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 ... 56789(10)1112131415... 34

 
 
Quantum
18:58 / 02.03.06
..and of course I think Skryty is L33T
 
 
Tryphena Absent
19:25 / 02.03.06
if I jump in to defend someone female from attack, am I not implicitly assuming they can't defend themselves?

Do you ever defend men? Is that based on the assumption that they can't defend themselves?
 
 
Dead Megatron
19:41 / 02.03.06
if I jump in to defend someone female from attack, am I not implicitly assuming they can't defend themselves?

Do you ever defend men? Is that based on the assumption that they can't defend themselves?


Personally, i'd jump in to defend anyone I know and/or care about against any assault, regardless of them needing it or not.

But I do admiti i'd be a lot more prone to jum in and defend an unknown woman than a unknown man. I can see such attitude as sexist, but is it mysoginist?

and, to phrase it in a more broad way: is chivalry a form of mysoginy?

[please, Haus, don't hurt me...]
 
 
Spaniel
19:45 / 02.03.06
For the record, I didn't support Nina because Nina has a track record of being able to look after herself.

Lula, I agree. I'm not keen on my use of language here either, and I also think that Smoothly and I should have spoken up.

Now, onto this.

It's here as an example of horrible behaviour towards women from a board member and that is all. I don't want to debate whether it is or isn't, because quite frankly if you think that sort of behaviour is OK then there's no point having this conversation at all.

Of course I don't think Yawn's behaviour was okay. I didn't think it was okay at the time and I don't now. What I do think - and I'm really not trying to be antagonistic or argumentative - is that the behaviour on that thread isn't *necessarily* a good example of misogyny in action. The most we can say with *certainty* is that it's a good example of a poster being nasty and dismissive to a woman and not being taken up on his bad behaviour by other posters.

However, I appreciate that if Barbelith does have an androcentric culture with a significant vein of misogyny running through it (a position which I think is more than plausible), then the behaviour in that thread could be contributing to that culture unintentionally by virtue of the fact that it works to further alienate a female member of the board. In addition, I do, and did, feel that Yawn's use of Language when discussing Lizzie was inappropriate, and that we (Smoothly, Lysander and I) should have taken him up on it.
 
 
Olulabelle
19:51 / 02.03.06
You're right, it isn't the best example, but it is an example and we're struggling to find direct examples of an indirect or sense of a thing.

I still think Yawn's behaviour towards Nina (including actively ignoring her long post)and the subsequent lack of, well, anything about it from anyone else was indicative of this sense of uneasiness.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
19:53 / 02.03.06
i'd be a lot more prone to jum in and defend an unknown woman than a unknown man. I can see such attitude as sexist, but is it mysoginist?

It's okay DM, we're aware that English isn't your first language. I put a definition of the two words here. On that basis your actions are sexist and not misogynistic. I think you should question whether the unknown men might need a bit of help too.
 
 
Dead Megatron
19:58 / 02.03.06
thanks, Nina. and sorry for the threadrot...
 
 
ibis the being
20:14 / 02.03.06
I appreciate that if Barbelith does have an androcentric culture with a significant vein of misogyny running through it (a position which I think is more than plausible), then the behaviour in that thread could be contributing to that culture unintentionally by virtue of the fact that it works to further alienate a female member of the board.

I think that's a fair way of looking at it. Although I personally might add an "or not" after the "unintentionally."

However, I would want to ask whether you also discount whatever anyone says or does if they tell you that they have, say, not had a very good night's sleep. That's a physiological condition with implications for how they think and emote...

I appreciate the point that Haus was trying to make here, but I take issue with the use of being overtired as a comparison example. One study in Australia showed that automobile drivers who suffered from lack of sleep showed the same level of impairment as drivers with a .1 BAL. Others have demonstrated that lack of sleep severely impairs people's abilities to perform on mental tasks and tests.

I can only speak for myself, of course, not having experiencing PMS from within anyone else's body, but hormonal changes affect my moods, not my cognitive ability. Astoundingly enough, I am still able to run a business, make a grocery list, and even do long division when my progesterone level's dipping. Obviously moods and emotions can be strong enough to hamper a person's ability to function in life, but that is neither typical of nor limited to PMS.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
20:32 / 02.03.06
That's fair; I was using sleeplessness because I'm high-function on low sleep levels, but it affects my mood adversely, but yes, of course you're right. I don't have experience of menstruation, and I defer to thems as do.
 
 
Cherielabombe
20:41 / 02.03.06
OK, WOW. Where do I start? How bout with the admission that I still have about 3 pages of this thread left to read but, before I go to bed I think it's important to say something. So who knows what I'll find to add when I continue reading.

And that first something will be, thank you Nina for starting this thread. I think it is a necessary one, and certainly interesting in light of the reactions it has spawned.


And oh yeah, I find it absolutely apalling that we have posters on the Barb who actually believe that "women claim power by (crying rape) all too often." I realize I'm paraphrasing here (and I have 3 more pages to read), but.. ugh, apalling.

So.. is Barbelith misogynist? I would say it can be lazily so. Many times those who make misogynist and anti-woman comments on this board are called on them, but plenty of similar comments get through (I think Ibis' example of the sexism at work thread is a good example of this).

It's weird, there are a lot of intelligent, thoughtful female-identified posters on Barbelith. But the place can still have a very boy's club feel to it, depending on the place.

Golly, so much to say and I know I need to articulate my thoughts better than I am doing in this post. Suffice it to say I am reading, and intend to post more in depth over the weekend.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
20:46 / 02.03.06
hormonal changes affect my moods, not my cognitive ability.

I find PMS effects me more than feeling tired- on the first day of my period for instance I find it difficult to remember routine tasks. Last time I sat down at my computer to do reports that I write every week and couldn't remember where they were on the system, where the information I had to input came from so I would liken it to being very tired.
 
 
Spaniel
21:02 / 02.03.06
Although I personally might add an "or not" after the "unintentionally."

Yep.
 
 
My Mom Thinks I'm Cool
23:45 / 02.03.06
Do you ever defend men?

rarely.

Is that based on the assumption that they can't defend themselves?

on those occasions, yes, it is. why would you (probably the wrong pronoun here) why would I ever defend someone who didn't seem to need it? Personally, I find it very offensive for someone to assume I *need* help, no matter how well-meaning.

I think the point was made earlier: not so much that Nina needed "defending" but that the improper behavior needed "attacking". This resonates with me, anyway.
 
 
matthew.
03:54 / 03.03.06
Apologies for stream-of-consciousness of the post....


Spyder -

Excellent post. The more I re-examine my knee-jerk response, the more I see the truth in Celane's opinions.

And I don’t think either matt or eddie had any intention to offend celane or anyone else.

Certainly not. I was defending my board against somebody new, somebody who I thought hadn't quite got a handle on the board. But the more I think about it, maybe the fact that a "new" person came and deduced the misogyny says something about my delusions about the Ivory Tower-ness of Barbelith.

This thread clearly proves to any nay sayers that it is present.

I still don't know about this. I know that my position (Barb isn't misogynist) is now a minority, I find that I must speak. So far we have Nina versus Yawn as an example that is debatable. We also have examples of people saying the words "bitch" "c*nt" (I don't say this word, nor do I type it) and "whingeing" and what-have-you. Not every poster in the history of Barbelith uses these terms all the time. In fact, I think that's the first time I've ever typed "bitch" and "whingeing".

I just Googled the word "bitch," and it has appeared roughly 608 times, without counting this post. To compare, "c*nt" has appeared approximately 293 times.

"Dick" on the other hand, appeared 782. Of course, Philip K. Dick is a good portion of those results. "Cock" = 508 times.

People using "bitch" does not correlate to misogyny.

Another example at the beginning of the thread is the "slag" comment. That's fairly straight-forward.

I don't think it's clearly proven that Barbelith is misogynistic. What I think has been somewhat put forward is that Barb is moderately tolerant of misogyny. I still don't think this is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. I remain unconvinced that Barbelith is horribly and unequivocably misogynistic.

BUT any level of misogyny that people report is unacceptable. I am merely stating that I don't think it's as bad as people seem to think it is.

alas said here, that Feminism means actually listening to women. It means being aware that women have been, in general, granted less authority in our culture for a very very long time. They have been granted less authority over their own experiences and less authority over other subject matters.

So... without causing too much of a ruckus here, can I ask if I can argue with a female poster without being labeled misogynistic? I admit that my reaction to Celane was aggressive, and probably unwarranted. But if the position of feminism says that I must listen to her, can I not question her opinion of her experience?

Look, I'm not justifying the aggression I displayed. I apologized for it. What I'm asking is, can I question a female's authority on her own experience as much as I question a male's authority on his own experience? Sometimes people are mistaken. If I call somebody on that, and especially in this thread, can I get away with it? Especially if the evidence supports my position (Not that I'm saying the evidence does support my position. I'm just presenting a hypothetical) If I told a male poster that he was obviously mistaken, and I was dismissive of him, I'm labeled simply a rude person. But if I am dismissive of a female poster, am I then misogynistic?

(If I'm way off base, people, help me understand)
 
 
Ganesh
03:59 / 03.03.06
I was defending my board against somebody new, somebody who I thought hadn't quite got a handle on the board.

Are you certain that you have?
 
 
matthew.
04:00 / 03.03.06
To be fair, Ganesh, I admitted that I may have self-delusions about Barbelith right after the sentence you quoted.
 
 
Ganesh
04:04 / 03.03.06
I think the point bears reiterating.
 
 
Evil Scientist
07:20 / 03.03.06
So... without causing too much of a ruckus here, can I ask if I can argue with a female poster without being labeled misogynistic?

It happens all the time.

None of the female posters who have contributed to this thread have suggested they should have an impervious umbrella of protection against contrasting views. What has been suggested is that male posters try not to automatically ignore or belittle another poster because of the fact that they are XX rather than XY, and also to be aware of what constitutes mysogyny and call posters on it when we see it.

As a site we seem to do better than most in the War on Prejudice. It's just we need to tighten up a bit in this area.
 
 
alas
10:39 / 03.03.06
If I told a male poster that he was obviously mistaken, and I was dismissive of him, I'm labeled simply a rude person. But if I am dismissive of a female poster, am I then misogynistic?

First, personally, I wouldn't lable your aggressiveness there "misogynistic" so much as defensive and arrogant in a way that is very familiar to me from real life. It is a typical, but, critically, not an inevitable, response that people who have occupied a position of privilege often have to having their privilege challenged--particularly if a view of themselves as "enlightened" on a certain point is being undermined.

Look, Persephone went after my reportage of my experience on the issue of class: I hated that experience, because, for god sake, my birth family was rural poor; I grew up doing manual labor from the age of 5 or 6, and always felt like a shitkicker amongst my university pals. So, I like to think I'm pretty aware of class, but, well, I'm not perfect. I have blind spots. I don't like the experience of being told my zipper is down either, but...you move on.

I even have blind spots about gender: At a crucial, difficult point in my job, I became aware that it's easier to challenge the authority of my female boss in the eyes of her superiors and peers, who are, at my work, mostly male. In that case, I had to calm myself down in order to remind myself that if I undercut her authority for some short term gain in a conflict that I'm having with her (and, philosophically and managerially, she and I have pretty different styles), the long-term consequences to the instituion for women were likely to be bad.

What I'm saying is: we're not asking male-identified posters to behave in radically different ways than we don't expect from ourselves. It's a matter of thinking things through and having an awareness of both short-term and long-term consequences, and having certain goals for the space, e.g., let's take making it one that does not alienate people like Celane by playing into patterns of quick dismissal (see also page one of this thread and ibis's experience).

Note one other subtext here: this doesn't have to be framed as a kind of "punishment" as you seem to be currently viewing the situation. Because I have a long-term goal of making my institution more respectful of female authority, it definitely requires me to strategise my approach conflicts with my boss more carefully than I might otherwise do. But taking extra time in thinking through my reaction to my boss is actually kind of empowering in a strange way--somehow having that longer term goal for my workplace shifts my relationship to whole hierarchical structure--I feel less at its mercy and more an active player in its creation--and makes our conflicts less personal/reactive, for me.

(I do think the chivalric metaphors--the knights defending damsels in distress in protection of some castle and retaining their code of honor--is doing some of the damage here. If you find yourself imagining yourself along those lines, that should be a red flare that your actions and motivations are probably dubious. Re-frame! Re-frame!)

I have a long-term goal of making this place a less chilly space for women, but keeping the stuff I love: the intellectual challenge, the humor, the wit. I actually believe that complex goals like that serve everyone.
 
 
iconoplast
13:54 / 03.03.06
This thread seems to have achieved a working definition of acceptable barbelith-levels of feminism along the lines of "be sure to be snarky and dismissive to another poster based solely on hir idiotic post, and not because ze identifies as female." Which is that sort of "treat everyone the same regardless of gender" understanding of feminism.

What has always fascinated and baffled me is the species of feminism which seeks to create a space where women are free to be women, that is, to be different than men*.

In the world of people and things, maternity leave is the sort of issue that the 'right to be different' thread of feminism might endorse. I brought up hormones earlier to ask, I guess, if there wasn't maybe some inherent misogyny in discounting things said while someone was percieved as being 'overly emotional' - I'm still not sure about that.

Kit-Cat Club said "The female posters who seem to get most respect from the board in general, and from male-identified posters, seem to be those who post in what we view as a reasonable, 'rational' (as opposed to 'emotional' way)."

That's really what I worry about when people talk about the passive misogyny of barbelith. That, through positive and negative reinforcement, we are somehow revealing an assumption about what we want in an ideal poster. And that what we want is colored by what Haus described as a dendency of "...men [to] tend to assume that they are always a perfectly rational, detached observer..."

But I can't really articulate any kind of Policy statement allowing for that right-to-be-different stance, since I don't understand the kinds of positions it would allow for. I don't know, I'm just hopeful that this collective self-examination will allow us to move past a place where, at best, we're asking our female voices to pass as male.

* - I originally wrote different from. But then it sounds like I want 'men' to be the origin from which difference is measured. Which, while maybe descriptive of how I understand difference today, isn't how I want to understand it.
 
 
*
14:06 / 03.03.06
Is this not buying into the idea that women cannot be as rational as men? I don't see how this is a good thing.

I'd like to see barbelith more tolerant of personal emotions when not framed as inescapable universal truth ("I don't like the idea that X" not "X is universally a bad idea for everyone"). But I don't think that saying we should be more tolerant of WOMEN posters being touchy-feely is a good way of doing this. Or is this not what you were saying?
 
 
*
14:08 / 03.03.06
(To clarify) ...saying we NEED to be more tolerant of specifically women posters being touchy feely, etc.
 
 
iconoplast
14:15 / 03.03.06
See, that's the thing. I'm just saying 'We need to be tolerant of women being women, whatever that means.' Because I don't know what it is to be a woman, or to post as a woman. KKC pointed out that there seemed to be a certain degree of 'passing' going on, and I wanted to bring that up again.

So - no, I'm not saying women can't be rational. Or women can't be as rational as men. I'm asking why we are using 'as men' to quantify the degree to which women can be rational, and I'm asking if our ideas of rational discourse are informed by a philosophical history written entirely by men?

Basically, I'm saying that feminism doesn't have to be treating women like men. It could mean allowing for differences. But I don't know how.
 
 
eddie thirteen
14:40 / 03.03.06
I think you're right. A message in a related thread just, I think, confirmed that; and it's very disturbing for me to realize that it's something the poster would probably have never felt comfortable saying in a different context. In large part because her whole point was specifically that she was made to feel uncomfortable.
 
 
eddie thirteen
14:41 / 03.03.06
(In response to id entity. I need to stop dwelling over posts in a thread that moves this fast.)
 
 
illmatic
14:44 / 03.03.06
should be more tolerant of WOMEN posters being touchy-feely is a good way of doing this

This is a ,generalising, throwaway comment (a bit "essentialising" sorry) so please take it in that light, but in my opinion, it's the female posters who are more rational, sober and sane comapred to the male ones.
 
 
eddie thirteen
14:44 / 03.03.06
Ye gods. And what I REALLY meant to say was "I think you're right" in response to:

I'd like to see barbelith more tolerant of personal emotions when not framed as inescapable universal truth ("I don't like the idea that X" not "X is universally a bad idea for everyone").

And I think that, as it stands, the people who have found this cold, Kubrickian style of discourse the most off-putting have been women (though I'm not always that crazy about it myself).
 
 
Kit-Cat Club
14:51 / 03.03.06
I was also trying to hint that ideas of what is rational and what is emotional aren't necessarily as obvious as they might appear at first glance. In no way did I ever intend to attach any gender values to those ideas. I did not mean to imply that male posters are necessarily more 'rational' than women posters. I meant to say, that what is valued most on this board is a particular style of post that might be called 'rational', and which is characterised by display of even-handedness, control of temper and argument, lack of ad hominem attacks, etc.; and that it appears to me that, where female-identified posters adhere to this model, they gain the respect of all board members, including male-identified posters. I too value this style of posting. However, I think that there is a difference (as I outlined in the policy thread) between reactions to male posters who post in a non-'rational' way, and female posters who post in a non-'rational' way. In other words, 'we' [i.e. Barbelith] do not necessarily categorise 'rational' posts as male in character (and I find it disturbing that anyone could suggest that this might be a way of categorising such a model of discourse!). There is no need to treat women 'like men'. There is a need to accord female-identified posters (and of course people) equal hearing to male-identified posters (people) in every aspect of discourse.
 
 
eddie thirteen
15:48 / 03.03.06
However, I think that there is a difference (as I outlined in the policy thread) between reactions to male posters who post in a non-'rational' way, and female posters who post in a non-'rational' way.

And I agree that's observable. And I'll go further than that and say just because someone is a better rhetorician than another person doesn't necessarily means that the person who is better able to make his/her arguments sound "rational" is necessarily correct. As the saying goes, if you can't dazzle them with your brilliance, baffle them with your bullshit. And if that doesn't work, cow them with a mixture of lofty-perch condescension and snarkiness. That has happened.

Here's the problem, though -- issues raised have a tendency to become debates around here. Often, what results is a situation where the cooler of two heads is looking for the weaknesses in another's argument. That person is listening, make no mistake, but what he/she is listening for is for the other person to say something that can be exploited. Very rarely have I seen an argument on the board (or outside it) where one or both parties was listening to the other so as to divine the sense of what that person was saying -- to try and determine whether his/her own logic might be flawed. I think what you're proposing is a less argumentative style of posting on the board, period, and while I agree that would probably be positive, I'm not sure how likely it is.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
15:57 / 03.03.06
Do these generalisations about the operations of the minds of people using Barbelith help us very much? I'm thinking possibly not.
 
 
eddie thirteen
15:59 / 03.03.06
Actually, let me try that again, because it sounds like what I'm saying is that this happens every time. No. But I will say it happens almost every time that an argument becomes emotional. There does seem to be a mutual respect amongst debaters who keep it cerebral.
 
 
eddie thirteen
16:06 / 03.03.06
Do these generalisations about the operations of the minds of people using Barbelith help us very much? I'm thinking possibly not.

This is kind of my point, though, Haus. It's not as if you have no idea what I'm talking about. I don't see a need to engage in a ten-page debate about how rice is white and how can I possibly know that. I mean, what you just WROTE is condescending, for Christ's sake.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
16:16 / 03.03.06
Ah, well. You find that condescending. I might find your assumption that you are uniquely equipped to tell us what is going on in the minds of members of Barbelith condescending, in the sense that it is addressed to us from the heights of omniscience.

This is where the "I feel" statements are very useful, if employed correctly. it might be worth comparing this with the project going on in the Policy, where examples are being looked for and experiences shared of events. These require interpretation, but they're proceeding from actions and working from there with the difficulties of establishing motivation. You've started by claiming that you know what is going on in people's minds, with the follow-up claim that, becuase this is the motivation, there is no need to instantiate it with examples of behaviour. That's the Appeal to Fundamental Rightness, sometimes known as the Appeal to Common Sense. However, it presupposes that everyone's experience is alike, and also that everyone's motivations are transparent.
 
 
ibis the being
16:19 / 03.03.06
Eddie, I think you're continuing to miss the point that id and (even more so) KKC were making. Let's see if yet a third rephrasing might help. And please correct me if I have also misinterpreted the point.

Both men and women are capable of crafting both rational and emotional or "non-rational" posts. And both men and women have posted in both modes on Barbelith. However, it's been observed that when a male identifying member publishes an "emotional" or "non-rational" post (maybe a better way of describing it would be an upset, ranting, venting, or similar type of post) it's taken as a kind of outburst that is not indicative of his being an overall emotional and irrational person... while, when a female identifying poster publishes exactly the same sort of post, this IS (more likely to be) characterized as indicative of her being an overall emotional and irrational person.
 
 
eddie thirteen
16:35 / 03.03.06
This is where the "I feel" statements are very useful, if employed correctly.

Well, my bad for not properly qualifying everything for you, Haus. I thought it was just kind of presumed that I do not in fact (insofar as I am aware) share a psychic connection with yourself or anybody else on Barbelith, and that anything I said here -- or elsewhere, for that matter -- was conjecture based on my personal experience, up to and including my supposition that the sun will rise tomorrow at around five-thirty AM. It is indeed condescending to make a wee little joke about how I must have a magic window into your brain when it's obvious that I am delivering an opinion based on my experience of the board. At the very least, it is insulting.
 
  

Page: 1 ... 56789(10)1112131415... 34

 
  
Add Your Reply