commit to doing one. And go in with low expectations. I doubt you’ll actually outright persuade anyone of your views, but who knows– you might just nudge a few of them in the right direction. You know, such that maybe one or two of them might even start to accept, for instance, that maybe the Patriarchy might actually exist.
Since my website is on lockdown, I’ll respond here. Lisa writes:
“This did not indicate to me [that Glenn has] any real desire to explore the issues facing men as a gender from the feminist point of view; rather more a desire to make the straw target of feminism on his site more appealing to his readers by taping a real live feminist to its backside.”
No, Lisa, I do want to promote legitimate debate, and I’m happy to have you “explore the issues facing men as a gender from the feminist point of view.” This is not foreign to me, of course, since I spent much of my 20s as an activist in feminist/leftist causes and have heard these issues many times, but my information is 15-20 years old.
As I wrote to you before, obviously some of my readers (and some of yours) are not capable of polite debate, but many of them are. You seem to think that what I’m doing is some sort of scam, but I feel I’ve done a lot to promote reasonable debate, and I’m unsure what more could be expected.
I’ve allowed feminists to post without any editing from me, including columns critical of me. I’ve allowed them to express their views in the comments sections unfettered, and I’ve deleted posts which I thought were personal attacks on feminists, though I’m sure some remain (I’m an inconsistent and sometimes neglectful moderator, I freely admit.) I could moderate (or have my assistant moderate) the comments on your Dissident Feminist more closely, to screen out rudeness and preserve civil debate. If you’ve got other suggestions, I’m happy to hear them.
Lisa writes:
“I found Glenn’s tone on his blog, when discussing feminists, to flip-flop between condescending and venomous,
I think you would also have to add “complimentary” and “polite” also. I compliment feminists when I think they’re correct and I criticize them when they’re wrong. I try hard to be polite—you could see that as “condescension” but you could also see it as, well, trying to be polite.
Lisa writes:
“[Glenn’s] portrayal of feminism [is] shallow and stereotypical.”
OK, now you have a chance to tell my readers–directly and without interference—why you think my “portrayal of feminism to be shallow and stereotypical.” The opportunity is yours, and I invite you to take it.
Ah, but what if you start to understand that The Patriarchy ™ does NOT exist, and never has? What if you come to the conclusion that it’s a construct, a lie, used to justify and bolster moves to demonize men? What if it’s the basic underpinning of a social attitude that allows the government to do all sorts of nasty things to men with impunity?
Would you cling to it then?
Can you back up and look at actual results in daily lives, and connect the dots, and see where things are in desperate need of reform? Can you use anything other than feminist versions of history to defend the actions taken in women’s name today? Can you demonstrate balance in the feminist approach?
Can you show that feminism ISN’T simply a special interest group for women…that it is not now, nor has it ever been about equality.
Can you, in short, explain why feminism negates, rather than creates, the need for an equally powerful men’s rights movement?
Without resorting to bullshit arguments?
Well, I doubt I can ever create my worldview or frame my arguments in ways that you or anybody else will invariably nod approvingly at. Best I can do is say that I will base my arguments on reality as I perceive it and the facts that I’m aware of and if it’s demonstrated to me that my arguments are wrong based upon verifiable facts and/or a logical perception of reality that I have not encountered or explored, then I will change my arguments accordingly. If that’s good enough, then we may be set here. If it ain’t, then we’d probably best not even go there in the first place.
Hi Glenn, I hope you pop back over here to check this, because I seriously can’t get any part of your site to successfully connect on my computer. I am leaning towards this; I don’t need or expect any more moderation than you do anywhere else on your site, but I am getting the impression that a lot of your readers already hate me. (Oh, the sadness.
) From a practical standpoint, that won’t work well in an idea exchange, not if the majority of them don’t want to hear a word I say before it even emerges from my mouth (or more accurately, my keyboard). You should probably make sure that there are enough folks over there who really are interested in hearing from me, personally, to make it worth both our whiles. Or you’d have a much more successful idea exchange program using a feminist about whom nobody has any personal beef with. Kwim?
Actually Lisa, if you check the archives there you will find a good portion of MRA’s that share my disappointment with the calibre of feminist posts. Glenn disagrees, but he’s got a horse in the race. What you talk about when you say:
“Best I can do is say that I will base my arguments on reality as I perceive it and the facts that I’m aware of ”
Is exactly what you should do.
Yes, there are a few incomprehensible “OH YEAH WELL YOU’RE A F*CKING FEMINIST AND YOU ALL SUCK!!!” type guys over there…hell, I can be like that some days…
But I think you will find that when presented with a juicy debate topic, and a good argument that isn’t simply shaming language dressed up in academic clothing, that many of us will quite happily debate intellectually.
PolishKnight (for example) is what you would refer to as a “Patriarchal Oppressor” (married an Asian, traditional family life where he provides, and he believes this is the way things should be), but he’s wicked smart. Just keep in mind he has a smarter mouth than me.
I also think you’d be surprised at how similar MRA’s and Feminists are on big picture concepts. We all want equality, for example. We just think equality should mean literal equality, not outcome equality.
So sure, there might (ok,likely WILL) be a few “Screw you lady, you’re a manhater” posts, but then I am hardly well received at most feminist sites…..plus ca change, plus ca meme chose.
In fact, if you like I can write one for you to post at the feminist spot ‘o’ your choice. I promise to use colourful language, wild hyperbole, make sweeping generalizations, and NO links, in a relatively controversial topic. Furthermore, it will be highly critical of women in general (as seen from a male perspective), not just feminists.
Should perfectly fit into the MRA Stereotype. We’ll have a contest to see who gets yelled at more.
What you think?
Lisa,
I’d like to share my thoughts on what you said here:
“I am getting the impression that a lot of your readers already hate me. (Oh, the sadness. ) From a practical standpoint, that won’t work well in an idea exchange, not if the majority of them don’t want to hear a word I say before it even emerges from my mouth (or more accurately, my keyboard). You should probably make sure that there are enough folks over there who really are interested in hearing from me, personally, to make it worth both our whiles.”
First of all, I think “hate” is a very strong word and should generally be reserved for special cases where the people you are talking about would like to see you tortured and/or destroyed in some fashion. That being said, I do not believe that anyone actually hates you… there are a number who probably aren’t too happy with you though, and hopefully you can at least understand why that might be the case.
You suggest that you are worried that they will basically be on the attack even before considering anything you have to say. While I can’t guarantee that no one will do anything like this, one sure fire way to reduce the odds of that happening would be to simply start off your post by explaining that you might have gotten off on the wrong foot, but based upon later conversations and consideration that you see some opportunity to engage in a reasonable debate with people who for the most part share a different philosophical take on how society functions. You don’t need to apologize or grovel or anything, just take the high road and acknowledge that you might have been a little hasty in your initial conclusions and would hope that the readers there would recognize that you are genuinely interested in a real discussion about the issues. Initial impressions are notoriously difficult to get correct, I don’t believe anyone would disagree with you if you alluded to that fact. Then you could easily proceed to bring up your points and present your perspective.
I’m not saying that most people will agree with you, I am guessing that I’d personally disagree with you on a wide variety of points. As I have said before, there are MANY very articulate writers over on Glenn’s blog, there are also MANY very logical and reasonable people who are interested in having a real debate that focuses upon the issues. As with any large group of people however, there is bound to be those who are less than polite and don’t discuss things in what I would consider a fair manner.
I know that you aren’t specifically asking for advice from me as you are probably a bit more interested in what your fellow community members think. However, I do hope my advice is welcome and my advice is this: If you are interested in writing something do it because you want to and don’t worry too much about how it will be received by everyone who reads it… there are enough reasonable people who read Glenn’s blog that your thoughts will reach them regardless of if an unreasonable element wants to attack the author instead of attacking the arguments (if the arguments are not sound that is).
You can doubt my take on the issue if you like, but I would at least like to remind you what I said in the other thread:
“I’d wager a guess that if you changed your mind Glenn wouldn’t slam the door in your face and would probably welcome anything you had to say.”
Based upon what Glenn has said here, it appears as though I read the situation correctly. What I’d like you to try and keep in mind is that most (if not all) of the posters really aren’t looking to hold a grudge against you. If you feel that is the major stumbling block, then take one paragraph to explain things a bit and then express your hope that any discussion you have can be civil and productive. Hopefully I have read that situation correctly as well, but I make no guarantees.
I was asked by another one of Glenn’s commenter to write there, and I declined as well (for many of the same reasons, and the additional one being that I don’t want to give further ammunition that ‘teh feminists suk’ ideas). So, I can understand not wanting to go out there. However, the major difference between you and me is that you are a much better writer than I am. Someone has to “fight the good fight”, and if not you, than who?
Jason-
Based on your definition, I think “hate” is an entirely appropriate word. You have never had to clean out the moderation folder on a feminist blog. I’ve had many a self-proclaimed men’s right activist tell me about how much they have fantasized over killing and/or raping me. Forgive me, but I’m not sure you have any idea how much women and feminists get threatened on the internet.
Antigone,
You are correct that I’ve never had to clean out the moderation folder on a feminist blog. However, I’m not talking about random people here, I am talking about individuals who I have seen post comments for over a year.
I am basing my opinion upon what I have seen most of these people write, I am basing my opinion upon how I have seen them interact with others. For the people I am talking about (i.e. most of the frequent commenter’s over at GS’s blog) I stand by my assertion that “hate” is a strong word.
When you say that you get threats and comments that would be indicative of hateful intentions I believe you… however, Lisa’s contention was that the individuals who write over at GS’s blog are the ones who “hate” her.
Now I certainly do not know what lives within the hearts and minds of others… I can only tell you with certainty how I think and feel. Based upon my own personal experience with these individuals, the reasonable folks that I talk about don’t go around threatening women or feminists with death or rape.
I am talking about one specific group… I am not talking about the whole of the internet or the population at large.
And hey, maybe I am wrong, maybe all of those people do “hate” Lisa… if they do though that certainly isn’t the impression I’ve gotten. If anything they aren’t exactly happy with the way she painted the group with broad brush strokes… I know I certainly wasn’t happy about that part, but I certainly never hated her, nor was I even angry with her. For me the feeling was more one of disappointment than anything else.
However, all it took for me to reevaluate the situation was for one person who had much more experience with her than I had to say the equivalent of “She’s really worth hearing out because she brings some good points to the table and is a capable debater”.
To a certain extent I think you have misinterpreted what I am saying. Here is basically what just happened:
1 - Lisa expressed concern that the frequent commenter’s over on GS’s blog “hate” her.
2 - I expressed that I thought that “hate” was probably a strong word based upon the way I saw people talking about things. She might not be their absolute favorite person, but I’m not convinced they would hold a grudge if she just explained that she was interested in a fresh start conversation wise.
3 - You then asserted that “hate” was entirely appropriate because random people from the internet have sent you some rather hateful messages.
Do you see the disconnect here?
You are talking about random figures from the internet… I am talking about a specific group, and it was that specific group that Lisa was also referring to.
They aren’t guilty of harboring hate simply because a bunch of other people have done hateful things.
To make the point you are trying to make you would first have to establish that the random people from the internet who sent you death and rape threats are the same individuals that I am talking about… but you haven’t actually done that, nor am I convinced that you can considering I doubt these hateful persons were apt to tell you who they were.
I’ve already stated that I offer no guarantees because I only speak for myself… but I’d say I probably have a slightly better insight into the population of individuals who post on GS’s blog than you do and I simply can’t imagine most of the frequent posters actually “hating” Lisa… dislike maybe… but hate?… that seems a bit extreme given how they usually handle things.
“However, the major difference between you and me is that you are a much better writer than I am.”
HA!!!!!!!!!!! I am not.
Jason:
I did make sure to say that they self-identified as MRAs, it was not just random people. Random nutbags have been plenty insulting and threatening, but so have people that identify with MRAs. If they post on Glenn’s, I’m not sure, because his comment threads make me sick to my stomach, but I’m willing to bet there’s at least a little bit of overlap between MRA trolls and Glenn’s readers. And, if there isn’t (and truly, you’d know better than I at that point) it isn’t like there is an internet barrier that will keep them from following her over there. It’s one thing to get those comments when they can be deleted, or even when they aren’t, people will jump all over them saying how bad they are. It’s another thing to have it there and people agree with it.
Lisa-
Are too :p
Antigone,
Yes you did say that they self-identified as MRA’s. Again I think we are misunderstanding each other a bit and that can make things difficult so I will try to explain my meaning better. What I am saying is that just because some random individual who identifies them self as an MRA says something rude, obnoxious, or hateful does not mean that the particular individuals that I am talking about (some of whom would also identify themselves as MRA’s while others would identify themselves as egalitarians… I fall into the second category) would do something like that.
What I am trying to get across is that the individuals I am talking about who frequently post on Glenn’s blog are of a higher caliber than that. The ones I am talking about wouldn’t suggest that you need to die, or that you should be assaulted, or that you should be raped.
Now I don’t know these individuals on a personal basis or anything so I can only vouch for them in terms of the behavior I have witnessed over the past year or so. From what I have seen these people are genuinely interested in civil debate.
Does that mean that ALL of Glenn’s commenter’s are looking for that kind of thing?… no… some just use his site as a place to vent anger and frustration at a system that they see as being stacked against them. Surely you can understand this as many feminist sites serve that function as well.
What you say here I think is fair:
“If they post on Glenn’s, I’m not sure, because his comment threads make me sick to my stomach, but I’m willing to bet there’s at least a little bit of overlap between MRA trolls and Glenn’s readers.”
However, the people I am talking about are the people who post frequently, and of that group I would say most are quite reasonable… although not all are necessarily polite. Between Factory and myself for example, I think he would agree that he tends to be a little more “in your face” than I tend to be, and that isn’t a bad thing because sometimes it takes an “in your face” attitude to get the point across and sometimes it takes a more reserved/civil mode of conversation.
I’m not going to say that every single person who posts on Glenn’s blog is friendly or interested in civil discourse or even just to debate the issues (as a matter of fact I’ve been dealing with a rather unsavory individual there for about two months now and she still refuses to leave me alone). However, I don’t like the concept that one or two bad apples spoils the bunch. I think there are enough people who are genuinely interested in a conversation to be able to assert that Glenn’s blog isn’t exactly a congregation of people who hate women… instead I would classify it as a congregation of men who feel like society has turned its back on them to one extent or another and they would like to see some fair treatment.
So far as getting rude comments deleted, Glenn already offered to moderate more carefully if that happens to be a prerequisite (while I think Glenn has lots of good opinions and does valuable work, moderation is one thing I don’t think he does very well or consistently).
Believe me, I know how it goes when it comes to just trying to express your opinion only to have people on the internet call you every foul name in the book. Men don’t exactly have a monopoly on saying rude and obnoxious things. I guess my point is that there is no way to guarantee that everyone is going to be nice and polite… but that there will be many who stick to the issues and present well reasoned points in response to anything that is said.
I know that it stinks that everyone can’t just sit down and have reasonable conversations with each other… it is something that has pissed me off for years… but the only solution I’ve ever come up with to guarantee that you never enter into an unreasonable conversation is to just refuse to talk to anyone else, and that isn’t really a viable solution for most people.
By the way, this is the first feminist blog where I’ve managed to be able to express my opinion without being treated in an unsavory manner. The courtesy is appreciated.
Frankly, I don’t know where this obsession with getting through life “offense free” came from. A lot of things piss me off daily (like being characterized as a proto-rapist because I have a penis, for example). Such is life. If you, Antigone, see no value in posting there, then don’t. If you see no value in communicating with the other HALF of society, again, your choice.
But the days of petulently refusing to acknowledge men are human beings, and dictating the “gender debate” are over for feminists.
Thankfully.
Maybe now we can set about fixing some of the harm.
Or is that too extreme of a position?
What I’m feeling is really more in-between Antigone’s and Jason’s suppositions–mostly I just don’t want to waste my time with folks where a larger proportion of them than not just want to use me for target practice–frankly, I don’t see why I should enable that kinda behavior, you know? However, I can’t say that I think men as a gender have no legitimate issues, because I do, so the cause is worthy enough to give it a shot. Once.
If I end up just giving a bunch of misogynist douchebags a conveniently live target for their masturbatory rape fantasies, then I won’t bother with ‘em further.
Well, like i said. I think a good debate is a wicked huge amount of fun (and I confess, it’s a HUGE turn on, so maybe the masturbatory fantasies thing might apply), but if it’s something you’re apprehensive or nervous about, don’t do it. It really is your choice (obviously).
I personally think that both groups have such a massive misconception about the other that it’s…well…just plain silly is all I can say. The one thing you may run into, and I echo the sentiment, is that feminists have been telling men to “shut up and listen” for such a long time, and we’ve heard so many feminist canards go unchallenged for so long….well, some guys have just had it.
I personally think that this is only going to be addressed when feminists start to acknowledge men are people, with needs and feelings, and that women/feminists do NOT have all the answers…let alone all the right ones.
Men have to be heard before there are two sides to a debate. So far, it’s just been feminists talking to themselves, then telling others how it is.
And you know what someone walking down the street talking only to their self looks like…right?
Ooh. You just gave me the genius idea for my first post over at Glenn’s.
Masturbation?
You wish.
Probably.
I’m excited. Probably shouldn’t be, everytime I get all enthused about something it turns to crap. But I am.
Who’s misrepresenting whom? I don’t try to go through life “offense free” but I do try to avoid being threatened on a day-to-day basis. There are tons of petty offenses and annoyances that I deal with daily that I brush off (like most adults have to). I don’t think that I should be free from offense: I do think I should be free from threats and insults. Oh, and thinking that if we added self-proclaimed feminists AND self-proclaimed MRAs and we’d get anywhere NEAR half the human population is silly. We’re minority beliefs, even in the US.
When did that ever happen? I have never seen a single feminist say, “petulently” or otherwise, that men are not human beings. Most of the time is taken up by feminists trying to get the acknowledgment that WOMEN are people.
That’s rich, because from where I’m standing, it’s not men that get interrupted by women in public discourse. Pardon me, but it is EXTREMELY difficult to take you seriously if you claim, with a straight face, that men don’t get to contribute to public discourse. Try this: go to a library, and see how many books are written by men, and compare that to the number of women authors. Then go on television, and see what the divide between male pundits and female pundits. Then turn on the radio, and see what the divide between men and women DJs and news reporter is.
Then come back to me and tell me that women, much less feminists, control the discourse.
If you would stop continually looking at the top echelons of society to bolster your point, I wouldn’t have to do a damn thing.
Or is it “as it goes with Paris Hilton, so it goes with Antigone”?
Look at the average guy and see what he has for power…don’t look at the powerful and determine their sex.
As to feminism limiting debate, and dissent from men….never ever seen a feminist cut short an argument with accusations of misogyny (remember, just because the things said are unflattering does NOT make them misogynistic…it usually just means the behaviour outlined is reprehensible, and indefensible)?
I truly find it hard to believe that you don’t think feminists have done their level best to stifle men’s views on damn near anything. If nothing else, it’s the old “Oh, yeah that sucks. But women have it much worse, so that problem doesn’t count / isn’t important enough to warrant attention”.
Heaven forbid men’s needs actually require resources that could be used for women.
As a lil experiment, if you can stomach it, watch this short vid…
http://trueequality.com/video.html
And let me know how much you disagree with, maybe even why. Or not..
The main problem MRA’s have with feminism is the outright dismissal of men’s issues, SIMPLY BECAUSE they’re men’s issues, from feminist groups and women in general. Makes it patently obvious how much men are valued.
The surprising thing is that men are actually starting to “act” on it.
We’re staying away in droves. Which, if you’re a lesbian, likely isn’t a bad thing to you. But for some of us, this situation really sucks, and it’s about time it changed.
Men are staying away in droves from whom?
Anything committed? Marriage Strike? Ok, I know you either don’t believe it, or that women are just as responsible….but then, you don’t see a whole lot of male columnists talking about the lack of women, or the lack of “real” women….just women complaining that men don’t want them.
This is actually my own particular “bugaboo” when it comes to feminism. As an ideology, feminism is VERY hostile to male sexuality, on all fronts. I take issue with this, and ask, “Why do women get to tell us what is acceptable, when we don’t get to tell them what is acceptable?”
Actually, I was just saying that I haven’t noticed men staying away in droves or even in trickles, from any standpoint from a quickie to a lifelong commitment, from me personally. And I’m an evil feminist. So you’d think I’d be noticing this. So I admit to some suspicion that there’s some kind of male conspiracy out there to abandon us to our own devices.
Isn’t that sort of like a Rockefeller saying he/she doen’s have any trouble affording a mortgage or gas, so it must not be a real problem?
In case you haven’t noticed, you’re hardly “average” in that regard.
I’m going to go out on a limb and say I’m pretty “average” and I haven’t had any problems with relationships. Heck, I just had my wedding. Quick poll of my guy friends yields “WTF are you talking about?” A perusal of marriage statistics in the US yields higher average of age of marriage, not less people married.
I’m missing this great marriage strike. Also, I’m missing where feminism is hostile to male sexuality (I know this particular feminist isn’t). Or are you conflating “male sexuality” with something else?
Gee, Factory, that sounds an awful lot like you’re saying that these deep personal convictions held by these hordes of men on the subject of women and marriage get tossed out the window should a hawwt woman make her availability known to them. Say it ain’t so!
Lisa, while I admit it’s not particularly common, I have indeed tossed hotties away because of their nasty personalities. There is a major difference between wanting to defend you based on your uber-smokinality, and defending your intellectual prowess, for example.
I’d be a moron if I said “Hear her out, she’s a hottie”. Thankfully, that’s not what I said.
when I did say it though, I did so merely to be a sh!t disturber. Ain’t that just all childish and such?
When it comes to the relationship thingy, what you’re not taking into account is that the most desireable will always have a pool of available “talent” to choose from. It’s those on the periphery, the ones that have a 50/50 chance of having a long term marriage/relationship/whatever, that “suffer”. Sort of like how the rich “suffer” a considerable amount less than the poor in an economic downturn….those with the most “resources” (desireability) will notice the least effect, due to sufficient reserves.
Antigone: You might want to rethink that. Last year, the UK had the lowest number of marriages on record. Since the 1300’s, in absolute numbers…without taking population rise into account.
That’s alarming.
I’m US, not UK. I’ll stick with the statistics I know.
Ok. Choose to believe what you choose to believe. Who am I to argue?
I’m just saying that if it’s that bad there, it ain’t all that likely to be much better here (or in the US for that matter). I may be completely wrong, and marriage rates might be skyrocketing all of a sudden here in NA, being somewhat of a statistics-a-phobe, I couldn’t tell you.
But I’ve got a strong feeling things might not be so rosy.
Without some hard evidence, I remain unconvinced there is any sort of “marriage strike”.
According to the following data, marriage rates have dropped in just about every state between 1990 and 2004. I have not found data for the years between 2004 and 2008.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/divorce.htm
The point is not whether or not there is a marriage strike…the point is that things are becoming increasingly difficult between the sexes. Sticking your fingers in your ear and yelling lalala isn’t really going to help.
My position is simply this: I believe there are problems, ones which can only be solved once society gets over the man=bad thing. The marriage strike is but one of many indicators that things are not working, and feminism doesn’t have all the answers (like that’s a shocker or something)….moreover, that the opinions of BOTH sexes need to be incorporated into whatever “gender policy” is followed politically.
Anything less is doomed to failure.
The first step is to convince you folks that yes indeed women are quite capable of the basest sexism, and men (and society in general) are being quite possibly irreparably damaged by current policy.
To analogize…
Me= early 70’s feminist.
You = establishment.
Make sense yet?
I think MRAs’ arguments are tired, and that engaging them is mostly pointless and possibly counterproductive. I can see how it is kinda cathartic to get all riled up & righteously angry but, ultimately, I think it is a waste of time and energy to get caught up in the same debates over and over again. I’d much rather see people having productive discussions, exploring new ideas, etc.
LL,
From my perspective you are making an odd point. Your stance seems to be that when two groups have a difference in opinion the optimal strategy is for them to ignore one another instead of making an earnest attempt to understand where the other side is comming from and to try and reach some sort of compromise or concensus.
When you say that you think MRA’s arguments are “tired”… exactly which arguments are you referring to and why are they tired?
Most democrats and rebublicans believe the other sides arguments/issues are “tired” too… but our entire government is based upon the proposition that discussion and exchange between these two groups is anything but pointless and counterproductive.
That is also an odd choice of words… “counterproductive”… as if to debate people with a difference of opinion means you will actually lose ground, step backwards, and head in a direction opposite to the one you were originally heading.
The only way this is the case is if you are acknowledging the possibility that engaging in conversation with people who have a difference of opinion *might* cause you to reevaluate your original position and maybe see things a little more through their eyes… and that this is somehow an unsavory prospect because of a preexisting adgenda.
No one needs to get riled up and righteously angry in these sorts of discussions (although I freely admit that tends to be how things unfold).
Here is my perspective on things. If two groups are getting caught up in the same exact debate over and over, and neither side seems willing to budge on their position, then we have only a few options:
Option #1 - One group gets ignored in preference for the other group
Option #2 - Both groups recognize that they must find a way to coexist and therefore a reasonable compromise should be established that neither group is totally happy with, but that both find to be an acceptible middle ground
Option #1 isn’t sustainable simply because it isn’t possible to ignore the needs of half the population forever. As a result Option #2 becomes the default which means that some sort of understanding needs to be achieved. That only happens when the lines of communication are open.
So far as exploring new ideas… I’m not sure what you are talking about. New ideas with relation to what?… how the genders relate to one another?
If that is what you are talking about it would be kind of nice to include everyone in the discussion and not just dominate the discourse and say that people don’t get a seat at the table unless they are a feminist.
Please try to keep in mind that not all feminist ideological policies are fair or gender neutral.
I realize that what I am saying might not make immediate sense given your stated perspective, so I will offer an analogy for what I mean:
Would it make sense to you or seem reasonable to you if a conservative decided that there was no point in letting homosexuals have a seat at the table when discussing the notion of marriage because they thought engaging them on that issue was “mostly pointless and possibly counterproductive”?
That is what your argument sounds like to me, and I don’t really feel that it is a reasonable or fair stance to take for the same reason that the above wouldn’t really be fair or reasonable.
Wasn’t it women who in the early part of the 20th century wanted a seat at the table to be able to voice their political opinions and express their ideas?… so now that you have that seat you already feel justified to tell others that they don’t deserve the same opportunity?
I’m glad that you’ve reconsidered Lisa. I’m looking forward to your first post on Glenn’s site.
Lisa, I’m reading Glenn as sincere in his desire to have a different perspective represented at his site, and not just to put you up as a punching bag for his commenters.
I’m not opining on whether you should do it—you know how much time and patience you have—but I think the resulting exchange might have the potential to engage a few people in a worthwhile debate.
If it were me, and I had the time, I might just lace on my rhetorical boxing gloves and weigh in. (Do boxers weigh in? Is my metaphor totally muddled?)
AntiGone: “When did that ever happen? I have never seen a single feminist say, “petulently” or otherwise, that men are not human beings. Most of the time is taken up by feminists trying to get the acknowledgment that WOMEN are people.”
Everyone knows women are human beings, AntiGone. If you would stop characterizing men based on the priveledged few in the upper echalons of society then you’d see this.
As far as your denial in feminists refusal to acknowledge men as decent human beings, well I have a story to tell you.
I believe in feminism. Or once did. It brought many benefits to society when advocates preached the female paradigm such as more introspection and more oppertunity. This is what drew me to it: Equal rights between the sexes. I believe Lisa still likes the dictionary definition of feminism. So do I.
Until I saw something fishy about certain aspects of feminism. For instance, many of today’s feminists have a major bias towards all masculinity. I myself have admitted there is a darkside to masculinity. But there’s one to feminiity as well. Today’s feminists want masculinity renounced or eliminated. ALL of it. None will acknowledge that women also have a dark side.
Then there’s the whole “Priveledge” thing. And, as I’ve said, Antigone, today’s feminists ignore the men at the bottom rung while looking up above to the ones in power and base their generalisations of all men on this rung.
You just did so yourself with this statement:
AntiGone: “Try this: go to a library, and see how many books are written by men, and compare that to the number of women authors. Then go on television, and see what the divide between male pundits and female pundits. Then turn on the radio, and see what the divide between men and women DJs and news reporter is.”
This is another example of what has gotten me to reconsider supporting feminism in all its forms: Feminists like you who aren’t appreciative of the fact that women now have the oppertunities they were denied years ago. Everything has to be a ratio. You view it as a matter of quota instead of quality. “Number of female authors compared to male authors, female djs compared to male djs, etc, etc” then conclude there’s discrimination and sexism at work without even bothering to look at the “Why?” variable close enough. You take for granted the fact that a load of women authors are now able to write without using a pseudonim. And some are even topping bestsellers list as well. I remember one feminist telling me that women are still confined to write harlequin novels. And I couldn’t believe what she told me. Years later, and some feminists can’t seem to leave this obsession behind.
The same thing with “Priveledge”. Today’s feminists can’t get through this and resort to the same old talking points.
I was also told it wasn’t my job to defend patriarchy by a feminist. All because I simply stated that not every single notion of masculinity is bad and that men are human beings. Can you believe this? And she’s my writing teacher, someone I look up to and allowed me to express my feelings. That’s why I never ever talk with her about feminism anymore and choose to just focus on my lessons. Because if I kept this up, she’d likely drop me from her course.
Then there was an online friend I had who we became pretty close, talking about life and helping each other through hardships unumbered. We became confidants and close, but not romantically.
Until the feminism topic reared its head. We spoke about “Priveledge” and she submitted an article about a male feminist with a program that mentors young boys and men. When I read that he still thought of young boys and men as priveledge, I called it out.
This is when the discussion got heated. She feared I would sabotage feminism and sell out to the right-wing conservatives. She told one of her friends about my views and asked what she should do. You know what her friend said?
“Maybe he should find himself another friend.”
I apolgised profusely and we both agreed that this shouldn’t jeopardize our relationship.
After sending her another e-mail, I have not heard a response for awhile. This was half a year ago. I sent her two additional e-mails, but nothing.
It hurts me so much thinking about it because we sent each other cards. I even supported her when she started developing a serious illness, fearing for her life at points. We were THIS close to speaking on the phone because I wanted so much to hear her voice.
Now she’s gone.
While you haven’t seen a single feminist ever speak of their distrust towards men, I can assure you, Antigone, that it does happen. Not directly but through actions and implied words.
I believe in feminism. But today’s feminists have moved away from the dictionary definition and sold out to self-interest.
Okay, I talked to Glenn on the phone today and we’re all set to go forward. Now, all I gotta do is write an article for him to post. Which hopefully will happen. I haven’t even had a chance today to respond to comments on THIS blog! Argh. Darn day job.
No Zingerella, you got it right.
Personally, I’m inclined to agree with LL; it’s not fun, don’t do it! But you know best if it’ll be fun for you, and maybe in any case you can change some minds along the way.
(And, hell, who am I to talk, given the the rest of this comment? :p)
If you do go for it, I’d recommend talking about masculinity. Since it seems like there’s the conception that feminists just never talk about anything that might concern men.
I think we do well to listen to critiques of our ideas, but at some point, you have to move on. You’ve evaluated this particular criticism, you’ve integrated its ideas or found them wanting, and when someone comes up saying the same thing, it isn’t worth it to address it again. If you did you wouldn’t get anything else done. Cell biologists don’t spend their time addressing creationism; particle physicists don’t spend their time addressing Gene Ray; there isn’t any special reason why feminist writers ought to address anti-feminist ideas.
Of course, some of us do (and some cell biologists do talk about creationism, and there’s at least one paper on Gene Ray’s theories), but our frequently-masochistic advocacy hobbies don’t really constitute the advancement of theory (though they may advance social justice, bit-by-bit raising awareness of feminist issues).
Factory:
Thing being, lots of men—and women, for that matter—have been fed up with feminist movements since they began. It seems unlikely that this cluster of MRAs represents something genuinely new.
The construction of masculinity and the patriarchy’s effects on men—both the sociological effects on men as a group, and the emotional effects on individual men—are topics that feminst writers cover a lot.
Do you actually believe there is no discourse, critique, or debate within feminist movements? Seriously?
If only.
But more seriously, you actually need to show that 1. there is an actual downward trend (the datapoint for a single year is insufficient), 2. it’s primarily men who are driving the downward trend (that the marriage rate is higher for men than women seems to speak against this), and 3. they’re doing it for the particular reasons you say they are.
Well, don’t worry, it’s also false. There were 236,980 marriages in the UK last year. The population of the UK in 1300 was around 3.5 million; if there had been the same number of marriages around that time, it would mean that 13% of the UK’s population was getting married in a single year. Which is ludicrous, particularly considering the 3.5 million population estimate includes children, the elderly, and already married couples.
Of course, it has become much more socially acceptable to remain single, so it wouldn’t be surprising to find marriage rates in a gradual decline. Which… how terribly alarming. I mean, the slow death of a heterosexist institution that has been a strong vector of oppression against women, particularly poor women and women of color? Yeah, I’m really alarmed. I think I’m going to have an, “I’m alarmed” party at my place later.
Violet: “The construction of masculinity and the patriarchy’s effects on men—both the sociological effects on men as a group, and the emotional effects on individual men—are topics that feminst writers cover a lot.”
Masculinity isn’t a construct, Violet. Only the dark side is (The macho, no feelings, violent kind). Today’s feminists only look at men as subjects instead of people with feelings. “Patriarchy hurts men” doesn’t address the other side of the argument: That women also encourage this “Patriarchal Construct” by denying there is a dark side to femininity and that women are harmless.
I’m not ashamed of my masculinity and saying it’s a construct only makes men feel guilty when its not warranted.
But you see Violet, you make the mistake of assuming I agree with your assessment that marriage is a strong vector of oppression against women (indeed, I disagree with the very precept that women were historically oppressed if you get right down to it).
My complete dismissal of Patriarchy Theory ™ aside, however, I am curious. Could you explain to me how things are now better for these poor women, and women of colour?
Cause from where I sit, I see rampant poverty, malnourished children, failing education, increasing violence, higher death rates among the boys/men particularly, higher taxes, and more government intrusion to “support” all this.
That is better than marriage?
Really?
Cause all of it increased quite sharply in correlation to the introduction of no fault divorce, child support reform and the like. (I know I know, prove it. I’m not good at that sort of thing, and usually don’t. I try to just make sense instead).
By the way…me and numbers (I even meant to say 1600’s, but that obviously would have been wrong too)…anyway, my bad. It’s since 1896….
http://tinyurl.com/3h3fro
As to the discussion of masculinity, I find it curious that there are so few masculine voices involved. You girls don’t mind if we MRA’s get together and decide what you should be like, do you?
Additionally, I consider one flavour of feminism debating another flavour of feminism (to continue to stretch a metaphor) to be simply like each voice in that person walking down the street talking to herself’s head speaking to the other (Gollum!). It’s not a true debate when there’s only one person at the table.
See, nobody bothered to ask men, or take them seriously when they answered. Men made the mistake of thinking it didn’t matter.
Exactly, Factory.
Whenever feminists these days talk about masculinity, they litter their arguments with emotional points like it being violent and a part of privelege. Even some men buy into this argument, particularly the ones who have been ostricized due to their being male and believe every word the feminists say, leading to the conclusion of “There’s something wrong with me. I must fix it.”
When I talk about masculinity, I acknowledge there’s a dark side so there’s an agreement there with some feminist leanings. Where I diverge is the notion that all masculinity is a construct or bad and needs to be eradicated.
I mean, don’t we all have masculine and feminine qualities? What good is it to think of one as poison and the other one peaceful?
Violet,
While on the surface your argument seems to make sense, it is actually fallacious. The reason why is because you have made the faulty assumption that your feminist beliefs are on the same solid evidentiary ground as cell biology and particle physics. You are essentially asserting that your ideological beliefs are on par with proven scientific fact… such as that cells exist and adept to their environment due to natural selection pressures.
Do you realize how much time and effort went into establishing those theories and how much testing was necessary to establish their validity?… Do you realize that if even one counter example is EVER discovered that the whole of cell biology and particle physics can be turned on its head in an instant?
The fact that no such counter examples have been discovered is a testament to the validity of those theories. They are considered true because they are testable by experiment.
Exactly how are your feminist beliefs testable by experiment?… what evidence would prove your beliefs to be incorrect?
This criteria is actually far more important than you might realize. A scientific theory MUST make it clear what evidence would prove it wrong… if it cannot be proven wrong by a testable experiment then it isn’t science.
So back to my original point:
“Your stance seems to be that when two groups have a difference in opinion the optimal strategy is for them to ignore one another instead of making an earnest attempt to understand where the other side is coming from and to try and reach some sort of compromise or concessus.”
We are talking about differences in opinion here… not verifiable scientific facts such as whether or not cells or protons exist and how they behave. If you claim men have special privileges… I can just as easily claim that women have special privileges. None of the theories you espouse with relation to feminism actually stand up to true scientific scrutiny… in that fashion the fact of the matter is that you are actually more akin to a creationist than you might think.
Somehow you have convinced yourself that you are “right” and that the only point of discussion of these issues it to teach and enlighten the ignorant. My contention is that you are no more “right” about this than a christian is “right” when it comes to their religious views as compared to a jewish, islamic, or hindi individual.
I guess to distill my point down a bit, when you say the following:
“Cell biologists don’t spend their time addressing creationism; particle physicists don’t spend their time addressing Gene Ray; there isn’t any special reason why feminist writers ought to address anti-feminist ideas.”
You have made a faulty comparison… feminists are not the cell biologists and particle physicists of the gender debate while anti-feminists are the creationists and flat earthers.
If you want to make such a lofty comparison when if comes to feminism, then you need to be held to the exact same evidentiary standard that biologists and physicists are held to.
I think it is time for you to make a hypothesis, run an experiment, and test your theories in a manner that subjects them to being disproved.
That is how science works… I’ve never seen feminism function this way, and why should it… it isn’t a science, it is a political ideology.
One last comment because I am genuinly curious. When you say the following two things, what exactly are you referring to?
“If you did you wouldn’t get anything else done.”
“but our frequently-masochistic advocacy hobbies don’t really constitute the advancement of theory”
You make it sound as if feminists are hard at work in the lab performing and validating their gender science and as a result they can’t pull themselves away from their theoretical work to bother educating the willfully ignorant.
Exactly what is at the theoretical forefront of feminism?… what theories are you trying to advance and what methods are you using to achieve these goals?
I am asking because I’m not exactly clear on what you are talking about… by your comparison of feminists to particle physicists you make it seem like are you in the process of constructing a grand unified theory of gender or something and just need to calculate the hidden variable.
I stand by my assertion that the gender discussion should not be dominated by one side, the feminist perspective is an incomplete perspective, it is an incomplete theory… the same way the theory of evolution would be incomplete if it only accounted for natural selection and completely ignored gene flow and genetic drift. You are only analyzing part of the issues and just assuming that the things you are neglecting are negligible and unimportant.
What I am trying to get across to you is that the parts feminism ignores are actually quite pertinent when it comes to understanding how society functions.
I was about to write, “that seems extraordinarily strange,” but that seems insufficient. Women have been bought and traded as property, to be kept or disposed of as their husband-owners desired. Women have been raped as a systematic method of dismantling communities, as a way for men to assert dominance over other men; women of color have been systematically raped by white men for thousands of years. Women have been denied personhood, agency, and power in every possible way, at various points. And I would have prefaced all that by saying, historically, but it isn’t historical—this is still happening to women today.
I can’t reasonably imagine that you don’t know this, so I have to conclude that you don’t care.
We’re marginally less likely to get raped by a white man who, by law, owns us. When that happens, he’s much more likely to be prosecuted.
And, tell you what, why don’t you look up statistics on, say, the economic status of black women over the last 100 years?
Well, let’s see. The first no-fault divorce law was enacted in 1970, and the last one in 1985. Violent crime rates have dropped since 1973. The death rate for men in 1979 was 1,316.6 per 100,000—by 2005 it had fallen to 951.1 per 100,000, a drop of about 27%.
Measuring education and childhood nutrition is harder but since your other claims are, ah, false, I’m not particularly inclined to do that work just now.
In short, if you want to defend marriage on the basis that it prevents some particular set of social ills, it would be helpful to 1. show that a decline in marriage rates and an increase in divorce rates correlate with an increase in the problems you’re talking about, and 2. show that there exists a causal relationship between marriage and the alleviation of those problems.
(That’s not a complete argument for marriage, of course. You also need to show, 3. that the problems caused by marriage are outweighed, on balance, by the social benefits it brings. That brings you, at least, to a utilitarian argument for marriage, if you can show all those points.)
Most of the articles from that site are written by men. You can also read work by male feminists like Michael Kimmel and Jackson Katz, if you’re so inclined.
You could also entertain the wild notion that the relative prevalence of women in feminist theory is due more to the structure of masculinity and our views of womens’ issues and work than it is to exclusivity within the movement.
Eagle30:
Assertion isn’t an argument. If you want to talk about masculinity and femininity in the context of feminism, it might actually be helpful to understand what feminists say about those constructs. Barring understanding, it might be helpful to have at least read it.
Jason:
“Explain for me what this interlocking set of global social justice movements involving millions of people is, y’know, doing. In a blog comment. Because I’m lazy.”
Because I apparently possess a nearly infinite degree of patience, here’s a link to Incite!. They’re a radical feminist orgranization, doing work primarily in North America.
Violet, I worship at your feet.
Violet says: “I can’t reasonably imagine that you don’t know this, so I have to conclude that you don’t care.”
Factory replies: Indeed, sometimes a basic understanding of what is real and what is not, is what differs us. I don’t agree with any of your statements in this first part, especially the “today” part….
It’s not that I don’t care, it’s that I think you’re way overblown….imagine….ME saying someone is taking something way too far….hmm…
As to looking up my own statistics…well, no. I hate that, plus 90 % of the time, it’s a wild goose chase anyway. So far, all i see is rhetoric with no factual (or even “factual” which is the sandbox I play in) basis for your statements.
Most certainly not in the US. That’s for sure.
Also, unless I’ mistaken, violent crime rates for women …uh, DROPPED way faster than they did for men. Being technically correct does not mean you’ve got a handle on the argument, or a lock on what is important…. Violent crime rates for poor and minority neighborhoods are higher…
Incidentally, my point is not to defend or promote any particular viewpoint here. It’s simply to ask questions and provoke discussion.
As to feminist men being heard in place of men in general….all I can say is Hugo Schwyzer and the like do NOT speak for me, and I find the very suggestion offensive. You state they are “within the feminist movement”, I state that amounts to “doing what feminists say”, which does not constitute self-determination.
It’s still the same schizophrenic person walking down the street talking to themself…..
As to the “wild notion that the relative prevalence of women in feminist theory is due more to the structure of masculinity and our views of womens’ issues and work than it is to exclusivity within the movement.” all I can say is this:
Total hogwash.
It is due primarily to the utter lack of tolerance for dissenting views expressed repeatedly throughout feminist scholarship. By dissenting, I mean dissenting on the very basis of modern feminist theory.
What you are doing is asking me to prove to you in a study, what is happening right before your eyes. While I find the concept ridiculous enough to try and do it, I am not foolish enough to try and “convert” a true believer such as yourself.
If you truly believe non-feminist men should be happy with male gender roles because some feminist men wrote some stuff that agrees with feminism…there’s not a lot I can do to help you.
To put it simply, if feminism was so all-fired good at making things better like it’s proponents proclaim….we MRA’s wouldn’t exist.
Violet,
This statement was somewhat uncalled for in my opinion:
“‘Explain for me what this interlocking set of global social justice movements involving millions of people is, y’know, doing. In a blog comment. Because I’m lazy.’”
I was being quite serious and it has nothing to do with being lazy… it has to do with your statement being utterly without merit.
You likened feminism to cell biology and particle physics.
In a few short sentences I can EASILY tell you what is at the forefront of both of these fields in terms of theoretical development.
For example, in particle physics, the current theoretical boundaries include predicting the correct mass of the Higgs Boson (if it exists) and the development of string theories which seek to unify gravity with the other fundamental forces of nature.
See how quickly I did that?
Yet for some reason you can’t manage to summarize the theoretical forefront of feminism that you espoused as being so utterly critical that it meant discussion with others who have a differing opinion about various social issues would inevitably detract from that intellectual effort.
It seems to me that I gave you a chance to pony up with the goods and you had nothing to say. I’ll take that as an admission that you aren’t really sure what the theoretical forefront of feminism is… I don’t think anyone really does, and it is specifically because feminism is not a science.
The critical error in the comparison you made is that you likened a philosophical stance to a scientific discipline. The two are not the same.
Feminism is a set of philosophical notions that are not subject to experimental validation… it specifically is not a science like cell biology or particle physics.
Similarly anti-feminism is a set of philosophical notions that are not subject to experimental validation.
BOTH are branches of philosophy and as such it makes perfect sense to discuss them.
Your assertion that feminists debating non-femenists is akin to a cell biologist debating a creationist is preposterous simply because in one scenario two philosophies are being debated whereas in the other scenario a philosophy is being pitted against a discipline that is based upon experiment and testable hypothesis.
Can you explain for example how the notion of the patriarchy can be tested in an experiment?
I submit that it can’t be tested any more than someones belief that a snake tricked adam and eve into eating an apple can be tested.
Violet,
One thing further. You kept talking about discussion preventing the “advancement of theory”.
The website you listed is not an organization dedicated to the theoretical development of new thought or ideas. The organization is an activist group who is seeking to achieve certain social changes.
So how exactly do they constitute the “theoretical forefront” of feminism?
They don’t actually list any theories that are under development… specifically their mission statement is as follows:
“INCITE! is a national activist organization of radical feminists of color advancing a movement to end violence against women of color and our communities through direct action, critical dialogue, and grassroots organizing.”
You specifically likened feminism to particle physics and cell biology and then asserted that discussion with those who see things differently would hinder the development of feminist theory. In so doing you invoked the scientific definition of theory which I’ll list as follows:
“In science a theory is a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise verified through empirical observation.”
This group is not creating testable models of natural phenomena… they are not predicting the future based upon those models, and they are not running experiments to verify their models.
Again I ask… what is the advancement of theory you are talking about?
Name any scientific disciplne and I can tell you a little about the theories which are currently being explored or developed… I asked you about the feminist theories currently under development that you alluded to and you sent me to an activist web page as if that somehow fit the bill.
They aren’t in the business of generating theories… the are in the business of activism. The two are not the same yet you are trying to usurp scientific credability in an attempt to show why you shouldn’t have to ever discuss your philosophy with anyone else as if their own philosophy is on equal footing.
What you did was the equivilant of someone asking me about what theories were currently under development in particle physics and me sending them to a group dedicated to improving scientific literacy amongst our youth.
I am starting to think what you meant when you said “theory” was really “advocacy”… if you had merely said that discussion with those who have an alternative point of view might detract from time spent on feminist advocacy, that I could at least understand. However, that doesn’t sound nearly as good as making it seem like feminist groups are busy generating new understanding of how society functions and how the genders relate to one another.
The people who do that kind of work are sociologists. While a sociologist can be a feminist, a feminist is not by definition a sociologist.
As one who has posted on the Feminist Dissident several times, I can say that you nor anyone writing in that feature will change many minds over there. However, arguing with some of the posters can be fun in a perverse way, especially those that go purple with indignation that Glenn even has such a feature as the Dissident.
I do think Glenn’s interest in the feminist viewpoint is genuine; he actually acknowledges feminist points sometimes, and is very critical of extremists within his own movement, including many of his own posters*. He is one of the most fair-minded people in the blogosphere when it comes to gender issues, whether you consider him to be on the correct side or not.
*His moderation philosophy, however, is a very lenient one, and he allows the worst element to run wild over there.
Shorter Factory: “I’m not interested in trivialities like ‘facts’ or ‘history,’ don’t know how to find them, and will ignore them whenever they’re presented. But you’re still wrong! Because my gut tells me so.”
You’re mistaken.
I’m really glad you followed that link to Incite!, and have a good grasp on what feminist movements really care about. It shows.
Your argument is equivalent to being miffed that siggraph doesn’t publish papers saying, “Gosh, I just don’t know about these newfangled kom-puu-tur thingies.” Yes, typically, if you’re trying to assert that a field ought not exist, you’re not going to get a lot of support from within that field.
You’re not interested in male feminists. You’re intrested in anti-feminist feminists. Who can’t exist (well, I guess there’s Camille Paglia, and the Feminists for Life. Neither of whose feminism really resembles mine).
Jason:
Dude, of course it’s laziness! Many of the people who are starting to do feminist theory today came at it by the Internet. They became aware of what feminist theory is doing by way of online essays and blog posts, probably followed by reading some books. It’s clearly possible; you just can’t be arsed to do it.
I’m glad you mentioned philosophy, because it’s also the case there. You can only put up with freshman philosophy students saying, “but duuuuude, how do we knoowwww aaaanything?” before declaring the epistemic problem either solved or immaterial to what you’re working on. Sure, you can spend your life providing the arguments against it, but it isn’t really valuable to do so.
The challenger has to demonstrate that they’re holding new ideas of some value, which is so far not in evidence.
Humorously, Michael Kimmel, who I linked in my last post, is a sociologist. If you prefer, go read some of his work. Also: Iris Marion Young (political scientist), bell hooks (sociologist), Susan Okin (sociologist), Elizabeth Hackett (sociologist); Carol Queen (sociologist). I’ve linked to work by three of these people in past posts.
If you must have the cliff notes version of theory: Kimmel is working on understanding the construction of masculinity and how it contributes to sexism; bell hooks is working on characterizing the gendered quality of racism, black masculinity, and black femininity; Carol Queen is working on modeling human sexuality in a postmodern culture. I’m not intimately familiar with what the others I named are working on right now. Other interesting work: Jessica Hoffmann is working on characterizing alternatives to capitalist structures in developing economies, and its applicability to communities in western economies.
One other thing,
We can ask, “is there a strongly gendered component to economic power?” And we can easily collect statistics on whether that’s the case. We can ask, “is there a strongly gendered component to political power?” And, similarly, easily collect data on whether that’s the case. We can ask about the relative status of mens’ and womens’ health and happiness, and (with a bit more difficulty) collect that data.
And then—if it happens that we do find some kind of gendered link there—we can start asking why. We can propose, “well, maybe women choose not to hold economic or political power.” And we’ll find that yes, some women do choose not to hold economic or political power—but not anywhere near enough to account for the difference. And on another line of inquiry, we can ask why it is that women who choose not to hold political power are making that choice; likely, this will require comparisons to sample groups outside our environment, since the hypothesis is that environment may have an effect. And then we may ask, to help with our initial inquiry, whether women lacking political and economic power has any effect on their health and happiness (by contrasting situations where they have more, naturally, and ideally controlling with groups from similar environments to the experimental groups, but differing distributions of political and economic power).
These studies have been done. And, time and time again, they’ve showed that cultural trends at all levels work to consolidate power in white, wealthy men, and drain it away from poor women of colour, with all other groups experiencing this effect to a greater or lesser degree, in different ways. We name this draining act oppression, and name the set of institutions and trends supporting it, “patriarchy.” And then we can start to talk about the structures supporting this institution—exploitation, violence, marginalization, cultural imperialism, etc—and find that, lo, we have found the nature and means of a widespread system of oppression.
And now, psychic!violet is going to make a prediction: you will assert that this research has not been done. You will assert without citation or any kind of evidence beyond, perhaps, a newspaper article, that studies have shown the exact opposite to be true. You will make no attempt to verify your assertions; you will under no circumstance look to primary sources to support your beliefs. You will say that despite all this evidence that you aren’t providing, feminists just refuse to see teh troooth! And you will not understand why this is funny.
Maybe this will shed a tad bit of light on my thinking. The study is years old, but it illustrates in other terms what I am getting at. Namely, that while overall rates of violence might be falling, it is my contention that crime is also “concentrating”. I am, however, quite willing to entertain the idea that I myself fall victim to “scaremongering” from time to time.
National victimization
data suggest that property crime victimizations
have become increasingly concentrated among the poor
over the last twenty years. The poor are more likely to be
victims of robbery and aggravated assault, and this relationship
has remained true over time. Income inequality
across Chicago neighborhoods has increased sharply over
the last twenty years. Interestingly, however, the link
between neighborhood income and homicide rates has substantially
weakened over the same time period. In fact, for
whites, there is no relationship between median family
income in the neighborhood and homicide rates in the 1990s.
http://tinyurl.com/4gr4hy
As an aside, in this paper the researcher says “The shortcomings
of the NCVS are that geographically desegregated data
are unavailable, and that homicide—the crime with the
greatest social cost—is not included.” I’m not a statistician, nor do I play one on TV, so I do not know the significance of this, but it’s interesting.
Violet says: “We’re marginally less likely to get raped by a white man who, by law, owns us. When that happens, he’s much more likely to be prosecuted.”
A couple points here. One, slavery was not a part of my county’s history, save being the end of the line in the underground railway, so while your point applies in the US, it’s not exactly universal. Second, have you never heard of men being killed on a simple accusation of rape? I suppose actually getting prosecuted would be an unintended benefit to men in some regards.
Oh yeah, and it still happens today. Sometimes even to innocent men.
“Clifford Frederick Martin is charged with a cowardly and despicable crime. Two girls aged 13 and 15 had claimed that a 19-year-old man, a young father living in Courtenay, B.C., had touched them inappropriately.
According to the charges, Mr. Martin did not call police, but picked up a baseball bat, broke into the man’s home at night and savagely beat him to death.
Even if the man was guilty of the rumoured sexual interference, the response was horrific. But the most sickening aspect of the events is that the RCMP say the girls’ allegations appear to have been fabricated. So, if he is guilty, Mr. Martin is not only a coward and killer, but also a dupe of young people’s gossip.
…
But the two girls whose claims allegedly prompted the Courtenay murder have not been charged. And an 18-year-old woman, Janelle Peyachew, who accompanied Mr. Martin, is facing only charges of breaking and entering.”
http://tinyurl.com/3l2gl6
To suggest society has never cared about such things and does not now, is ridiculous.
Point taken though. I’m sure there are a lot of things feminism has done for women, many of them positive. I just don’t think that on balance it’s been a good trade.
Of course, it would have helped if I said that in the first place.
This seems to be a good exchange so far, about as good as one could expect between feminists and mra’s at this point. As someone with considerable sympathies on both sides, I would like to see more discussions like this.
Also Violet, as I have said elsewhere…counting the penises while only looking up doesn’t do much for understanding of society. Looking at the life and times of men in each class might scratch the surface, but so far this has really only been the playground of the PHMT-ers.
Warren Farrell does a pretty good job of showing that the “average man” actually has it pretty bad in a lot of ways, always has.
Hokay, Glenn got my “intro” post and has accepted it, tho he thinks it’s too “vague.” As I was shooting only to introduce myself, not get into policy discussions, no doubt it is vague. We’ll see what comes of it. I do not know when it’ll get posted, but if there’s an interest here on PAB, I will certainly link to it when it does–let me know.
Violet,
“Dude, of course it’s laziness! Many of the people who are starting to do feminist theory today came at it by the Internet. They became aware of what feminist theory is doing by way of online essays and blog posts, probably followed by reading some books. It’s clearly possible; you just can’t be arsed to do it.”
Except that there is no such thing as “feminist theory” in the scientific sense that you are talking about.
Feminism is a branch of philosophy… it is demonstrably not a scientific discipline that generates theories and models.
I might very well call a priest a theoretician using your logic.
Philosophers develop ideas, but generally their ideas are not testable by experiment, generally their ideas are taken as being axiomatic.
For example, the notion that the genders should be treated equally is not a scientific proposition, it is a philosophical one.
There is absolutely no way to “prove” with an experiment that people should be treated equally based upon gender. Yet at the heart of feminist philosophy is this particular proposition, correct?
It is a proposition I happen to agree with, but I recognize that it isn’t testable, it isn’t provable, there is no way to demonstrate to someone else why that has to be true. The best that can be done is to express why it is necessary from a cultural standpoint and to appeal to peoples sense of fairness.
You are trying to make feminism *more* than a philosophy… no reasonable examination of how feminism functions would ever come to that conclusion.
“I’m glad you mentioned philosophy, because it’s also the case there.”
I’m glad I mentioned philosophy too… because that is all feminism is, it isn’t a science. No matter how much you want to hem and haw over the advancement of “feminist theories”, you are just trying to usurp scientific credibility.
Creationists actually do the same exact thing when they talk about their “theory of intelligent design”.
When you talk about the development of “feminist theories” it is actually no different than a creationist talking about the advancement of their own “theories”… in both cases the word theory doesn’t actually apply in the sense that you are both using it.
There happens to be a nonscientific usage of the word theory… but if you were using that one there would have been no need to compare feminism to particle physics now would there?
You are using a fallacious argument which seeks to convolute the meaning of a word with two separate and distinct usage’s.
“The challenger has to demonstrate that they’re holding new ideas of some value, which is so far not in evidence.”
If you would present what your theory is maybe it would be possible to demonstrate new ideas that