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 ... 1819202122(23)2425262728... 34

 
 
Ticker
00:06 / 09.02.07
There is something really terrifying to me about a culture that is too afraid of vaginas to use the word at all.

The state of being forceful estranged from your body by not being allowed to name parts of, to in fact have certain areas roped off as too dangerous to even have a name, leads directly to a whole handbasket of woes.

You know I thought it was bad enough that people are not educated on what healthy variations of whohaus look like and so can't keep track of their own health. How many cases of testicular cancer go undetected by early self exams?

By making parts of the body unmentionable we lose the ability to seek assistence. If you can't mention your vagina to your family or they can't acknowledge that you even have one, how are you going to know to have regular check ups for the parts you can't see?

Why is one person's discomfort allowed to pass from generation to generation carrying with it a legacy of shame and fear?

Say it with me people:

Male: penis (notably the glans penis), prepuce, testicles, scrotum, prostate, seminal vesicles, epididymis, Cowper's glands, and possibly foreskin

Female: vulva (notably the clitoris and labia), vagina, cervix, uterus, Fallopian tube, ovaries, Skene's gland, Bartholin's glands
 
 
Ticker
00:08 / 09.02.07
prepuce = foreskin/hood

see, I learned stuff about bits and haven't exploded!
 
 
Triplets
00:20 / 09.02.07
whohaus

Freudian slit!
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
00:31 / 09.02.07
If I lived there I'd be sorely tempted to go out some night and indulge in a little creative modification. Or get all my mates to phone up pretending to be distressed mums and dads, horrifed that they'd had to explain to their innocent wee daughters that the word had been changed because some mean people thought that a part of her was bad and dirty.

Fucksakes people, you can buy fucking heeelarious novelty plastic bollocks that hang off your trailer hitch but you can't stomach the word "vagina"?
 
 
Ticker
13:41 / 09.02.07
It's the fucking Vagina Monologues. They're going to have a room full of people discussing vaginas and women's experiences. I would really like to hear about those folks taking these peeps to task in their own community.
 
 
Mistoffelees
14:34 / 09.02.07
It only lasted two days, they returned to the original title.
 
 
Ticker
15:13 / 09.02.07
interesting that I don't see any of the US news folks surfing that...

Thanks Mist!
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
17:58 / 09.02.07
What the fuck?

Rape "a magical experience that benefits society as a whole" --student Opinion Editor.

Yes, I know it's supposed to be satirical but... what the fuck?
 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
09:43 / 10.02.07
Aaah, student humour, it's like real comedy only without the funny.
 
 
Hallo, Paper Spaceboy
15:49 / 10.02.07
Recent discussion of Tsuga's frustration with the use of "misogyny" and "sexism" has me thinking about the meanings of the two words and their differences/likenesses. I thought it'd be useful to bring it over here and just ask how people would define those terms in relation to each other? Sexism, to me, has always been more passive, more depending on stereotyping and expectation (and obviously not necessarily limited to sexism-toward-the-female-identified) whereas misogyny seems more like an active and direct response to women, disdain toward the feminine (treating it as inferior)...

Thoughts? Terminology time.
 
 
Tsuga
17:46 / 10.02.07
Moving over from the Barbannoy thread, following Papers lead.
If you follow most of the links on the search results(new window), a good portion of those, when followed, have what I'm talking about, what I percieve to be use of the word “misogyny” when it seems “sexism” would be more appropriate. I will still reiterate that while I believe this distinction is real, doesn’t mean I’m sure I’m right about the particulars. I mean, I feel right enough to say something, obviously, but I welcome and encourage other thoughts on this, please.
So, for links.This very thread, Feminism 101, was started by Nina, saying,
some posters think it's acceptable to generalise women or claim that misogyny isn't a problem when they are the people using sexist language. The argument tends to be that they have personal evidence that some women behave in a specific way in certain situations.

That sentence may not be the best illustration, though, because I’m not sure if Nina is saying that the posters claiming misogyny is not a problem and using sexist language are actually misogynistic. If she is, I may disagree, though I certainly can’t say, without knowing the context, so I hit the links above her statement. John, the boy from the future said something that could certainly be construed as sexist, but I don’t think it crosses into misogyny, from what I can tell. In the Fathers for Justice thread linked to, Nina does distinguish the two terms here:
You've generalised an entire women's rights movement and actively denied that women are sometimes treated less fairly than men. That's sexism. You're unwilling to admit to yourself or anyone else that in some circumstances women are treated better and in others men are treated better. That's sexism.

The misogyny was here: it's also a fact that mom will illegally keep dad from kids, and because of the way the laws are set up, dad can do little. The use of the word fact shows more than simple bias against women.


Now, with Shadowsax, those posts certainly smell more like misogyny to me, the deeply thought-out justifications of resentment bullshit. Paying some faint lip service to feminism, always with a caveat. He didn’t write it (that I read), and it may be unfair, but I could just imagine him muttering about “bitches” or some such as he interacted here.

Okay, some others. The Woman-friendly Barbelith thread has many hits on these terms, and without linking to every instance, if that’s okay, may I say again that there are a number of times where I feel that “sexism” may be more appropriate than “misogyny”.
The Misogyny and sexism: are women to blame?
thread, which I would have thought might address this issue, really made no distinction at all, except who cares saying:

Can we define misogyny for the purposes of this thread? Because, much like homophobe, it's one of those words that often seems too strong to fit some of the people it's thrown at. but never really seeks to delineate it from sexism.

Elene says here:
On the other hand I'd be saddened if, for example, we considered the Feminist 101 thread and did not become on average more aware of the misogyny on the board, but misogyny here doesn’t disturb me more than in society at large, and actually considerably less than in the workplace
Again, no real big deal and I know it’s been a big debate at times, the climate on the board. But I can’t imagine how one could truly perceive this site as having a prevalence of misogyny rather than (arguably) sexism.
I suppose the reason I feel that this is important enough to mention is not to be a grammar cop or to say people are wrong, but I think that sexism and misogyny, while closely related, are not the same; it may be more helpful in the end when discussing these subjects to make these distinctions so that each term is more clearly understood when it is used. It’s kind of like the distinction between the words stupidity and ignorance, words that are more commonly used by most people and more commonly confused (not here, I might add). They are also more disparate terms, really, but maybe illustrative?
God my writing is extra choppy today. I hope this is helpful, and I'd spend more time on this, but I've got to get a starter in a truck before it gets dark and really cold. I promise to come back.
 
 
*
18:58 / 10.02.07
Say it with me people:

Male: penis (notably the glans penis), prepuce, testicles, scrotum, prostate, seminal vesicles, epididymis, Cowper's glands, and possibly foreskin

Female: vulva (notably the clitoris and labia), vagina, cervix, uterus, Fallopian tube, ovaries, Skene's gland, Bartholin's glands


Male: dick, foreskin, scrotum, bonus hole/front hole/boycunt, nips, undescended testaries

Female: clit, labia ultraminora, labia ultramajora, descended ovaricles, breasts...

What? You asked.
 
 
Disco is My Class War
08:00 / 11.02.07
And now to confuse everyone just a widdle bit more, in the spirit of exploration and fun:

Female: dick, cock, balls, glans, foreskin, perineum, asshole, nipples, and so on.

Male: mangina, vagina, clit, labia minora, labia majora, vulva, g-spot, tits, your other asshole, etc.
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
13:50 / 11.02.07
I love you guys.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
14:17 / 11.02.07
I suppose the reason I feel that this is important enough to mention is not to be a grammar cop or to say people are wrong, but I think that sexism and misogyny, while closely related, are not the same; it may be more helpful in the end when discussing these subjects to make these distinctions so that each term is more clearly understood when it is used. It’s kind of like the distinction between the words stupidity and ignorance, words that are more commonly used by most people and more commonly confused (not here, I might add). They are also more disparate terms, really, but maybe illustrative?

I guess my question here, Tsuga, is not so much about what is helpful as what is useful. What's the utility value in the distinction that you are seeking to draw between sexist behaviour and misogyny?

I think that what you're arguing for is that you can point at somebody's statements, for example, and say "you are being sexist", which will suggest to them and to others that their behaviour is not malicious but instead based on ignorance, and as such that they can mend their ways, no harm no foul, whereas if you say to someone "you are being misogynistic", that suggests that the discrimination against women you have perceived in what they are saying is deliberate and motivated by malice, and is something that needs at this juncture to be combated rather than corrected. Is that right?
 
 
Tsuga
23:38 / 11.02.07
Is that right?

Well, no, not exactly. I'm really talking more about using the appropriate words to communicate, not about which is more of a problem or what steps to take, or if someone suffering from either of these maladies is more or less redeemable of their problems. I’m talking about the language, though I had to write my concept of the words down to explain myself. Looking at it I don’t think it sucks but, like I said, me no dictionary. I’d rather hear more of what other people think about it than continue to hammer out the parsing alone here, because I’m obviously not the final arbiter of language. I’m only trying to point out what I think of as a distinction. But if I’ve failed in explaining that, I’ll try some more.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
23:46 / 11.02.07
But what are those distinctions for, old stick? Why is it important that they be observed thus, if it is not for the purposes of strict lexicographical correctness?
 
 
Tsuga
00:06 / 12.02.07
Yeah. Well, I guess I could ask, what is the purpose of using language carefully? I know that you believe in the use of careful language, specific language. Why do you do it? Does it matter? It does, certainly sometimes more than others. This is important subject matter, I suppose it's more important how it's talked about. But certainly, you may disagree, with that or any other statement I've made.
 
 
Disco is My Class War
00:23 / 12.02.07
I guess I would ask why it's important to make the distinction, as well. Beyond the logic that one should be clear in one's use of language. And I guess I'd also suggest that some folks might disagree with you about the relative meanings of 'sexism' and 'misogyny'. If someone wants to make a call of misogyny, I'm probably not going to argue about whether she should be using the word 'sexism' instead; rather I'm likely to engage with her on the specific content of the instance she's drawing attention to.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
01:01 / 12.02.07
Yeah. Well, I guess I could ask, what is the purpose of using language carefully?

Absolutely, but that's _not_ what I'm asking. I am a big fan of using language carefully, in order to communicate more successfully. I can see arguments for sexism being a broader or more pervarsive term than misogyny - although I tend to think of misogyny as the product and sexism as the factory. However, you keep disclaiming the accuracy of your distinction - by saying that you are not a dictionary, which I assume, again, means something like "I am aware that the meanings and readings of words are often more complex than their dictionary definition, and so am not claiming absolute truth as a basis for this distinction".

However, see Mister Disco, above. I can see more useful responses to a claim of sexism or misogyny than seeking to determine exactly whether it was sexism or misogyny, according to a personal distinction drawn between the two. So, whereas I think it is certainly worth looking at what people are doing when they choose to say "sexism" or "misogyny", I don't know whether one can profitably argue the toss over whether a particular action is one or t'other, unless everyone agrees on the distinction and there is a response path appropriate to each.
 
 
Tsuga
01:22 / 12.02.07
I guess I'd also suggest that some folks might disagree with you about the relative meanings of 'sexism' and 'misogyny'.
You're right, and I hope I've made it clear I understand that.
If someone wants to make a call of misogyny, I'm probably not going to argue about whether she should be using the word 'sexism' instead; rather I'm likely to engage with her on the specific content of the instance she's drawing attention to.
I think that's right, too. The topic is more important than the wording.
I can see more useful responses to a claim of sexism or misogyny than seeking to determine exactly whether it was sexism or misogyny, according to a personal distinction drawn between the two
That's true, though I'm talking about the use in the first place, not a later determination.
Is it a personal distinction?
 
 
Saturn's nod
06:30 / 12.02.07
Well, the way your recent posts read to me, Tsuga, is as part of a discourse of male defensiveness that's boringly familiar. The song goes something like this: "You women, you've got it all wrong, a Nice Guy like me can't be have any hatred towards you poor deluded females. I'm the one who knows the truth, you're wrong, isn't it lucky that I'm here to tell you that you are wrong about it all and put you right. See the error of your ways now and admit my overwhelming rightness, it's so much more important than anything you might have been trying to draw attention to and change. After all it's obviously much more important that I get to feel good about myself than that you get to participate in the collective process, isn't it?"

So I could say %"Oh yes, I'm so glad there was a nice white man around to tell us where we went wrong, after all you couldn't possibly be refusing to listen to what the women are saying about their experience, could you, that would be so silly, I'll be over here knitting, how foolish of me to think that my words might be listened to."%

Of course I am caricaturing what you've written but I wonder whether you're able to see how what you've written fits into that very common model of sexist put-downs of women by men? It's my experience that white men who have not found an internal commitment to liberation very frequently are more interested in telling me that I'm wrong than listening and learning and helping apply critical thought when I try speaking to them about sexism I'm observing. Of course women also carry out misogyny - I'm aware of it in myself pretty much every day. There are great rewards for collaborating with oppressive powers, it's analogous to being a scientist who's willing to twist the evidence about climate change to make Exxon look good.

I think the important issue here is whether women are allowed to have a say about their use of the language that we share. At the moment it seems to me that you are promoting the view that language belongs to you and that you have no interest in what is being said until women agree only to use the language that you deem acceptable in ways that you deem acceptable. I wonder if you can see how unhelpful that seems.
 
 
Char Aina
12:53 / 12.02.07
At the moment it seems to me that you are promoting the view that language belongs to you and that you have no interest in what is being said until women agree only to use the language that you deem acceptable in ways that you deem acceptable.

could you paste the bit that gives you that idea, so that we can see this promotion in action?
 
 
MattShepherd: I WEDDED KALI!
13:36 / 12.02.07
Apt, I can see how you might see Tsuga's recent posts as fitting into a larger and more damaging context, but your post seems to suggest that Tsuga hirself is wholly adopting the position you're caricaturing. Tsuga wasn't entirely comfortable with the fuzzy crossover between the words "sexism" and "misogyny" on Barbelith, and brought it up, and -- it seems -- ze has agreed that there are more important things to focus on.

It's my experience that white men who have not found an internal commitment to liberation very frequently are more interested in telling me that I'm wrong than listening and learning and helping apply critical thought when I try speaking to them about sexism I'm observing and it seems to me that you are promoting the view that language belongs to you and that you have no interest in what is being said until women agree only to use the language that you deem acceptable in ways that you deem acceptable are pretty harsh positions to thrust Tsuga into, aren't they?
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
13:55 / 12.02.07
Or, to put it another way: stand down, little lady. Man Patrol is here!
 
 
Hallo, Paper Spaceboy
14:24 / 12.02.07
Has Tsuga clarified hir gender identification at any point, Apt? I may have missed that.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
14:30 / 12.02.07
Well, if Tsuga is a woman, she is a woman in possession of a circumcised man-tail, as revealed elsewhere on Barbelith. As such, on the balance of probabilities I don't see AT's inference there as unreasonable.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
14:31 / 12.02.07
Dear God, will someone make the automatic toksik clarification request generator stop?
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
14:37 / 12.02.07
i don't see what you mean there, man.

maybe you are seeing something i am not seeing.

Could you show me where this happens?

Anyway, back on track - speaking purely personally, I don't think that Tsuga was likely to be advancing the position:

"You women, you've got it all wrong, a Nice Guy like me can't be have any hatred towards you poor deluded females. I'm the one who knows the truth, you're wrong, isn't it lucky that I'm here to tell you that you are wrong about it all and put you right. See the error of your ways now and admit my overwhelming rightness, it's so much more important than anything you might have been trying to draw attention to and change. After all it's obviously much more important that I get to feel good about myself than that you get to participate in the collective process, isn't it?

However, Apt Titanium did not say this either. She said that his responses were part of a discourse of male defensiveness that expresses that position. She goes on to say that women can collaborate in misogyny - that is, presumably, that they can shore up dialogues like that even if they do not precisely echo them. So, is she saying that this is what Tsuga is saying, or only that Tsuga is plugging into the place that attitude comes from, and thus inspiring a response to that place?

More in a moment.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
14:49 / 12.02.07
Right, yes. So, Tsuga has in my acquaintance with him (or her, but balance of probabilities) seemed a very clubbable and level-headed chap. However, that does not means that everything he says is necessarily going to be level-headed and reasonable. In this case, for example, Tsuga is both saying that he does not know what the proper distinction between sexism and misogyny is - he is, he states more than once, not a dictionary - but also saying that people are failing to make that proper distinction and that is annoys him. Following one of his examples, I see that it refers to John, the Exploding Boy declaiming that "some women are just slags". Now, the least annoying thing about that statement that I can imagine is that Hattie's Kitchen is incorrect in taxonomising it as misogynistic (which, incidentally, she is not).

So, while I don't share the strength of AT's response to this, that may for all I know be because I am less in the firing line. I do fail to see, really, the failure to apply a distinction perceived by Tsuga as a failing in the way Barbelith talks about gender-based aggression.
 
 
Saturn's nod
14:59 / 12.02.07
Yes, what I wrote above is harsh, and was my attempt to convey the context (which perhaps is invisible by reason of gender privilege to some of the posters here) in which this conversation arises. It's true that I was reiterating a point raised above (for example by Tannhauser "I can see more useful responses to a claim of sexism or misogyny than seeking to determine exactly whether it was sexism or misogyny, according to a personal distinction drawn between the two."), and already agreed to by Tsuga.

Mine above was a hasty post, and I appreciate Tsuga being so polite about it in PMs. It's a difficult subject for me to write about, and I am thankful for your gentleness in discussing it. I don't have much time now either but rather than leave unanswered altogether I've put a bit more here.

Tsuga wrote: I'm really talking more about using the appropriate words to communicate, and is making a point about correct use of language, but hasn't yet dug any further into the question of what appropriate or correct use of language means despite the repeated prompts by Disco and Tannhauser.

I'll try to write a bit more about where my ire came from. It struck me that the unexamined insistence that it was a matter of "the correct definition" without looking any further into the question of what correctness is and what social mechanisms create it was itself unhelpful.

The correct use of language is a topic that's got a history in women's studies - see for example Dale Spender's 'Why you don't have to read women's writing to know it's no good' if you can find a copy. It's not quite the same as being the 124th poster demanding to be shown personally that sexism/racism or whatever exists, but it seemed to me to have some of that in it. It's been common over centuries to claim women's poor use of words or poor style in writing as te excuse for removing them from the canon taught to the next generation of students - 'Women of ideas' by Dale Spender has hundreds of examples.

When it's so hard to speak out about issues of oppression at all, I think discussions of correctness in use of language can become unhelpful because discouraging to people who might otherwise take the risk of naming oppressive practice. Perhaps there is no safe space possible to talk about emotive issues like oppression, I do tend to forget that Barbelith is not aiming to be safe.

When there's a discussion on the topic of women's rights, it's unsafe already because whether I have rights is under question. I think an insistence on what is correct without examining where that notion of correctness comes from becomes another burden stacked on top of what is already difficult. The simile I've thought of in the past is this one: it's a bit like being asked to produce a logical proof when balancing on a greased sloping board hanging over the side of a ship in the middle of an ocean. Balancing on a greased sloping board is difficult and positively counterproductive to acheiving the state of concentration necessary to think in the terms of formal logic. I'm really just making a plea for the utmost generosity in reading, which sounds hilarious to me given the way I am highlighting a subtle feature of Tsuga's argument.

I guess in the struggles to overcome (internalised) oppression we are all struggling to communicate. I love the posts about names for body parts above, and there's not a suggestion there that one term is better than the others, I wonder whether we could use the same principle of generosity because it's an unnerving topic? I'm also frequently enthusiastic about precise use of language, but I think questions of precision and style can be abused to discount voices which are much needed, and perhaps are ill applied in struggle against oppression when creative effort is required to hear each other into speech.

The meaning in the word is created by using it, and a dictionary can only tells us where the word has been in the opinion of the dictionary makers, not where it is now in the mouths and typing hands of the people who are currently using it. I think the question of the purpose driving the wish for correctness and who gets to make that decision is an important one which tells a lot about the hidden structures of privilege and Tsuga has so far avoided it.
 
 
Saturn's nod
15:02 / 12.02.07
Apologies, I crossed with the last five posts in this thread whilst I was writing, forgot to check again before pressing 'post'.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
15:15 / 12.02.07
And, of course, the strict etymologising of words, as well - in the example above, John the Exploding Boy's response to the word misogyny is:

*bangs head on desk* yes, I hate all women. Are you a woman? I hate you. I hate my mum, who raised me, fed me, taught me right from wrong. I hate my partner. I hate my colleagues. I hate half the world. Mr Misogynistic in the flesh.


This is rather like somebody insisting that they are not a homophobe, since they are not afraid of homosexuals at all. Misogyny need not be characterised by an avowed hatred of all women - since, as AT and I have mentioned and I think Tsuga is aware (hence my gloss on "I am not a dictionary"), the dictionary definitions of words - or their etymologies - do not necessarily describe their usage.
 
 
Char Aina
15:26 / 12.02.07
Dear God, will someone make the automatic toksik clarification request generator stop?

what makes you think it's automatic?
 
 
Hallo, Paper Spaceboy
15:28 / 12.02.07
I'll try to write a bit more about where my ire came from. It struck me that the unexamined insistence that it was a matter of "the correct definition" without looking any further into the question of what correctness is and what social mechanisms create it was itself unhelpful.

When I initially brought up the question earlier in thread, I was trying to get at how different people saw the distinction, if there was one, between the two words; would it be helpful to look at that in terms of those social mechanisms you're talking about?

I might go googling later when I'm home from work tonight, but anyone know off the top of their heads what the early modern uses of the words were, how they first caught the public consciousness? Specifically sexism. Was its use a postive move for naming the oppression or was it just labelling things in such a way as to make the feminist movements easier to box up and contain?
 
  

Page: 1 ... 1819202122(23)2425262728... 34

 
  
Add Your Reply