Up Front: Say When
522 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 9 10 11 12 13 … 21 Newer→ Last
-
And I think, I don't want no part of that feminism.
And yet I think that you know many more perfectly reasonable feminists, yes? So can we just chalk Maia up to the 'some people use theory to bludgeon others into submission, because they are bullies' problem with any movement, rather than turning this into an xkcd comic about how all girls suck at math? :)
-
BenWilson, in reply to
I simply don't feel comfortable pushing for anything other than the balance point where you demand equality but nothing more.
Lingo call: Aren't there "waves" of feminist belief, and this one is just the prior one to the current? I tend to agree with it myself - it was the feminism of my parents, and many teachers in my formative years. Believing each wave became harder - the first was a piss-easy sell, there was nothing good about deny women basic rights like voting, and the suffrage movement was as powerful as Gandhi to me. The next one, which I'd characterize as "Girls can do anything", since that was the slogan I heard most frequently, was a bit harder because it seemed to fly in the face of certain facts. But I got the basic idea was to encourage women to try to do everything, and to challenge any patriarchal views which had formed barriers to them trying. The next one seemed to me to hit a much more difficult issue, reverse discrimination. I'm still not sold on it wholesale, although I can see that it does work, to some degree. It just seems much more likely than any previous wave to create a counterflow, and also to set up structural inequity between women. Are there more waves? Or waves moving in different directions? That seemed like a likely outcome of the third wave, once you breach the sea-wall, water spills in every direction. Mixed metaphor, sure, but I guess I felt analogies from other revolutionary movements were indicative - when they went for overkill, pretty much anything could happen.
-
recordari, in reply to
I think tino rangatiratanga is a useful analogy:
Damn, you got there first. And to think we came to this from such different starting points ;-)
But for me, having men say they support feminism and feminists has none of the costs and almost all of the benefits.
That rings true also. There's so much nodding going on, from people who might even be arguing against each other, that I'm getting dizzy.
I'll revert to some more quiet contemplation.
-
Which would make me very suspicious indeed if you started identifying with working class or racial minority struggles. You should feel free to support them, but actually vying to occupy those subject positions, boy, I would find that very problematic.
I'm not sure what you mean by "subject positions"?
A friend of mine has recently been appointed the CEO of the HIV/AIDS Council. He's copped criticism for not being gay but reasonably pointed out that HIV/AIDS mustn't be conflated exclusively with a particular sexuality. However, he's not got the virus, does that mean he can't lead the organisation?
But again supporting it and being a part of it - two different things.
But that's not the equivalence you drew. I might've misunderstood but you said:
I think tino rangatiratanga is a useful analogy: I prefer to think of it as the means of achieving self determination of tangata whenua through kaupapa Maori, rather than simply placing more Maori people at the top of Pakeha political and corporate structures (on this, I think one could do worse than reading the Bruce Jesson lecture delivered by Annette Sykes last year). Now, I support the aspirations of Maori people towards changing society in this direction, but wouldn't dream of identifying as Maori.
If you substituted female for Maori and Feminism for Tino Rangatiratanga wouldn't you end up saying that you could be an Italian man who was pro Tino Rangatiratanga and a feminist while still being neither Maori or female in which case identity doesn't preclude beliefs.
-
I... hesitate to be all 'where's the evidence?' on what you're saying here, Ben, but as someone who spends quite a *lot* of time reading feminist blogs, I do find these assertions that 'feminists are now all about reverse discrimination!' to be kind of... total fucking bullshit, actually. :)
-
giovanni tiso, in reply to
A friend of mine has recently been appointed the CEO of the HIV/AIDS Council. He's copped criticism for not being gay but reasonably pointed out that HIV/AIDS mustn't be conflated exclusively with a particular sexuality
Indeed. So what's your point?
If you substituted female for Maori and Feminism for Tino Rangatiratanga wouldn't you end up saying that you could be an Italian man who was pro Tino Rangatiratanga and a feminist
pro Tino Rangatiratanga and pro feminist. You're missing a key word there. By which I mean that I'm not the one who gets to decide the form that those movements for self determination will take - although I'll still get to choose whether I support them or not.
-
I can't see the labeling process as very productive generally. Labels agglomerate words, and can be useful to speed up idea transmission. But if the agglomerations are disputed, they lose value and waste time. This seemed to be Gio's complaint right from the start - to me the solution isn't to rescue the lexicon around which the battle rages (they're only arbitrary sounds/letters after all), but to just aim for clarity in which one you are using at the time. That can cut through the dogmas.
That's if your aim is idea transmission/facilitation. If it's beating people up with words to push a particular viewpoint, well, by all means fight over them. I don't think you can win a fight like that, though, it's just a flame-war.
-
BenWilson, in reply to
Yeah I should have been more careful in saying I don't know what the current state of play is - hence "Lingo call" - I wanted some guidance here. That was a wave of belief that I remember, around the time when I was surrounded by people who really cared about feminism, as opposed to corporate types thereafter who mostly sought to co-opt it. It might have been a much smaller wave, far less women getting into it, than the previous - that seems totally likely.
-
Indeed. So what's your point?
Dear Gio, it was the very next sentence in the post.
He doesn't have the virus so I'm asking if that precludes him from the position.
I'm not missing the word, though I might be missing your point but I am trying to follow your argument which must surely be evident in my posts.
-
I can't see the labeling process as very productive generally
Wordy Mc-Fucking-Word. I do understand that the label disputes are really important to some people. But... yeah. I just wrote:
my feminism is interested in what you think, say and do. It is not interested in whether you call yourself a feminist (or a socialist, or an environmentalist) or not.
-
recordari, in reply to
Yes, it would seem to me that it’s not incompatible with libertarianism.
And another thing, you don’t think I’m that far right, do you? I think it has been established that I’m probably so close to the centrist line that I sometimes don’t even know myself when I’ve crossed it*.
* <Hoping you’ll take this as sarcasm ;-) >
my feminism is interested in what you think, say and do. It is not interested in whether you call yourself a feminist (or a socialist, or an environmentalist) or not.
Still nodding.
-
Megan Clayton, in reply to
There's a whole layer of identity politics that's something like identity-politics politics, in which what's contested is the right to affiliate to the identity. "Woman" gets contested (and I won't even start on "lady") for sure, but so does feminist. It seems to me no coincidence that it's on the internet, where identity is even more fragmentary, where so many big battles about who gets to use which labels take place.
-
James Butler, in reply to
Not all men are rapists, but almost all rapists are men,
Um, how did you arrive at that?
I'm guessing... arithmetic?
-
I think I should just mention that, going by the last time we had this conversation, the next step is arguing about Joss Whedon...
-
Bart Janssen, in reply to
O RLY?
Yeah RLY. Some feminist positions have been demonstrably imbalanced over the years. Sometimes they were posited simply to demonstrate how imbalanced the existing state is, but sometimes as a reaction. Sometimes because of a genuine belief that an imbalanced but pro women state would be better for all. I don't really even have a problem with feminists doing that because I can see so clearly how far we have to go to get close to a balance.
But I can't adopt such a position for myself. I'll push as hard as anyone to get to the balance point and I'll work equally hard to try and see where that point really is, because that ain't easy either. But I don't feel that makes me a feminist.
Where I work the sexism is so obvious that it's depressing. The whole scientific field is horribly sexist. It's amazing that we stand for it, we try really hard to change it but the best we can do is point out to our HR department that ya know giving the pay rises only to men might look a bit dodgy in the annual report. And that isn't even the worst of the sexism, that's just the easily testable portion. Women who succeed in science are mostly forced to become clones of the worst sexists and work harder at the damn science than any man. They are scorned if they wear anything other than the uniform of the female scientist, you know, sensible shoes and ugly glasses. I've been in scientific meetings where ideas were only worthwhile when they were repeated by a man. I HATE all that shit. It destroys incredibly talented valuable people. I drove myself into depression fighting against sexist pricks here, admittedly not just fighting over the sexism, but it was a part. But I still don't call myself a feminist.
sorry little emotional over some of this
-
Paul, to the degree in which HIV/AIDS is now no longer exclusively a power relation (which it certainly was 10 years ago) and is slowly moving back into the realm of a less socially constructed disease, the analogy doesn't hold.
Whereas all the other examples that have been laid out are very much about power imbalances, and the right to self-definition and self empowerment.
-
Paul Williams, in reply to
Paul, to the degree in which HIV/AIDS is now no longer exclusively a power relation (which it certainly was 10 years ago) and is slowly moving back into the realm of a less socially constructed disease, the analogy doesn't hold.
That's fair, in my defence, it wasn't until I read your earlier contribution that I thought about the "power imbalance" dimension of the issue and I'm still processing what I think about it.
-
Jacqui Dunn, in reply to
sorry little emotional over some of this
But thanks for posting it though.
-
Bart Janssen, in reply to
Joss Whedon
Please ... and more shopping
It's important to balance the serious with the trivial ... and yes I'm being serious
-
giovanni tiso, in reply to
Paul, to the degree in which HIV/AIDS is now no longer exclusively a power relation (which it certainly was 10 years ago) and is slowly moving back into the realm of a less socially constructed disease, the analogy doesn't hold.
Here's an analogy that holds better: Ari Ne'eman's appointment by Obama to the National Council on Disability. Much debated (including within the autistic community, by people who reckon that he isn't 'autistic enough'). But I would say that yes, his being autistic matters. And that my very well meaning advocacy for autism is not the same as an autistic person's own advocacy.
-
A long time ago, I was asked, rather publically, why I was a feminist. I answered, "I am a feminist because I am a female." The interviewer nodded brightly, and said, "Right so it is because you are a woman, you identify as a feminist." And I replied,
"No, it's because I am a female." At which point, that line of questioning abruptly ceased.
My sex is female (induitably) and my gender is neuter/asexual. There is almost nothing about me that is womanly. I really enjoy womanly females (like my mother and sisters and best friends) but that aint me.
Probably adds nothing to this continuing debate (but I havent got any more swede/rutabaga/turnip recipes...) -
Lilith __, in reply to
Joss Whedon
Please … and more shopping
How about, "I am The Chosen One, and I choose to go shopping!" ;-)
-
Lilith __, in reply to
sorry little emotional over some of this
But thanks for posting it though.
+1. Reflections on personal experience beat abstract theorising any day, I reckon.
-
Danielle, forgive me: I spent thousands of dollars upgrading a website that now won't let me select text on my iPad (fix coming) so I can't quote you, but yeah, I know that reasonable people make up the overwhelming majority of feminists. It's sorta what I was trying to say.
But when the people who most aggressively and passionately claim the word say and do things that seem wrong to me (and, I must confess, when they perform torture on language to do so), it does seem reasonable to say "not that sort of feminism".
FWIW, my mental framing wasn't "this is what feminism is like" -- it was "I've seen enough internet discussions in the last 18 years to have an idea what's going on here."
-
BenWilson, in reply to
where identity is even more fragmentary, where so many big battles about who gets to use which labels take place.
Yes, it was on the rise as I was leaving university. It didn't seem productive to me.
But I'm not totally convinced about this point. There's definitely times and places for definition battles. I guess I'm saying there's a constructive and a destructive way to go about them. The two are not always mutually exclusive, of course.
Edit: Bugger, for some reason this is in response to recordari. It's meant to be in response to Megan. My bad, most likely.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.