BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Feminism 101

 
  

Page: 1 ... 2829303132(33)34

 
 
Tryphena Absent
11:16 / 24.09.07
Off the top of your heads can you think of any UK articles you've read which could be deemed sexist that involve clothes? So anyone explicitly blaming a woman for an attack on her because of her short skirt/shoes/top or anything that derided a woman for her outfit ie. in political circles?

Anything contrary to this like a celebration of Teresa May's shoes that isn't sexist would also be of interest.
 
 
Pingle!Pop
11:23 / 24.09.07
How important is the UK part? I know there was a fair amount of attention of the OMGHillaryClintonhascleavage! variety not long ago.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
11:49 / 24.09.07
I don't really want to get into the arena of US politics, particularly when they're fighting it out for the democratic nomination. At the moment anything goes, particularly if you understand the political language well (I don't quite have it, which is part of the problem). Clinton's cleavage was really a way to say "can we really have a woman run our giant, complex country?" though and that's so obscenely pathetic that I don't want to write about it. Basically I want to write about clothes, not morons.
 
 
_Boboss
14:06 / 27.09.07
The argument made by David Cocks in the Guardian (see the Convo. Daily Mail Headsick and Rage thread) is repellent (frisky lads, tipsy lasses, rape as a great british rite-of-passage your honour, jumpers for goalposts etc.), and many of the rebuttals on that guardian thread are suitably enraged.

But it’s an issue which I’ve had to think about recently and that I’ve found takes on a different character when it comes to applying it in concrete isolated cases. To whit: Lately local paper has reported two or three cases of sexual assault in the large grassy square fifty yards from my flat. Both daytime and nighttime. ‘Mild’ at the moment (as if there is such a thing – ‘I only feel mildly violated, mildly abused, mildly like I never want to leave the house or see anyone ever again’), but apparently building in intensity - a local wrong’un following what I expect is a classic ‘becoming a rapist’ arc.

So, there’s been some changes to the rules round my way – female visitors to the flat being warned about it, told to avoid the square if it happens to be on their way home (in daylight), and, after dark, told that basically they have to get a taxi home, happy to give them the fiver myself. Same with the missus, she often stops in there with the pushchair, but now she only does so within the twenty-yards-ish natural visibility boundary of the bus-stop/main road, and make sure there’s always at least two people nearby (it’s always very busy there in daytime, but if for any reason it’s not she has to go somewhere else). She’s cool with this (indeed it was her idea) - it’s no real hassle and after all there’s someone else’s safety for her to consider too.

Now, to this man-mind these seem like natural and sensible precautions. But as I’ve said, if you try to tell someone they’re not allowed to leave your house on their own, especially when it’s a nice night and they don’t live far, it sucks for all sorts of reasons: they don’t like it, it’s an imposition, I feel like I’m scare-mongering, like I’m masquerading in some bullshit man-protector role, like I’m telling them off for just walking around and, well, like I’m basically giving strength to the decidedly anti-feminist argument proposed in the article.

What to do? Am I an arse too? (I’m open to persuasion, but presently I don’t really mind being an arse in this instance – fair swap for the peace of mind I get when waving someone out the door. But no-one wants to side with the baddies, do they?) How should one react to such a potentially real and/or imminent threat?
 
 
Tryphena Absent
14:22 / 27.09.07
I think that warning your friends about a continued threat is all kinds of different to saying they shouldn't walk down any street on their own at night. Saying they invited a threat because they walked through the square alone would be a problem, telling them there's been a problem and it's a bad idea is not putting you in an anti-feminist position, particularly as any woman would do the same thing. If there were muggings aimed at men of your age taking place frequently in the square presumably you'd give the same advice to friends of that ilk as you are to women who visit you.
 
 
Saturn's nod
14:33 / 27.09.07
I think some of the words you've used, Gumbitch!!!11!!, make a difference to the way I hear what you're describing.

At the moment, in response to a local elevation of the rape threat, you're choosing to change your behaviour in a specific way. You're using words to describe what you are doing - 'allow', 'have to' - which suggest that you are choosing a role where you are trying to control the behaviour of other people - your friends and family. That may just be unfelicitous choice of words?

My philosophical approach to difficult situations, at best, is to look at them as challenges which reveal what I put my trust in, what my real values and aims are. My aim is to participate in the building of a world where people right across the spectrums of gender are full human beings in every way.

So, in my ideal world, if I was your friend and was visiting your house, I'd want you to inform me about the situation before I came, for sure. But I'd want you as my friend to take a position of enquiring how you could help me in my need to stay safe, rather than taking a position as if you were the one who knows best what must be done and ordering me to behave in that way. It might seem like a subtle distinction from the situation you've described, but it makes a lot of difference to me when people act that way. An attitude of comradeship, consultation, collaboration, is different from an attitude of commanding and controlling.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
14:47 / 27.09.07
I think the phrasing is partly to do with having just read an article that puts the responsibility he feels through being more informed in a negative light.
 
 
Ticker
14:58 / 27.09.07
indeed I agree with Apt. It's not about knowing what's best for someone else or being in a position to protect them but assisting them to take the level of action they believe is the best fit. the sexism comes into play when we assume that a person is less likely to or unable to to make proper decisions and we need to step in for them.

Many times people infantilize women as unable to make decisions or take proper action (this action can be mapping a new route, learning self defense, deciding to stay home, taking a cab). Participating in generating options and supporting options is not the same as restriction options through a lens of knows-better.


The other night I was walking home and a young woman in stylish clothing walked passed me. Moments later a car drove by and the male driver shouted something at her, it sounded like an icky intended-as-compliment type of thing. She was too far from me to see her facial expression and I choked back my nasty reply, mostly because I didn't really know what was happening. In hindsight I know I wasn't sure of how to respond as it wasn't directed at me though I wish I had thought to catch up to her and ask if she wanted company walking home.

I would very much like to know why people think it is acceptable to shout things at strangers. to me it seems like an act of great cowardice.
 
 
HCE
15:39 / 27.09.07
I wonder if there's a cultural element in it -- a lot of what gumbitch is describing, in terms of allowing and so forth, sounds a lot to me like what people in my family do. The language sounds like how parents talk to children, but this is not meant to be condescending, it's meant to be protective and is an understood part of host/guest relations.
 
 
Ticker
16:45 / 27.09.07
gourami,

it's meant to be protective and is an understood part of host/guest relations.

One can have good intentions and try to be protective and still be sexist. One can be a good host by explaining the details of a location and offering options without making judgments if the guest chooses an alternative. Accepting other people's decisions about their own personal safety is a difficult but required piece of adult interactions.

For example there is a huge difference between asking someone if they would like an escort and simply deciding to escort them or telling them they are foolish/stupid for not allowing/waiting for the escort.
 
 
HCE
17:54 / 27.09.07
I'm certainly not going to suggest that Iranian culture is devoid of sexism, but the same language can have a different tone in different cultures. Growing up bicultural, I sometimes experienced some culture clash because I understood things in an American style while they were meant in an Iranian style. This may not be relevant to gumbitch's situation at all, but I can tell you that the host/guest relationship is pretty intense in some cultures. If an Iranian host behaved the way you suggest, it wouldn't convey respect for autonomy, it would convey a lack of care. If you want to flatter an American host, you generally clear your plate. This indicates that the food was delicious. An Iranian host is going to keep feeding you until there's leftover food -- an empty plate means they were stingy and didn't feed you enough.

In cases where sexism is embedded in the culture (and I'd like an example of a culture entirely free of sexism), it's going to be tricky. Particularly if you're dealing with a mixed group, and the issue is not only word choice but also behavior or paralanguage, how do you balance things? Sometimes the same set of exchanges or utterances has to serve multiple purposes: I need to give my guests information, I need to let them know I care for their well-being, and I need to be courteous. It can be hard to do all of those things at the same time in a culturally literate way.
 
 
HCE
18:20 / 27.09.07
You know, I worry I may be giving the wrong impression of what such an exchange is actually like. In case it's not clear, I would say something like, "I'm not letting you go home alone, you're going to wait until I call you a cab," but I wouldn't actually do anything about it beyond protest if my guest didn't, in fact, wait. The guest, playing their role in accordance with Iranian norms, would protest that they didn't want to put me to any trouble.

If somebody told me that there had been attacks in the neighborhood and then said "There's the phone, and here's the number for the cab company," I'd be rather taken aback. It would sound so weird and cold, like they didn't actually care whether I got attacked or not.
 
 
Ticker
18:58 / 27.09.07
I agree it is hard gourami. One of the issues is we interact outside of our family and immediate cultural comfort.

if a member of my own family said:
I'm not letting you go home alone, you're going to wait until I call you a cab,"

I'd be very unhappy at their assumption of being able to allow/not allow me to go somewhere and then do as I liked. If they were more likely to say this to a female than a male I'd be outraged.

If however a non member of my family told me this I would try and have dialogue about their concerns and give them the chance to change their wording. If they really did think they could control my actions I'd probably either end the relationship or try and educate them about my experiences.

If for example I came over to visit you and you said this to me I would give you the benefit of the doubt that it's not exactly what you mean. If you did mean it we would end up having a conversation about how your perception of my capabilities and mental abilites to reach decisions need adjustment.

to dig a little deeper, the assumption is often made that a female is in more danger than a male and therefore even if she thinks she can do something we must not allow her to do so. Whereas if the male made the assumption we would let him experience whatever he encountered. We might feel horrible that something happened to him but on a cultural level males are allowed to make these decisions (even if they are poor choices) when females are not allowed. Often if a male is attacked on the streets the focus is on the Awfulness of the World(TM) but if it is a female than she was foolish to be there and not say, in her house.

I know it is probably really hard for well meaning people to understand but the use of fear to modify people's behavior to avoid dangerous situations becomes ridiculous when one is in constant danger from a society that has no respect for one's personhood.

The standard one applies to one set of competent humans for independant conduct should be the same standard for all competent humans. Here the focus is not who is able to swing a club, fire a gun, use hand to hand combat skills, but rather who is able to look at a set of information and make the correct choices for themselves.
 
 
Ticker
19:07 / 27.09.07
there also has to be a way between phrasing it like you have control over someone and you don't care.

Perhaps:

"I'd feel horrible if something happened to you. Would you please consider letting me call you a cab so I don't worry?"

For me this expresses concern, offers an action to assist, and still gives the other person the ability to make decisions.
 
 
HCE
03:04 / 28.09.07
who is able to look at a set of information and make the correct choices for themselves

Very well put.
 
 
*
03:15 / 28.09.07
Submitted for review and comment.
 
 
HCE
13:14 / 07.10.07
there also has to be a way between phrasing it like you have control over someone and you don't care.

I'd like to take another look at this, after having read an interesting article about the relationships between Korean immigrant shop owners and African-American customers in Los Angeles, and had a think about what words mean and the difficulty of divorcing them from the cultural context in which they're uttered. I think that in the discussion I was having with xk above, I ran into some difficulty because everything to do with the host/guest relationship in Iran is very highly charged. As a culturally competent adult member of that community, I know the "right" way to be a host -- which is to say that I know what words and actions convey respect.

It seems to me (xk, I don't want to speak for you, please let me know if I'm off here) that what I was saying sounded as though I didn't see or wouldn't acknowledge that the meaning of an utterance is not located wholly in the intention of the speaker, but somewhere between that and the interpretation of the hearer.

I do understand that, and additionally, I'm bicultural, so I am to some extent able to see Iranian culture from the outside. So why was this issue so difficult? I felt a bit as though I was being told by an outsider how to do my own culture, or that my culture was 'wrong' -- yet from what I know of xk, that seems extremely unlike something she'd say or do. I think it goes back to the host/guest setting being so emotionally intense. I'm not saying that American or other cultures place no importance on it, but in Iran there is definitely a very elaborate dance that you do when a guest leaves (I remember being irritated, as a kid, at the way it took for-fucking-ever to leave a party, I could've gotten in a whole other hour of Pac-Man).

Over in Policy, there's a discussion right now about Barbelith's attitudes toward antisemitism. I think the general conclusion is that it's so potent an issue, that we're going to place greater weight on interpretation: if something sounds antisemitic, it goes, and we don't want this to be the place where people explain their noble intentions and why they manifest as holocaust denial.

Sexism is also a profoundly charged issue, so when faced with the problem of untangling what it is in behavior that might be stem from a difference in culture, I also have to look how sexism is embedded in that culture, and I'm not really sure how to do that. I'm not too worried about functioning in a multicultural environment, like Barbelith. It wouldn't ever occur to me to tell anybody here to take a cab and not to try to walk home while being a woman, as though I were telling somebody not to drive drunk.

It would be useful, however, to try to look at the way that concerns about sexism intersect with concerns about race, culture, and other aspects of identity, and how you learn to tell what comes from where.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
17:43 / 07.10.07
Over in Policy, there's a discussion right now about Barbelith's attitudes toward antisemitism. I think the general conclusion is that it's so potent an issue, that we're going to place greater weight on interpretation: if something sounds antisemitic, it goes, and we don't want this to be the place where people explain their noble intentions and why they manifest as holocaust denial.

It's tangential, but I think it's worth pointing out that I don't think this is the case. As a matter of record, the term "anti-Semitic" has been applied to a number of things taking place on Barbelith, and there has been discussion on whether or not it has been appropriate - for example, here, where somebody complained that criticism of the actions of the state of Israel was actually anti-Semitism, and was largely not agreed with.

On the other hand, it is pretty easy to tell when somebody is calling Jewish people kikes (Darkmatter), denying the Holocaust (Zoemancer), or claiming that a global Jewish magical conspiracy is seeking to bring the world under Jewish control (the Fetch). That, I think, is what we are aiming to avoid.
 
 
HCE
18:29 / 07.10.07
Quite right, thank you for the clarification.
 
 
Ex
08:29 / 08.10.07
Day of the Zippid - a lot of chums have been posting links to that cartoon but it didn't grab me much, even though I like xkcd quite a bit. Why is it a chap who brings round the woman with the flamethrower (because he 'likes nerdy girls')? Can't she come on her own? Why, often, are female stick figures in xkcd just like the chaps but with lady-hair?

So I like the central idea but I wasn't as gungho about the implications of the execution. Still, it seems to be circulating and making a point which may otherwise pass people by.
 
 
HCE
14:01 / 08.10.07
Yeah, I think Ex is right.

The line about 'as someone who likes nerdy girls' seems a little odd. Is hat-guy worried primarily about a reduction of his own chances of getting pix, because chair-guy is just not doing it right? Why can't Joanna blast chair-guy on her own, without hat-guy giving her an order to fire?
 
 
Ticker
14:27 / 08.10.07
I felt a bit as though I was being told by an outsider how to do my own culture, or that my culture was 'wrong'

kang, I think the solution is to make your intention very visible to the other person in a multicultural exchange rather than in an inclusive culture where the training/tradition would be assumed. It's not about wrong or right as much as visible/nonvisible and therefore prone to misinterpretation.

So if you were to add 'I feel obligated as a caring host to insist on you as my guest taking this course of action...' it makes what for your culture is an act of courtesy more visible to someone unfamilar with it. So rather than telling you as an outsider something about your culture is 'wrong' I'm saying as a person participating with you in a shared cultural exchange that I and many other people would need you to make this element visible as we were not instructed in it by our cradle/home culture.

From my experience the difference would be between positioning the source of the action in your need for responsibility rather in my lack of skill/compentency and allowing us to have a dialogue to mutually select the best fit for both of us. It's about opening up our processes to each other rather than assuming that either of us is correct in our assumptions about the other's needs. So while I do not wish to offend your cultural needs and training of care I'm asking that you consider I have my own set and we need to interact together to find a good compromise.

that make more sense?


RE: the xkcd.com thingy

the black hat dude is a reoccuring character who often shakes things up on xkcd. He's the door kicker finger shaker on internet issues normally.

On one hand it's about the supporting male voices on the interwebbies trying to hold space for what they see as valued nerdy girls being pushed off and out due to harrassment and wanting to call the line in an act of support to keep their voices and presence.

On the other, it is problematic because it carries a sense of permission in the act of support, something that the privileged often overlook. It's a challenge to open up and hold space for a less privileged group and not speak for them. I think the less privileged group need to give positive feedback about the act of support while providing a critique of giving more room for self presentation. It's hard but a required part of the process.
 
 
Ex
07:50 / 09.10.07
the black hat dude is a reoccuring character who often shakes things up on xkcd. He's the door kicker finger shaker on internet issues normally.

Oh, splendid. I like it more now - I hadn't seen him crop up before. Ta.
 
 
miss wonderstarr
10:21 / 09.10.07
I got the impression the black-hatted guy wanted the other guy off his internet territory, because he didn't want lamers scaring off all the cool nerdy girls with really blatant and crude come-ons. So, the other guy was in his space, putting moves on "his" women. His nice-guy act as sensitive defender of nerdy girls just felt like a slower-burning, slightly more subtle seduction routine. I could see him afterwards with cute blonde Joanna: "so, I guess it was pretty cool of me, the way I banned that loser from the internet? I mean, it's nothing ... I do that kind of thing all the time for gals. Specially, you know, really cute nerdy gals, if you don't mind me saying. I'm so not sexist. So, I guess you might want to hang out with me now, yeah?"
 
 
Ticker
10:29 / 09.10.07
well not to a defend stick figure's agenda but the black hat dude is a reoccurring character about the internet.

I can't say what he does off screen but I can say the writer traditionally upholds equality on many issues:

speak the language

so while everyone is going to come at this particular cartoon either from context of his work or no context, all I can say is historically the writer is a really fantastic supporter of issues across the board.
 
 
miss wonderstarr
10:35 / 09.10.07
Yes, I guess I was taking him out of context.
 
 
Hydra vs Leviathan
10:50 / 09.10.07
I was going to say, how do we know it's hat-guy and not hat-girl? Neither stick figure has any visible primary or secondary sexual characteristics, nor anything in the typography to suggest timbre of voice.

However, if hat-guy is a recurring character, and has been shown or implied in the past to be male, then i guess that's less relevant...

(incidentally, is xkcd created by a man or a woman? for some reason, i had always assumed a woman, but i could be wrong...)
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
10:53 / 09.10.07
I always assumed a guy...
 
 
Quantum
11:06 / 09.10.07
Randall Munroe is the guy who creates xkcd.
 
 
miss wonderstarr
11:40 / 09.10.07
The lamer guy does call hat-person "dude", and Joanna does have different type hair, and is of smaller build than the other two, but those are incidental and not necessarily conclusive details. If it was hat-girl, you'd have to wonder why hat-girl has a blonde assistant with an EMP cannon rather than just doing the job herself, but I don't know.
 
 
Quantum
12:39 / 09.10.07
From the wikipedia article linked;

A man in a hat who looks like a normal stick-figure xkcd character, except for the addition of his trademark black hat (possibly in reference to black hat hackers)... He is closely based on the character Aram from the Men In Hats webcomic."
 
 
petunia
13:51 / 09.10.07
I get the impression from a lot of xkcd pieces that Munroe uses the characters to pretty much explicitly expres his point of view. Black hat guy could be read as the part of Munroe's personality which just wishes some interpeeps would Shut The Fuck Up.

I'm guessing that Munroe's reluctance to speak through the mouth of a woman would be a considered position - as he is MI, it seems (to me) more fitting that he speak from a male position.

I had assumed that 'liking nerdy girls' needent be read in the sense of sexual attraction, but more in the sense of 'i like my world to be populated by people i like - some of whom are nerdy girls'.

As xk says - It's a challenge to open up and hold space for a less privileged group and not speak for them. -There's a line somewhere between self-expression ('Ugh, that pisses me off') and expression-for ('That pisses them off (but they need me to say it)'). As xk says, it's a problem in social discourse and something that the privileged often overlook.

Um.. am i just repeating other people?
 
 
HCE
15:13 / 09.10.07
kang, I think the solution is to make your intention very visible to the other person in a multicultural exchange rather than in an inclusive culture where the training/tradition would be assumed.

That seems like a great solution for dealing with the problem of expressing your own motives while communicating respect for others in multicultural exchanges, though that's not exactly the problem I'm looking at right now. As I said, I'm not too worried about functioning in a multicultural environment and I'm aware that telling somebody else they're doing their culture wrong sounds extremely unlike something [you]'d say or do.

What I was hoping to take a look at was the issue of complexity of identity -- so, yes, as a feminist I have one set of concerns, but as a member of a given culture I have another. So the problem is in a key way an internal one. I understand how to explain to other people where I'm coming from, say if I'm showing concern. But the concern that I'm showing, despite my strong feelings about the issue, is not a 'pure' concern, because of the sexist attitudes embedded in my culture. Being bicultural helps a bit, as I can see both Iran and the US from insider and outsider perspectives.

But. This is perhaps not the right place to work on this question.
 
 
Ticker
15:22 / 09.10.07
I dunno about other folks, but I think it is a good place to look at it if you want to.

But the concern that I'm showing, despite my strong feelings about the issue, is not a 'pure' concern, because of the sexist attitudes embedded in my culture.

Yeah this is a complex thingie to unpack but I think it can be done especially on a personal level. It sounds to me as if the motive you wish to honor from one of your cultural sources is that of concern for the wellbeing of a guest. That's a pretty kickass thing, concern for other people especially when you have the control of the immediate resources. If I'm with you and this is the motive I'm not sure how it isn't compatible with a feminist agenda of care and concern for others? I think it's the manifestation that gets tweaked a bit but not the source motive of concern.
 
 
HCE
16:47 / 10.10.07
That's a really good question -- I suppose I have been thinking of feminist concerns in a pretty narrow, individualistic way, and now that I stop to think about it, I have no idea why. Is it because I think feminism is not culture-specific? That can't be right, there's definitely an Iranian-style feminism. Hm. Let me chew this over for a bit.

Edit: I'm worried that this is getting to be a little blogtastic, and I might take the discussion elsewhere if I can't link it back in to broader feminist concerns. I think I can, actually, but it needs a bit of work.
 
  

Page: 1 ... 2829303132(33)34

 
  
Add Your Reply