1. What is the accurate, once-and-for-all differences between men's and women's brains?
2. How can a woman who's super invested in mothering also protect her own creative/intellectual/professional life?
3. What truly works when it comes to rape and violence prevention?
4. When do I focus on being right and when do I focus on being effective?
5. When do I address sexism directly and when it is best to handle it indirectly?
6. How can society still be so invested in the categories hetero, homo, and bi when sexuality so obviously exists on a spectrum?
7. Why do so many feminists resist being critical about the institution of marriage?
8. How can we have no holds bar honest conversations about race and class disparities within feminist circles?
9. How important is it that women embrace the feminist label?
10. How ethical is it that feminist writers like Judith Butler and even bell hooks are hard for my women's studies 101 students to understand?
What are you still sorting out?
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Ten Feminist Questions I'm Still Exploring.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/10539
The only one that I can answer is number 10, and that not even well. I'd say it's because both writers (and especially Butler) found their writings in a postmodern/poststructuralist framework, and if someone is taking a 101 course in Women's Studies, then she or he is not likely to have encountered these ideas before. We're not yet a postmodern society in many ways, and until we really are, it's going to be hard for freshmen or sophomores to understand these concepts. I think this might have something to do with number 6 as well, actually.
Agreed. A post-modern Engl. class was a pre-requisite to my Women's Studies (might have not been a 101 class, but it was our first introduction into hooks and Butler, among others).
I think this is certainly true. Can someone please explain to me why postmodernism has taken over literature/anthropology/gender studies?
I don't think it's necessarily unethical that Judith Butler and other feminist theorists write in very unpenetrable styles, I think it's important to have different discussions operating on different levels - if every feminist author wrote in this style it would be a different story and make feminism very inaccessible indeed but they don't. Likewise, if every author wrote in the accessible, conversational tone of BUST or feministing, feminism wouldn't be so successful on an academic level. I'm very nearly a post-grad who is very well-versed in feminist theory, but find Butler VERY difficult to understand; however, I totally get her concepts because there are people who DO understand her who break her arguments down and regurgitate them on a simpler level. I think feminism (nowadays anyway) is not as inaccessible as people make it out to be, and it is certainly not difficult to find easy-to-understand texts as it is for other academic areas such as philosophy, art theory, postmodernism, etc...
i'm of two minds on the subject. on the one hand, i think that postmodern (really, poststructuralist) cultural theory is most often used as a convenient way for scholars to make shit up about other people and the meaning they make out of their lives without going to the trouble to ask those other people what they think. (but call me a bitter ethnographer...)
that said, i also firmly believe that understanding people (which includes understanding culture, power, politics, religion, and all sorts of art forms) deserves at least as detailed and complex a technical vocabulary as understanding 'the natural world'. nobody complains when they don't understand high level geophysics or calls that unethical. people are at least as complicated as rocks.
Yes, but if that vocabulary is so technical that someone can publish a fake paper full of nonsense in a prominent postmodernist journal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_Affair), it doesn't seem to be doing anyone any good. From my perspective, postmodern language seems convoluted and opaque for the sake of being convoluted and opaque, not because such specialized language is necessary. It perpetuates the insular nature of the academic world, where publications are only comprehensible by the small subset of academics in the same specialty.
I so completely agree with you and have been saying this for years.
OK, I had to respond to this one, given the fact that my dissretation is on postmodern feminism...
I think we have to accept the fact that the goals of academic feminism are not always the same as those of feminist activists. So being accessible is not necessarily a goal of Butler's. However, there's a point at which we have to ask how our theories apply to the real world and try to tie them back in and make them relevant and accessible. I also think it's part of the job of whoever's teaching the course to explain it and make it relevant. Easier said than done, of course, but to me that's part of the fun of teaching.
And for the record, some of the trouble with Butler is that she's a rather sloppy writer - she frequently raises a question, goes on about the topic for a few pages, and then acts as if she's answered it and moves on. But if you read her closely, she hasn't actually answered the question at all. That doesn't mean she doesn't have a lot of valuable things to say. But if I tried to write like that my committee would shit a few bricks and send me back to start over. We're picky like that in the Philosophy department.
I couldn't agree more with this. My background is in writing and teaching writing, with a fair dash of feminist theory and polysci, and Butler makes me crazy: the best analogy I can think of for my experience reading Gender Trouble is renting what claims to be an incisive documentary about the history of sexuality and popping it into the VCR only to discover that what I've actually gotten is a blurry two-hour home video of someone masturbating.
I don't deny that she's brilliant, but the extent to which she's subscribes the denser=better fallacy that informs so damn much otherwise good academic writing gives me fits.
Irigaray, on the other hand, is lovely. She's challenging and complex as all hell, but she's also a fantastically lucid and deliberate writer.
This isn't meant as a dig on anyone, it's just something I really can't get my head around:
Why do so many people who wholeheartedly embrace the feminist label still expect men to pay for dinner?
I mean, there are people who have the policy of "whoever does the asking does the paying" which makes sense to me. But I know/hear from a lot of people who really think that, especially on the first date, but often times for way after that, that men should pay for things a lot more often. And these are people who are otherwise very enthusiastic about feminism!
Sometimes people claim that the wage gap makes it only fair for men to pay. But if we want to change the pay gap, as activists, isn't the first step to do away with any excuses for the gap to exist?
Am I missing something here, or do I just happen to know really unusual feminists?
I don't think it's at all fair or right to blame the wage gaps on things like men paying for dinner. That's not why the wage gap is there, the wage gap is there because of sexism, either explicit or implicit. Women do not get paid less because their employers expect that a man will pay their bills, they get paid less because their contributions are undervalued, our society punishes women who are assertive, and if a company is going to save a bit of money being discriminatory, they're going to do it.
None of the feminists I know think that way. If they're in a position where the guy pays for dates, it's because they have agreed that's only fair because he makes more money/has less expenses/etc, and they do that on an individual level, not as a standard.
For some reason the "like" button seems not to work for me, so for the record, IAWTC. I honestly don't know what tammiamibutcher is talking about. Maybe we run in very different circles or something, but I just don't see this as a pervasive issue, or even really something that comes up at all in my own anecdotal experience (and am frankly skeptical that those who would bring it up might be trying to distract from the main topic of discussion with a sort of indirect ad hominem, but I don't know if that's what's going on here).
It's not that I think who pays for dinner is, in itself, the biggest or most pervasive issue in feminism. It's just the one I find most perplexing as far as other feminists' reactions.
It is part of a larger trend which is a big deal, namely that it's easy for people to say they want equality and respect, but it's not always so easy to identify these things once you leave the classroom (or the blog) and start living your day-to-day life.
My (admittedly unfounded) guess is that there are people who agree with feminism in theory, but they don't follow the thought process all the way through to how individual actions can implicitly perpetuate the status quo. That it's not just men infantilizing women, but also women who allow themselves to be infantilized instead of taking a stand, that makes the wheel keep turning.
Because taking a stand does not just mean demanding more pay and more reproductive rights, it also means (to me) refusing to accept a lot of advantages that might be offered to us, if accepting those advantages means implicitly agreeing with the broken attitudes that they came from.
And I really do see a lot of people who have the attitude of "no way is any man going to tell me how to live my life or have power over me. But if my date tonight doesn't pay my way he's a cheapskate and I'm not calling him again"
Is this person's date on Friday at the forefront of all feminist issues? No. But it represents a larger attitude toward feminism that I see pretty often, of wanting all the advantages of equality, but not wanting to give up the advantages of patriarchy. Thank god the majority of feminists don't seem to do this, but it also isn't that uncommon. And hell yeah, I think that issue is important enough to be discussed.
Whoah whoah. I didn't say the wage gaps exists because of men paying for dinner... I said that some people use it as an excuse for the wage gap to continue existing.
Maybe I should clarify my stance- people expecting men to pay for dinner is part of a larger attitude that women need men to take care of them. And as long as people keep having that attitude, the patriarchy will continue to justify the wage gap, saying "why should we bother to make changes and pay women equally, they don't need equal wages because they have men to take care of things for them". I know, the gap got there because of people undervaluing women's contributions, but I think that perpetuating the attitude that women need taking care of, while it may not have caused the problem, definitely gets in the way of the solution.
Man or not, I noticed a thing. When I worked and most of my buddies were poor students, it was taken for granted that I pay. Now I'm a poor student and my buddies have their degrees and jobs and I'm supposed to pay the bill.
Any theory for that?
I know people who do this, too. I particularly know young women, starting out in their careers and thus low on cash, who count on dating as a way to get nice meals once in a while. The thing to do, I think, is call them on it: ask what they think it says about them as feminists to do this. If nothing else, it leads to a good discussion, and may adjust some thinking eventually.
Yeah, that doesn't work. Men find this out the hard way. It's dogma: you don't pay for dinner, you don't get a second date. No excuses, doesn't matter if you're dirt poor or a committed feminist, you're paying for dinner.
As a feminist man, you just have to accept it. I think it's a terrible situation, and I know many women agree with me, but you never ever try to convince a girl to split the check on an early date. It's relationship kryptonite, comparable to admitting that you live in your mom's basement or have genital herpes.
(Just to be clear: those two last things don't apply to me...)
I meant not that the men they're dating should call them on it, but rather that their friends, family, and colleagues, male and female, should.
For a guy who dates such women, I think your best bet is not to go on that second date with someone who has such a gendered view of relationships. I mean, look at the other comments: certainly not all women expect it and many will cheerfully be the first to suggest splitting the check or even picking it up.
Generally, I'm also going to say that if you're dating people for whom herpes, living with parents, or feminism are deal-breakers, you're dating some very socially conservative, not terribly open minded people. Just a thought.
It's good to know that having herpes is only as bad as having to buy someone a full meal. Great!
Winner!
ok - Maybe it's because I am a gen-xer (so therefore, pretty far removed from the "youth" dating scene), but I find this commentary to be nuts. I go on a second date with men I have fun with. If there is physical chemistry, he makes me laugh, and I enjoyed the date, I go on another one so I can have the pleasure of another enjoyable evening.
However, if it turned out that I was asked to a place that was otherwise unaffordable to me and *then* found out when the check came that he didn't intent to pay for the date (that I couldn't afford), I'd be a little miffed and would see it as evidence that his judgment might be poor (for not giving me a heads-up on something that could negatively impact my financial situation). But I would be open to paying full fare if I asked, or paying half if it was agreed to ahead of time. Shoot - if it were affordable, I'd pull out my wallet and *offer* to cover some of it.
Yeah, I agree with not really getting the "men should pay" attitude. I understand the idea that the person who asks should pay (stereotypically that's been the dude). And if you know there's a significant pay gap, then sure. But otherwise it just seems unfair, demanding and anachronistic.
This is a really good point, actually. Luckily, my boyfriend and I discussed this on Day 1, and three years later we still split the check, or sometimes alternate (he pays for one date, I pay for the next).
Honestly, I've never bought the whole "guy paying for the date" argument, unless perhaps our wages are drastically different and we both agree ahead of time. As far as I can see, having the guy constantly pay only leads to the idea of the woman "owing" him something in return-- whether that's sex, another date, or even just a kiss. I'm not interested in being "indebted" to my dates, thanks.
I always feel weird when a guy is like, "This is on me!" Um, ok? I enjoyed the food/movie/whatever, too. I have a job. I can pay for half.
Usually if I go out to a movie with someone (on a date or otherwise), one of us will pay for the tickets, and the other will pay for snacks. It's a good way to "split" without the hassle. It's not always equal, but eh. I don't care so much about that.
I actually don't know any women who do this.
Me & my partner either split it or take turns buying. When we were first together we lived a bit far apart, so whoever was hosting while the other visited tended to pay. Or in periods when one of us has not been working, or just broke, the other picks up the slack.
Where I live (Germany), it's the normal thing to split bills - I find it highly disconcerting when abroad to have men pay for my drinks and food and stuff as if this were normal (with no romantic interest involved - I'm married and they know that). I try to pay my way but feel this is perceived as strange or rude - so I try to return the favour whenever possible - but still get funny looks. Also the waiters always put the bills in front of the men. So strange. It makes me feel really uncomfortable. As a feminist, I prefer waiters/waitresses to ask whether we're paying together or separately - which routinely happens in Germany - to having to bring up the subject although clearly everyone else tries to avoid mentioning it.
I don't know any women (that I hang around with) who have ever expressed that sentiment. My now-husband had to pay on our first date (supposed to be dutch) because I forgot my debit card. I felt like an asswipe. Anyhow, if the dinner debate is the worst you're living with, kudos.
Ok, so you don't do that. Good for you. But there was a whole discussion of this topic on another prominent feminism-oriented blog last week, where the habits that you and I practice were far from unanimous. I didn't understand why that was, so I thought this would be a good space to discuss it.
Anyhow, if the dinner debate is the worst you're living with, kudos.
Please read my response to Idiolect, above.
On rereading my reply to you, I want to say that I was totally not trying to be snarky to you, I kind of had poor word choice there. I do think it's useful to know that not everyone encounters this kind of attitude.
Men first.
Seriously. When men give up their numerous and wide-ranging privileges economic, social and legal, then I'll consider encouraging women as a group to stop taking this one tiny crumb of "advantage" some women sometimes still get.
So sure, in the social arena, let's not let men pay for all the dinners on dates. Let's also not dress up, but judge men's dress and appearance and weight against that of rock stars or movie and TV idols. Let's comment if they eat too much, make chatter hand gestures when their cell phone rings, stare at their asses without even pretending not to no matter the company, loudly contradict them and laugh at them when they repeat what they say and appear angry about it.
Men like it when women no longer want them to pay for dinner. Men don't like it when they have to do the same amount of work around the house, handle dirty diapers, do the stupid scut work, compete fairly for jobs and pay, and so on. Which of these do you see men lining up to demand?
Femimax said: "Women need to stop expecting benefits that men give them solely due to their sex, and need to start extending those same benefits to men. It's a conscious effort, but *everyone* should be chivalrous."
Aside from the dinner thing and the opening doors thing, what exactly are we talking about here? Last time I looked, I wasn't on the Titanic, going into the lifeboat first.
I and the women I know do pay our way for lots of dates, hold doors for other people, say "you first," don't assume they can just waltz ahead of everyone male with some kind of feminine entitlement.
But this is our personal decision, and if we're privileged to be in not-very-sexist relationships, we feel comfortable doing to. I don't feel comfortable exhorting other women to give up what little they may have if they don't want to.
And do you really think women get much deference in this world?
Here's a little homework: Walk in a crowded mall and see how often women deviate their path for men as opposed to men deviating their path for women. In fact, if you're female, try walking in a straight line that's a collision course with a male and see if he gets out of your way.
A lot of times when women get these "advantages" it's something like holding the door for a woman who's trying to manage three youngsters (so long as they're not making "too much noise" in which case the hell with the welfare queen and her undisciplined brats).
Giving a free dinner to someone you want to fuck or be seen with.
Letting a pregnant woman sit down on the bus (less likely to happen if she's not well-dressed, pretty or white).
Politeness isn't quid pro quo.
Ok I definitely see what you're saying, about the advantages that women get from patriarchy being relatively really tiny. But I still think, if the status quo is the way it is, and we're the ones that are activists and asking for change, it's on us to make the first moves. So I agree with everything you said except "men first".
But yeah, having really tiny advantages from patriarchy is what confuses me about the whole thing- we all get screwed by it, so why not just give it up all together, and fully embrace equality, instead of clinging to only certain bits of patriarchy and slowing the whole process down? Free dinner (and subway seats, and whatever else women "get" out of patriarchy) just doesn't seem worth it to me, when what equality offers us is so, so much better. Because, as I said before, I really think that these little things send big messages about how we're willing to be viewed by society.
Oh also, how about not being drafted? Women have mandatory service in Israel, China, and many other countries, but I have a feeling this would not fly very well in this country, and not just among conservatives.
I really really hate to bring up a "what about the menz" argument here, but since I'm being pressed...
But yeah, having really tiny advantages from patriarchy is what confuses me about the whole thing- we all get screwed by it, so why not just give it up all together, and fully embrace equality, instead of clinging to only certain bits of patriarchy and slowing the whole process down?
Agreed. Expectation of paid for dinners, the Draft, etc all of that falls under the heading of benevolent sexism, "characterizing women as pure creatures who ought to be protected, supported, and adored and whose love is necessary to make a man complete." (Glick, Fiske).
It's simply a way of pacifying resistance to inequality. And taking part in it perpetuates the cycle.
It's why I rail against registration for the Draft (we aren't likely to have a draft instated in the U.S. I dislike the fact that men and not women are still required to sign up but I want the requirement removed altogether in favor of a completely volunteer military). Why don't expect anyone to pay for my dinner. And why I don't participate in "Ladies Nights" if I'm out somewhere. Among other things.
I don't want just the appearance of equality, I want the actuality.
Just for the record, I do insist on splitting costs with my boyfriend. I don't recommend that men insist on that with their dates, because with the way things are, even a feminist could wonder if that means he just doesn't believe in chivalry, which would be fine, or that he does believe in chivalry and is choosing to be impolite, which would not be fine. But I do think people should call feminists out for that - while recognizing that not all feminists do it (we don't need to encourage any bad stereotypes of ourselves).
Anyway, I do think it's reasonable for a couple to decide that the one who can afford it is the one who should pay, but that should be based on money, not on sex or gender. And I also think it's reasonable for a couple to decide to split everything regardless of who makes more money. It should be a personal decision and I don't think it should have anything to do with gender, not because I don't think the wage gap is terrible, not because I think women should change before men do, but because I think chivalry is bad for feminism, regardless of what other kinds of sexism are going on at the same time.
Consciously spending 40 years on this, you have really taken my breath away ~ yes these are all "in play." The fact is they also vary regionally.
I want to know about cultural and geographical specific points of view. What is entirely unacceptable in my world is a career in another. I was once speaking ad hoc in a class about my horror about infibulation and a student said that her mother, and other women she knows, make their living circumcising girls. The best of intentions can be shamed and it is a stinging shame.
I also want to know, that while intersectionality is valid, is it actually organic that one group(ing) advances at a time and THEN turns around having paved the road for another. It is just natural that a person who belongs more than one "tribe" will step to liberation one component at a time and then in that newly established stature, is enabled to assist others. I am very aware that this is not the wholesome way, the recommended way (MLK, Gandhi) it sure seems to be the natural way of evolution.
1. Why are so many women who are feminists still quick to shrink from the word "feminist"?
2. When will we accept men and women as equals, but still be able to recognize our differences? For example, men and women may really enjoy different things - cultures operate differently from one another, and it makes sense that sexes probably will, too. "Different" does not mean one is less or greater than the other.
3. When will equality reach the point that we're no longer overanalyzing everything for hints of latent sexism? For example - sometimes, when a man opens a door for a woman, it doesn't necessarily mean he thinks she's weak or that she belongs in a kitchen. He probably just thinks he's being nice, or polite. But it's easy to jump on those things because we're not quite THERE, yet...but, when we are, will our perceptions of behavior loosen up a little?
4. Why are some men still so angry with the idea of feminism? What are they afraid of? (For that matter, what are the women who dislike feminism afraid of?)
I think the problem is that there are plenty of overly militant feminists, who actually do embody the caricature of feminists as just women who hate all men.
Even when I go to feministe.com, the women there are far more militant than they are here. I have seen examples of women literally just saying that all men should be considered rapists until it has been proven that they're not.
That kind of open hostility is going to repel a lot of people if that is their first encounter with a feminist. Or if they make some innocuous but sexist comment, and they are attacked for it instead of engaged in discussion about it.
I imagine the women are just the ones who have seen examples of that hostility and not bothered to learn more because of an early judgment.
Are you saying feminists whom you perceive to be more "radical" than yourself are "over-radical"? That they are thereby harming the image (and by extension the cause) of feminism? So it's some feminists' fault if people don't like to call themselves feminists because they are afraid to be categorized as "over-radical" manhaters? There can't be disagreements among feminists, then?
If I understood you correctly, I disagree.
I guess everyone's perceptions are their own. But I feel relatively comfortable saying that if a particular woman literally distrusts or dislikes all men simply because they are men, she is not a feminist as the broader feminist movement would like to be understood. (Obviously feminism itself can't think, but I'm sure you get the gist.)
There can certainly be disagreements between feminists, but if you're not willing to draw lines somewhere, then anyone can just say "Well I think rape is fine, but I'm a feminist. You can't judge me, I just disagree about some things." If you agree that some people might call themselves feminists, but really shouldn't, then it's just a matter of when you think someone has gone too far.
"I feel relatively comfortable saying that if a particular woman literally distrusts or dislikes all men simply because they are men, she is not a feminist as the broader feminist movement would like to be understood."
Why? Feminism isn't treating all people the same regardless of their individual differences. One of those differences is whether you're privileged in your own society.
We in this society are stamped with sexist attitudes, and even if we reject them, they still exist in our psyche. All people look to their advantage. When a man's sexist attitude is to his advantage, he will cling to it, even unconsciously. That's privilege. "I got this job because I'm smarter." "I get what I want because I deserve it, not because I'm a foot taller and 80 pounds heavier."
Knowing that men who have sexist attitudes pose a danger to women physically, emotionally and financially, yes, I think it's only fair for women to be distrustful of all men. Even ones you know well. Because they've been trained to be sexist by society and, usually, their family and religion as well.
Demanding that men all be viewed as equals is discounting the real problems and dangers women experience by being "too trusting."
This assumes all sorts of things about me. To be fair, it assumes things about everyone. Most of them are things that can't possibly be proved or disproved. They're just things that you say. You're telling me that I've been trained to be sexist by almost everything around me, and that I'll keep being sexist even if I think I'm not. If I say you're wrong right now, you'll just tell me I'm being naive.
These kinds of claims are what I'm talking about. I don't agree with you that everyone is inherently sexist. I don't agree with you that I'm sexist. You distrust me immediately because of what you have decided about me, without knowing anything about me past one chromosome. That certainly doesn't foster a healthy discussion based on mutual respect.
"This assumes all sorts of things about me... You're telling me that I've been trained to be sexist by almost everything around me, and that I'll keep being sexist even if I think I'm not. If I say you're wrong right now, you'll just tell me I'm being naive."
No, we're telling you that you grew up with something called male privilege, and unless you have taken the time to analyze your privilege, (which given your comment it's obvious you have not) it's doubtful that you will even come close to understanding what women mean when they say they are distrustful of men. Again, if your going to use the excuse "you'll just tell me I'm being naive"...well go ahead, I DOUBLE DOG DARE you to take a good hard HONEST look at the sexism in our society and the male privilege that you grew up with and currently benefit from.
Even if you don't understand the impact of your own male privilege, I always hold onto the hope that there exist some men out there who are brave enough to be honest with themselves about the current situation of women and their own privilege. Given your comment, "doubleb", there's no doubt that you even gave a moment's thought to the idea of what it's like to be female, walking down the street alone, even in broad daylight, and feel the need to clutch tightly to a screw driver, hammer, or other heavy object that could potentially be used against a potential attacker. And if you think this is a far fetched scenario or "unfair to all men" that women would be so distrustful of men, i.e. that some women consider any man to be a potential attacker...well, you need to check your male ego at the door and understand that this is NOT about the character of a random individual male like yourself but about the actual REALITY of the lives of women. Specifically the reality of gender based violence.
Consider that one in four women are sexually assaulted. Consider that 99% of attackers are male. Consider that these assailants are rarely reported and even more rarely punished. Any women can easily come to the conclusion that at any moment, at any time, at any place, her name could be added to this long long list of victims, that is if she isn't one already. Oh!, and, I'm sorry, we seem to have OFFENDED you?! Puhleez!
Yet I'm really not surprised, because this is the attitude many men take, further inviting distrust from women. If you need proof, recall the reactions from men at recent campaigns against rape and domestic violence. Male commenters on the sites that discussed these issues say things like rape & DV awareness campaigns are "offensive to all men"...and that the issue is "way overblown", and that "it's not men, but feminism that is at fault for violence against women" and of course all the usual victim blaming trope that women are so familiar with, (i.e. she drank, she was wearing xyz, she was alone, etc.) but all of this is just part of a much larger verse filled with even more anti-women attitudes that many a privileged male sing...but of course it's women who are left holding the bloodied and beaten bodies of their friends, sisters, mothers, daughters. Who are left to grapple with the reality of being female in a sexist patriarchal women-hating world, where domestic homicide is the leading cause of death for pregnant women, where globally; one in three women are victims of sexual abuse or domestic violence, where 4 million women and girls are trafficked annually, where thousands of women are murdered each year from so called "honour killings", and it goes on and on...I often wonder why these men are so blind to the absurdity of their rhetoric, it's not like the numbers and research and statistics on the DOJ, FBI and other websites are a BIG secret...No, what I guess it always comes down to in the end, is those two words.
Male Privilege.
Perhaps it's time, "doubleb" to take a good hard look at your own. It might help you in understanding why men in general, through no fault of women, make many of us want to clutch tighter to our hammers, screwdrivers, and wrenches while passing you by on the street.
I think about everything in that wall of issues you posted. I am not on this site by accident. I didn't just start posting in this thread because I had never thought about these ideas before and I was very bored. I don't pretend to sympathize with every plight that women face. And I appreciate that there are many things in my life that are easier for me simply because of my gender. But I have just as much right to resent being judged unfairly as anyone else. I'm not saying that the things you posted don't matter. But I don't have personal responsibility for the things that other men do any more than you have responsibility for all the things that other women do.
And I'm not writing this because I'm so upset about what someone on a message board said about me. I am a feminist. You don't need to sell me. You don't need to sell the other feminists. What we want is to sell all the people who think the way you just described up there. The way to effect change is by practicing what you preach. What we want is for men to take feminism seriously. We want feminism to be something that is normal for everyone, not something for macho dudes to make fun of. You can't get that by saying "All we feminists want to be taken seriously and treated equally... you rapist."
If you want all the people here to cheer you, then that's a great post. What I want is to recruit my friends to come here. And I want them to recruit their friends. I want to destroy what you're always calling "rape culture" by making sexist jokes illicit sneers instead of laughs when I'm at the gym. And posts like that are what will alienate men and drive them off. No one wants to listen seriously to people who tell them they can't think for themselves.
I agree wholeheartedly. A little diplomacy wouldn't go amiss.
aideenjohnston:
"Meeneecat, I agree with some of your points, but seriously, why do you only emphasise the negative and take everything doubleb has said in bad faith? You come across as very hostile."
I'm so so so sorry, I may have offended one of the "nice guys". /snark
Seriously, why do I have to worry about not offending some "nice guys" that come on this site. This is not a men's space. This is a women's space - I take these comments very seriously...especially a comment by a man who claims to be a feminist but then goes on to say that he is offended by the fact that some women are distrustful of men...he says it as if these women have no right or reason to be distrustful of men, when all he has to do is look at gender based violence statistics and the answer is obvious. It just makes no sense to me, a woman, a feminist, a rape survivor, who does happens to have a very good understanding of why some women distrust all men, that he would say something like this while claiming to "support women". If a man is going to claim himself a feminist and then go on to say these things and get offended by how some women feel towards men, than I'm going to give him my opinion of what I think of all this...and I'm not going to pretend to be "nice" about it and sugar coat it. It has nothing at all to do with "being diplomatic"...I'm not trying to win over any men to feminism here. If a man truly wants to be a feminist ally, than they need to take a good look at their own privilege...something it sounds that doubleb did not consider before he made his comment...namely the privilege he has that enables him to be able to walk out in public without the fear of being attacked or targeted for gender based violence.
Just because my comment sounds "hostile" to him, doesn't mean I have to temper my voice because I'm afraid of offending some men. Many men are hostile towards feminist and feminist ideas...it doesn't mean that us feminists need to sugar coat what we say so that we come off as being "nicer" to these men. Not to sound "hostile" but F%$# THAT!
Sorry, but if you can't understand why some women distrust all men, and are in fact OFFENDED by the fact that some women distrust all men, than you are hardly a feminist in my book. Whether or not you agree with the idea that some women are distrustful of all men, it's still a fact that many women are (and through no fault of their own, might I add), so if your initial reaction is to be OFFENDED by this, rather than try to understand why this is, than you're really not making an effort at "supporting women" as you claim to do.
Many men claim to support women's rights, but claiming to support women does not automatically make one a feminist. Sorry to other women who may disagree with me, but I think the feminist movement can do without all these "nice guys" claiming to support women's rights but at the same time become offended at rape and DV awareness campaigns because they think they are "offensive to all men". Ironically, all those MRA commenters on the site started their comments out with "I support women's rights, but..." and then they go into their typical MRA tirades. I'm not accusing you of being an MRA, but when a male starts off saying "I support women's rights but..." It's pretty much a guarantee that he's not a feminist. Truly feminist men are very rare because most men don't want to acknowledge their own privilege, and beyond that most men don't want to give up any of the benefits that they get from this privilege.
Actually I'd point you to Roy's blog if you haven't read it already, here's a good post by him about men, menz, MRAs, and feminism, he also talks about male allies in feminist women's spaces (which he get's into more towards the end of the post):
http://nocookiesforme.blogspot.com/2007/10/this-post-really-is-about-menz.html
The Thin Duke is another good male feminist blogger, and he has a good post on intersectionality and oppression that I generally recommend everyone read:
http://slanttruth.com/2007/10/03/the-common-elements-of-oppression/
I guess I'll keep clarifying to start. I am not denying that male privilege exists, or that I benefit from it. I'm not saying that any sort of women's activism is unfair to men in any way. I'm not doing any of the things that you keep accusing me of.
If you don't think that it's important for men to be involved in feminism, then we're just disagreeing fundamentally, and my point is totally invalid. Maybe I'm suffering from male privilege in wanting to be included all the time. But particularly in regard to things like men abusing or assaulting women, I think the best defense against that in the long term is to include all men in this dialogue, and to make feminism a serious issue to men instead of just a joke to be ignored. When it's easy to find examples of the caricature of feminists as hating all men, men will not be involved. As long as men aren't involved, progress toward a society that values and respects women and men as equals will simply be slower than if it was.
I'm not worried about my bruised male ego, or defending men against the evil feminist regime. I want to include men for the sake of progress, because ultimately, men are the problem. You and I don't have ideological differences, we have differences in how we think public feminist conversations should be conducted.
I do have one question, and I know the answer to it, but it's kind of always in the back of my mind:
how do I make sure that I'm not forgetting/exploiting my privilege and forgetting that I've had it way easier than a lot of people?
The answer, of course, is being mindful of the things I do and say, especially when interacting with people who have different social and economic backgrounds from me -- and when my own friends makes classist, culturalist, or sexist remarks it's easier for me to remember my privilege because I really don't want to sound like that.
I know I have a lot more questions, but that's the one that remains in my mind all the time.
I'm so glad you posted this list of questions. These are the things I struggle to think about/answer on an almost daily basis. So I'm glad I'm not the only one.
1. What is the accurate, once-and-for-all differences between men's and women's brains?
I get the feeling this will be sorted out by neurologists in due time, and no one has the answer right now.
2. How can a woman who's super invested in mothering also protect her own creative/intellectual/professional life?
I think there is a fundamental conflict between professional and personal life. Traditionally, men have sacrificed family to improve career. Now, either sex can do that. No matter who does it though, investing time in anything except career will simply mean less time is spent developing that. I don't think business discriminates against women in this regard. If men wanted to take more time for their kids, they would be treated the same way.
3. What truly works when it comes to rape and violence prevention?
Only more education for every person. Women to protect themselves. Men to value women and personal rights in general. Parents to raise their children with a basic respect for humanity.
People are a product of either genetics or environment. If genetics is involved, we can't do anything at this point anyway. So everything is going to be about fixing environment.
4. When do I focus on being right and when do I focus on being effective?
All things have to start with being right. To be effective you have to convince other people you are right. If you're not sure that you're right, it isn't prudent to start being effective.
6. How can society still be so invested in the categories hetero, homo, and bi when sexuality so obviously exists on a spectrum?
I'm sure you actually know the answer to this. Judeo-Christian religions and Islam still dominate the globe. Before them, homosexuality was widely known and accepted. After them, it will be again. We're just now in the process of secularizing everyone as religion becomes less important to explaining the nature of the universe.
7. Why do so many feminists resist being critical about the institution of marriage?
As someone who resists being critical, it's because I'm suspicious about the idea of raising children outside of a committed relationship. I don't have any data, but I personally suspect that children are more mentally healthy when they have stability of parents as opposed to one parent who has multiple sexual partners. Whatever anyone says, I also think that accepting homosexual relationships leads inevitably to accepting polygamy, and I'm not sure about raising children in that environment. I'm not sure it's a bad idea in the same way I'm not sure it's a good idea. But I am sure that two healthy and committed parents raising a child is a good idea. So that's an issue I am also still thinking about.
8. How can we have no holds bar honest conversations about race and class disparities within feminist circles?
What's stopping you?
I also think that accepting homosexual relationships leads inevitably to accepting polygamy
Please explain your logic for this.
It's more of a reverse argument. What is inherently wrong with polygamy? The way I typically defend homosexuality to its detractors is by pointing out that consenting adults can do whatever they want as long as they are not harming anyone.
People who oppose polygamy like to point out situations in which it can be abusive. But it isn't inherently abusive. A heterosexual marriage can be abusive or unhealthy in all the same ways as a polygamist relationship. At the end of the day, you are simply regulating what consenting autonomous adults can and cannot do in their personal relationships.
Do you have any argument that allows homosexual relationships but prevents polygamy inherently, and not on the basis of stereotypes or possibilities?
You've put your finger on why I support polygamy, yes. And I think it's rather premature to suspect that it might be an unhealthy environment for children, in the absence of any research. There's a lot to be said for multi-adult households, whether sexually active or not, and against nuclear families. Not really a question we can decide a priori.
Agreed. This has always seemed incredibly strange to me, that otherwise progressive, feminist people are against polygamous relationships. Not only is the assumption that all polygamous relationship are abusive incorrect, but they are also not all as transient as people assume. There are certainly transient ones (as their are transient monogamous relationships, heterosexual and homosexual), but there are also committed polygamous "couples," whose relationships are just as invalidated by the definition of marriage as homosexuals.
I've always thought that the real solution to the marriage problem is get rid of it altogether as a legal concept. It takes care of separating church and state and legally regulating people's relationships; we could simply institute civil unions for all and keep marriage as a purely religious, non-legal ceremony for those who want it.
What I see eventually happening is the complete removal of governmental incentives to form relationships. Marriage as a legal concept exists to promote heterosexual couples to have children. (Flames incoming.)
If you step even farther back than normal and think about it, why should the government encourage any kind of lifestyle at all. Giving incentives for marriage suggests that people who want to live in a committed relationship are more valuable than those who choose to remain out of one.
There are obviously reasons to give financial changes in favor of people who have children, simply from the standpoint that children require resources, and we should encourage raising them properly.
"Marriage as a legal concept exists to promote heterosexual couples to have children. "
Why should there be flames? This is 100% true. While INDIVIDUAL reasons to get married vary, I'd say the only reason the government has any say in it is to promote heterosexuals to procreate. It makes sense.
Well, if you're saying get rid of marriage and have civil unions for all you're not really changing anything except the names. Then there would be an argument about whether you can have civil unions between more than two people.
Honestly, the US already DOES have the system you are describing. Its just that the word "marriage" is used for both the legal contract and the religious ceremony. That can be confusing, but surely reasonable people can understand that one word can have more than one meaning in different contexts? Maybe not. Maybe we need to insist on separate paperwork, like France, so people get the point.
I see logistical problems with legalizing polygamy (whatever you call it), not moral ones. For example, what if mafia members all married each other so they couldn't be forced to testify in court against each other? What about tax evasion (I'm sure you could avoid inheritance or gift tax in this way)? What about custody rights when groups with kids split up?
Just because these things are complicated doesn't mean polygamy is wrong or should be illegal, but it would be MUCH more complicated to legalize than legalizing gay marriage, where we can keep all the same social and legal framework we have already.
I agree, ditch the framework.
My problem with polygamy is that there is virtually no history of it being practiced in a feminist, egalitarian or equal way. The people who would benefit from legalizing polygamy are mostly going to be fundamentalist mormons who will use it as an even more powerful and legal tool of abuse against women.
I feel the same way about prostitution. In theory I don't think there is anything wrong with it, but in practice I see HUGE GIANT PROBLEMS. And there is no way that we can divorce theory from practice, at this point in society. We live in a patriarchal vacuum and we have to take that into account.
I agree. This only becomes an issue for me when I see arguments about homosexual marriage and the opposing side says "well that will lead to polygamy, and then bestiality and incest and marrying cars and so forth." And the side supporting homosexuality just says no, no, all those things are terrible and can't be allowed. Basically people should understand the basis of their own arguments.
I think my problem with polygamy as it is currently practiced (to the extent of my admittedly limited knowledge) is that it is usually employed to allow one man sexual access to as many women as he desires (often underage), while espousing sexual purity beliefs and intolerance for others. It always seems like a male-privilege-cake-and-eat-it-too situation. By definition, it seems to require a dominant player to make selections, otherwise I would suspect it would be difficult for all parties to agree on adding another member.
If polygamy was a generally accepted practice with as many males and females together in a family unit as wish to participate, I would probably feel differently about it.
Having said that, the more people in the mix, the more likelihood there will be transience that impacts a child. But conversely, the larger the "village" raising the child, the less the impact would presumably be on the child if one member disassociates.
It's still fairly complicated in my mind.
I think maybe the term "polygamy" is problematic simply because it is limited to a man's ability to have multiple wives. Polyamory, maybe?
It seems you're talking about legal recognition of marriage, which was not clear in your first post in saying "accepting homosexual relationships."
Polygamy is the term refers to any marriage with more than two people.
Polygyny is one man multiple women.
Polyandry is one woman multiple men.
Fair enough in terms of denotation, but in terms of connotation:
polygamy
1591, from L.L. polygamia, from Late Gk. polygamia "polygamy," from polygamos "often married," from polys "many" + gamos "marriage" (see gamete). Not etymologically restricted to marriage of one man and multiple women (technically polygyny), but often used as if it were.
Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2001 Douglas Harper
Still, it is my understanding that most people who engage in polyamorous marriages would take issue with you using polyamory and polygamy interchangeably.
I don't have a problem with polygamy, although if it becomes legal we might have to rethink things like marital privalege in court, and inheritance laws. But just because something will be a complicated change doesn't mean we should avoid it, it means we should think it through.
As for raising kids... its hard to say without a lot of studies on it, but I don't see any reason it would necessarily be bad. I can definitely think of plenty of cases where a man and woman did a horrific job raising a child, so I wouldn't say that they're always better (see Dan Savage and his "Every Child Deserves a Mother and a Father" series)
I guess I should add that I feel like I, personally, would not be able to maintain a stable polygamous relationship, so even if I did want to have a polygamous relationship in the first place, I probably wouldn't feel like it was stable enough to raise kids. But if other people are happy in their polygamous relationships and care about raising their kids well, then good for them, I don't see any inherent reason to forbid it.
It's called REALITY. Reality is the fundamental Mormon church, and other fundamental religions use polygamy to control and abuse women. I have nothing wrong with polyamorous relationships between consenting adults, but I don't consider "loving consenting" polygamous relationships the rule in this world, but the exception. If you consider the institution of polygamy, i.e. what has come to be the "norm" for cultures that practice polygamy, notably the fundamental Mormon church / other fundamental religions, it's that polygamy has been used by these institutions as a means of controlling and dominating over portions of the population; women...This isn't about having an ideal world, what we have is a REALITY where polygamy, in real terms, means abuse and domestic violence for many of the women involved.
Historically, there are no examples of polygamy in which women weren't treated badly and degraded. All accounts show that the historical legacy of polygamy has been to degrade and control women.
I understand your highly idealized perspective on polygamy. But truth is, your argument of polygamy is not based in reality, nor does it consider historical precedent. Because of the realities of polygamy, gay marriage has little in common with it. It's a bad analogy...in fact I find it quite insulting. Fact is, states are not going to open up an avenue for potential abuse, rape, and violence against women via polygamy, as has been the result historically. The major difference is, is that gay marriage does not have a history of promoting abuse and degradation of women or anyone, whereas polygamy is highly connected to the abuse of women in many cultures throughout history. If you still don't get it here's another analogy. Basically, by your argument, you could also say that we should legalize slavery because some people practice BSDM, and live their lives as "slaves".
[BTW, I'm not belittling slavery or BSDM relationships or the seriousness of the history of slavery...I'm just trying to make a comparison between a perfectly fine modern lifestyle choice of slave/master vs. another institution that is historically abusive and morally wrong; slavery. Essentially saying, yes polyamory is a fine lifestyle choice if that's what you CHOOSE, however it doesn't necessitate promoting a historically repressive and abusive institution]
Also, here's another point: If you find yourself on the same side of the polygamy argument as people like Warren Jeffs, fundamental religious extremists, misogynists, child rapists, and abusers, you might want to consider rethinking your position.
I agree with you about the reality of modern polygamy, and the history of polygamy.
That's correct, my argument is specifically not about reality. It is only about the inherent nature of a polygamous relationship, which does not necessitate abuse.At the end of the day, what you want to do is say "This type of relationship is typically bad for women, therefore I will not allow women to choose to enter this type of relationship." I agree with the first premise. I don't agree that the solution is limiting the freedom of women to live their lives the way they want.
Reductio ad Hitlerum is a fallacy."It is only about the inherent nature of a polygamous relationship, which does not necessitate abuse. "
Again, this is not reality, and this is not what history has shown. Give me one example of a culture that practices polygamy where women weren't treated badly. You argue that it's about "women being able to choose this relationship"...and I, and many other feminists would say No, "it's about allowing men access to as many women as they like, having-their-cake-and-eating-it-too".
You should realize, that your comment that "polygamy is not inherently abusive", is also an opinion. There are many many feminists out there who would argue against that, saying that polygamy is inherently degrading towards women because it places women in a position of social inequality. There are many valid arguments as to what makes polygamy degrading to women. Despite the "freedom of choice argument", I believe, you are not going to find many women who think that polygamy should be legal, despite many of us believing in freedom of choice, this is because there's more issues here than just "freedom of choice", like the fact that many many women equate polygamy with violence and abuse.
I'm sure, however, you will find plenty of men who think polygamy should be legal "because it's freedom of choice"...and that's exactly why my suspicious lightbulb automatically goes off whenever I hear this. And, trust me, I've heard this argument plenty from men. To me it's obvious, that certain men would like to have access to as many women as possible, and to some of those the potential to control and abuse women...so they argue that it's really about "freedom of choice" in an attempt to make it seem like it's not about their own chauvinistic desire to access as many women as possible.
Like I said before, I'm sure you'll find many fundamental Mormons, people like Warren Jeffs and other religious fundamentalists, MRA's and chauvinistic men, arguing that polygamy should be legal out of the principle of "freedom of choice".
this is as depressing as it is incorrect.
moar Fooko, plz.
Are you referring to everything I said in my post, or something more specific?
everything.
"I don't think business discriminates against women in this regard. If men wanted to take more time for their kids, they would be treated the same way."
I totally disagree. Gender isn't always related to the individual. Work structures enact gender and gender discrimination. The very idea that an employee has no one to care for and can devote all the time in the world to working is sexist. It doesn't matter if women do it men do it (caretaking), it's still gendered and devalued as women's work, while paid work is men's work.
I'm not sure that you and I are talking about the same things. Are you just saying that doing unpaid work in the home is viewed as less valuable by society? Because I agree that it is. Caring for children and doing other unpaid work to maintain a family should not be viewed as either men's work or women's work, but should be valued as the work it is.
That said, I don't see how the idea that all employees have no one to care for is sexist, when it explicitly and by definition applies to all employees. Western businesses mostly seek to increase their own profits at any cost and without discrimination. Anyone who can do more work of the same quality is simply more valuable regardless of their gender.
The neutrality you are discussing assumes a male/man as the neutral. I'm arguing that the very structure of the paid work system is related to a gender system that privileges those sex-categorized male/man. Sexism isn't just about individual-level discrimination against individual women. It's about whole systems of inequality.
I suppose I simply disagree that most people today view all work as inherently male. I agree that there may be lingering intuitions that people in high power positions are men, but even then, not so much. Pop culture helps this immensely in my opinion, by consistently putting women in high power positions in TV shows and movies and so forth. I get the feeling you'll just disagree with me though, and we'll be at an impasse. c'et la vie.
I agree we'll disagree, ha. But that's because I'm not arguing about how people view work, I'm arguing about how work is structured.
I guess I'm not sure what you mean by "structured".
I think of work as people performing some function that creates value. There is no overall structure. There is only what people do to be valuable to other people in some way.
But I don't think that the assumption here is that "all work is inherently male," but that the system itself assumes that the worker is a male with no childcare or household responsibilities. So the structure of the workweek, of sick leave, etc is based on an antiquated model where the workers were mostly males with a stay-at-home mom taking care of everything on the home front.
This is a fair point. But it's not gendered. It's just an assumption that in a two party relationship where there are children, one party will be raising them while the other works. The system handles men staying home the same way as it handles women staying home.
Right. It's just failed to evolve to track the societal changes that put most families in a very different situation.
That is true. Women entered the work force in strong numbers recently, and the system has not caught up at all.
That's an easy one. DoubleB, the reason you see it this way is because your sex is the "default" one. You say "most people don't view work as inherently male." By "most people" I can only assume you mean most men. Because most women are well aware that in the workplace "male" is the default gender. Just take a look at any employee handbook, you'll see that most language is still the "default" he, him, his, etc...except chances are you don't notice this because again, it is YOUR gender (male) that is and STILL IS considered the "default".
I think this relates to a phenomenon that's been observed by many feminists. That true gender equity is actually perceived as skewed in favor of women. For example if a company were required to have 50% male executives and 50% female executives, this would be perceived as being biased towards women. True gender equity is perceived as inequity. I don't completely understand why this happens, but I think it has something to do with what is considered the "default" gender in the workplace.
It's ironic that since saying I was a man every response I get just says "male privilege". Perhaps I would have been taken more seriously if I'd pretended to be a woman.
No, I'd take you serious if you didn't try to come off as a male feminist, given your comments are anything but feminist and you don't seem anything at all like a true feminist ally. And frankly, I don't care whether or not some "nice guy" gets offended at what I say, or doesn't want to take me seriously. However, you just expect to say "but I'm a feminist too" and have us all accept that at face value. Sorry, it doesn't work that way, being a feminist means you actually have to try and do some work...saying you are one, does not make you one.
Furthermore, any male who comes on a feminist site, a women space, has to be aware of their own privilege if they want to be taken seriously, especially if they claim to be a feminist ally. For example - the privilege that men have to have their voices heard over women, the privilege that men have to be able to walk down the street and not be afraid that they will be targeted for sexual assault, the privilege that men have that means they get to keep their own name once they are married. Your comments all demonstrated that you had not even considered these things before speaking here. Sorry, but if you claim to be a feminist ally, and you claim to support women, than I'm going to hold your feet to the fire for it. I'm not going to sugar-coat things for you just because you might get offended. I'm going to tell you what I think, and if you don't like it, tough.
So, if you are unfamiliar with the whole concept of male privilege here's a read for you- and if you've already read it, well, re-read it:
http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2007/03/11/faq-what-is-male-privilege/
In the meantime you should think about what it means to be a male feminist ally commenting in a women run, women created, feminist space. Perhaps you should read some posts by some true male feminists. There are some links at the bottom of this link here, as well as what NOT to do as a feminist ally (by the way you've already broken several of those "don't do" things):
http://www.beingamberrhea.com/2008/07/14/how-to-be-a-male-feminist-ally/
yes, if it were neutral. However, ask most HR reps about hiring women who may become pregnant. they can't legally ask, so many will say it's a good idea to assume that a woman will become pregnant. This assumption isn't made about men. The sexism is the assumption that women will want to sacrifice work to family without any evidence, while the opposite assumption is made about men.
That's true, and it's illegal and immoral.
I'm not sure that it's part of most of society's view of the nature of work in general. But it is certainly a form of sexism that persists.
I don't think business discriminates against women in this regard. If men wanted to take more time for their kids, they would be treated the same way.
Are you kidding? Why, then, do companies routinely get accused of discriminating in their hiring practices against pregnant women or women with children?
This isn't a function of men simply wanting not to take time for kids, nor women wanting to. Even a woman who wants to work full-time while she has a few kids is shamed for her so-called neglect.
Your theory above places women and men in a social vacuum and imagines that, with regard to women, parenting is not the object of heaps of judgment and unsolicited advice, which it certainly is.
Only more education for every person.
How about serious criminal investigation and prosecution, obviating the need for newspaper headlines like "Thousands of rape kits expired in hospital storage?"
All things have to start with being right. To be effective you have to convince other people you are right. If you're not sure that you're right, it isn't prudent to start being effective.
In a word, no. You don't have to be right in order to convince other people you are. You don't even have to convince yourself in order to convince others. See: Lawyers, WMDs.
We're just now in the process of secularizing everyone as religion becomes less important to explaining the nature of the universe.
By everyone, do you mean Europeans? Because I think the Catholic Church, now making inroads at greater pace in Africa and Asia, and members of the Muslim faith, many of whom say they've witnessed a move in a more conservative direction recently, might beg to differ.
I don't have any data, but I personally suspect that children are more mentally healthy when they have stability of parents as opposed to one parent who has multiple sexual partners.
Out of curiosity, what makes you suspect that, and why do you associate non-marriage with multiple sexual partners? Do you also believe that accepting non-married hetero relationships leads inevitably away from monogamy? If not, why only gay ones?
What's stopping you?
I think that's Courtney's question. What's preventing you from being critical?
How about serious criminal investigation and prosecution, obviating the need for newspaper headlines like "Thousands of rape kits expired in hospital storage?"
But that's not about prevention. That only deals with handling rape after it happened. The question was about how to stop it from happening at all - and in answer to that, I agree with doubleb that education is needed.
Rape is simply hard to investigate and prosecute by its nature. It almost always involves one word against another. The words "reasonable doubt" are just hard to overcome. I don't think that police and prosecutors just sit on their thumbs, it's just very hard to unquestionably prove rape.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. That feminists should be convincing about things even when they know or suspect that they are wrong? If we're arguing just for its own sake I guess that's fine. What I should have said is that you can't "ethically" make effective changes when you don't even know if you're right.
I meant the general trend that I see for the world over the next several hundred years. Yes, religion is expanding in the least educated parts of the world. But it's disappearing in the most educated and wealthy parts. It's just a matter of helping the rest of the world catch up.
I didn't say anything relating marriage or non-marriage to multiple sexual partners. Nor did I say anything relating homosexual as opposed to heterosexual partners to marriage vs. non-marriage, or to monogamy vs. having multiple partners. You obviously don't like much of what I'm say, and you're building straw men.
What I said was "stability of parents". Maybe I could have been clearer. I meant that the child had the same consistent parental influences, be they mom and dad, mom and mom, dad and dad, just mom, just dad, or maybe even mom and dad and dad. The reason I am suspicious of single with multiple partners is because a child will see multiple figures that are in a naturally parental relationship, but in a temporary way. We might have to discuss whether viewing parents' sex partners as parents is indeed natural.
I suppose I'll resort to being explicit. Nothing is stopping me. I can and do have those conversations and I don't see any problem in having them. I am wondering why she views it as a difficulty.
"Rape is simply hard to investigate and prosecute by its nature. It almost always involves one word against another. The words "reasonable doubt" are just hard to overcome. I don't think that police and prosecutors just sit on their thumbs, it's just very hard to unquestionably prove rape."
Uh right. And it's easy to prove that the 20 bucks you stole from me was mine.
The reason it's a lot easier to get you arrested and convicted for stealing a 20 from me than it is to get you arrested and convicted for raping me is because "bitches lie."
It would be nearly impossible to convict me of stealing $20 from you. When it's just each of us saying "that is my $20" the idea that it isn't even reasonable to doubt that I lying means I'd have to be a very bad liar.
And really, would you propose just convicting any man accused of rape? Or shifting the burden to the accused to prove that he didn't rape the woman? I don't see any just way of handling things. I personally think that rapists should be killed or imprisoned for life when there is no real doubt about the crime. But the possibility of punishing an innocent person is always very distasteful.
1. What is the accurate, once-and-for-all differences between men's and women's brains?
I get the feeling this will be sorted out by neurologists in due time, and no one has the answer right now.
I get the opposite feeling, since current studies show that the brain is very flexible and develops in large part according to the environment you're in. If you get a lot of stimulation of one type, but none of another, your brain develops accordingly. So men's and women's brains differ according to the cultural and historical context they're in. This suggests that there is no "once-and-for-all," but that brain development and environment form a sort of feedback loop.
These "current studies"... they're probably not being done by plumbers, are they?
Wow, way to suggest that my research and my knowledge is invalid.
Actually, in the Philosophy department, dissertation committees don't generally accept research done by plumbers, but thanks for checking. I myself am actually not a plumber, so you probably would not be interested in reading my dissertation, or MA thesis, or the materials I use to teach my Feminist Theory course. If you'd care to read the rest of this thread you'll find I've referenced this research in other places, though.
1. What is the accurate, once-and-for-all differences between men's and women's brains?
There isn't one. There's no such thing as "men" and "women." might have to go back to Butler on that one.
2. How can a woman who's super invested in mothering also protect her own creative/intellectual/professional life?
The two don't necessarily trade off. In certain communities they may, but one could always move to a socialist country that protects the right to be a mother and a professional.
3. What truly works when it comes to rape and violence prevention?
These are forms of violence that may be inevitable in the near-future. The idea that we can completely eliminate these things by punishing offenders or training victims is probably not fair.
Education is probably the closest thing we can get.
4. When do I focus on being right and when do I focus on being effective?
There isn't a trade-off. We should be the change we wish to see.
5. When do I address sexism directly and when it is best to handle it indirectly?
I don't see a distinction between these things.
6. How can society still be so invested in the categories hetero, homo, and bi when sexuality so obviously exists on a spectrum?
The simple answer is that there isn't even a spectrum. There's just fluid, constantly shifting sexual and gender identities.
Society is still invested in these things because there are groups that benefit from their use.
7. Why do so many feminists resist being critical about the institution of marriage?
Some people have the agency to want to be married.
you shouldn't silence their voices.
8. How can we have no holds bar honest conversations about race and class disparities within feminist circles?
We do all the time. Some people choose not to speak up, and some people are marginalized by those discussions because they feel invisible.
9. How important is it that women embrace the feminist label?
It depends on the person. There is no universal answer to this question.
10. How ethical is it that feminist writers like Judith Butler and even bell hooks are hard for my women's studies 101 students to understand?
entirely. We should be able to write and communicate what we'd like. It's an agency question, not an ethics question.
Why haven't you spent the time to delve into and interrogate these texts to make them intelligible?
Why have you not taken on the project of creating intelligible texts?
Maybe your students have understandings that are not your own, but that are equally valid.
I am going to assume that you acknowledge that there are genetic factors that determine physical gender. If you don't, I suppose we don't have anything to talk about.
That said, how do you account for empirical studies that demonstrate consistent differences in the way physically male and physically female brains respond to identical stimuli?
Can you cite any of these "empirical studies" that actually apply to all "men" and "women"?
And there's no such things as "physical gender"--that is "sex," and one's sex cannot be easily catagorized or determined 100% of the time for all people. Chromosomes, horomones, and physical appearance still won't get you a definition that fits ALL people.
Just google "differences in female and male brains" and read basically anything. This isn't new science.
I should have said "sex" not "gender", my mistake.
Sex can be easily determined for the vast majority of people. When they don't, we call the resulting differences "mutations" or "errors".
I'm not sure if you were just pointing out my mistakes or if you agree with xocoatl.
Reading "basically anything" would likely lead people to quite a few articles that are backed by very shaky science indeed. If you want to point someone to research that does count as the empirical evidence you reference, do so, but please do not act as though googling a subject and clicking randomly on any link that comes up will provide well researched material.
I don't feel like searching thoroughly for a satisfactory journal. My point was that there is a broad, well established convention in the scientific community that there are physiological differences between the brains of men and women. If someone wants to fight that sort of convention, I'm going to shift the burden of proof to them.
It's also important to note that I don't think the differences have any bearing on any way that we should think or behave. Simply noticing a difference does not imply a normative judgment. I think there is too much suspicion among feminists that if there is indeed a difference, it will automatically open up an avenue for discrimination.
But fighting science is not the way to approach that debate. People who are otherwise scientifically uninterested fight this fact with too much zeal for me to believe they're merely skeptical of scientific methodology.
umm, not really. If you read these studies, the variation within the category of male and female is usually(always for the studies I've seen, though I am not expert enough to claim this is 100% true) much larger than any differences between the sexes. So yeah, one man's brain can be more different from another man's brain than from one womans. There's also a huge amount of overlap. so, scientifically proven differences? not so much. Just media sensationalism.
Examining data for statistically significant differences within a population which itself varies widely in the studied variable is still completely possible. Men and women are of all different shapes and sizes. Some men are small, and some women are large. Yet we are able to determine that men are larger than women on a statistically significant scale across the population as a whole.
This is the same thing with brains. Yes, men's vary widely. Yes, women's vary widely. Maybe much more widely than the average differences between sexes. That does not make the differences illusory.
Your confusion on this point is exactly what I mean by "otherwise scientifically uninterested people" The mistake is easy to make if you aren't familiar with statistics. But it's still a mistake.
first off, the question related to brain differences, not body differences-and there seems to be more internal variation and less absolute differences within the brain. It may not make differences illusory it does make these differences useless for any real world application I can think of. If there is more variation within the groups than between the groups, counting on every woman to act like an "average woman" and every man to act like an "average man" is a stupid idea. Should a woman whose brain is nearer the man's average be considered a man? This question is going to come up a lot more often than these averages are going to be useful. and I am in fact familiar with statistics and science grad student. Thanks for being patronizing, though.
Allow me to respond using all quotes from my post.
And finally...
I'm sorry for appearing patronizing, but within two posts, you made the exact fallacy I said feminists should avoid, responded in a way that ignored the exact disclaimer I had pointed out in regard to that fallacy, and demonstrated the antithesis of the final advice I suggested. It's just too much for me.
Calling someone confused for clarifying an overly general statement isn't very helpful. She understood it perfectly -- you seem to be clinging to the generalization as if it were the higher truth.
And yes, I've studied both science and statistics at a postgraduate level.
I interpreted that to say "there is a larger difference between sample sizes within each group than the difference between the groups, and there is overlap in values between the groups, therefore there is no "scientifically proven" (Which I understood to mean "statistically significant") difference."
Her evidence doesn't lead to her conclusion. I don't see how that is anything but confusion.
So your argument is that the sex chromosomes have no effect on brain development?
I would suggest starting with Anne Fausto-Sterling, and then looking at some of the recent studies that show that the brain develops according to the stimulus it receives from the environment. One study took kittens and blindfolded them in order to show that the brain centers that handle sight become non-functional after awhile and the areas that handle other senses grow and develop instead. Similarly, female brains from different cultures and historical periods display physical differences due to environmental factors.
This suggests that male and female brains develop differently according to the stimulus they're exposed to based on societal expectations.
This is important research and quite a good point. Please share any other resources of which you're aware.
I read several articles on this topic a couple of years ago, and don't remember the titles/authors off the top of my head. But the technical term for this area of research is something like "experience-dependent modification of cortical organization" and it seems to follow the "use it or lose it" pattern of development. So the number of synapses developed in different areas of the brain is dependent on the stimulus provided, and this can lead to actual structural differences in the brain. In some areas there's a specific time-frame for developing that part of the brain, and if you haven't done it by a certain age, then the amount of later development that can occur is severely limited.
When I was tutoring math for a living, I kind of wondered if this was partially behind the whole "I'm a math person" or "I'm just not a math person" thing. When you talk to so-called math people (myself included) they always had good experiences with math early on. Always. The opposite is true for non-math people. I tend to think that insufficient stimulation (not enough "Aha" moments?), combined with the negative self-image that develops, creates a sort of feedback loop where the experiences and attitudes give rise to and are reinforced by each other, leading to a condition that does kind of become "hardwired," for lack of a better term. Of course, this part is all speculation, as I'm not a neurobiologist, but it's fascinating stuff, for sure.
Interesting theory. It certainly seems perfectly plausible. There is also evidence that brains continue developing until 18-20 years of age, so there is certainly time for social pressures to differentiate brain types.
At the least this suggests that suggesting causation relating brain and behavior is difficult or impossible to determine. I don't see any way of controlling for near enough factors in a study.
In related news, I find the idea of doing that to kittens repulsive.
I generally distrust medical/biological/essentialist arguments, but I'll comment on this one. Studies of the neurological development consistently show that the human brain continues to develop after birth,and for quite a whil, too: i.e., when all kinds of socializing forces have come into play. Those have major consequences for the 'wiring' of the brain.
Then again, I don't think we can ever tell what 'nature' is; culture is always mediating our perception/experience of that 'natural' or ontological reality.
I would say also, that you can be both married and critical of the institution. One need not be on the outside of something to recognize there are problems with it, and one need not completely reject the institution in order to criticize and to try to change things from the inside.
I never saw myself getting married, ever. I've been vocal about this my entire life, until recently. Mr. KMP wants to be married, and I truly believe that we can lead by example, even if we only affect one other person's idea of what it means to be married or what marriage is. It's a small thing, but seeing how much it means to Mr. KMP, and knowing that I intended to live with him in a monogymous relationship until I die anyway, makes it easier for me enter into that contract and believe that my marriage can be different if we work very hard at it.
7. Why do so many feminists resist being critical about the institution of marriage?
Some people have the agency to want to be married.
you shouldn't silence their voices.
I think those are two different things.
They are for me anyway.
I am a feminist, and I am critical about the institution of marriage. Still, I got married.
This is perhaps inconsistent but life's complicated that way. Although I'm married I'm against legal privileges (tax-related, custody-related and otherwise) for married couples, and I think placing more value on heterosexual marriage than on any other form in which consenting adults wish to live, or in which children find a loving environment, is very wrong. So I'm married but will be very happy when that doesn't mean much anymore (apart from at a personal level).
Good questions, but I'm having a little trouble understanding #10. Why would it be "unethical" for these writers' materials to be complex? Do you think they should "dumb it down" (hope not!) or that professors should hold off on assigning them to more advanced Women's Studies courses? What's wrong with educational materials being challenging?
I agree. Butler especially does not write with the goal of producing undergrad intro texts. That's the role of others who understand this kind of pedagogy more.
I'm glad it wasn't just me. I tried parsing number 10 different ways, but I can't make sense of what questions Courtney is trying to ask.
same here.
It's more of a reverse argument. What is inherently wrong with polygamy? The way I typically defend homosexuality to its detractors is by pointing out that consenting adults can do whatever they want as long as they are not harming anyone.
People who oppose polygamy like to point out situations in which it can be abusive. But it isn't inherently abusive. A heterosexual marriage can be abusive or unhealthy in all the same ways as a polygamist relationship. At the end of the day, you are simply regulating what consenting autonomous adults can and cannot do in their personal relationships.
Do you have any argument that allows homosexual relationships but prevents polygamy inherently, and not on the basis of stereotypes or possibilities?
Why has feminism by and large been so conflicted about sexuality, pleasure, and sexual expression?
Great question, and such complex issues...
On Courtney's first question, "What are the accurate, once-and-for-all differences between men's and women's brains?" may I respectfully suggest that this is not really a useful question, any more than asking what the differences are between the brains of people of different ethnicities.
There may indeed be some differences, whether biological or social, that apply generally speaking. But they don't apply to everyone. Figuring out that men are "naturally" like so and women "naturally" like that gives one little real insight and marginalizes those who don't fit those rules.
Fundamentally, men and women are more like one another than we are like anything else on this planet. We do come in a fairly wide variety, but looking at us from a binary male/female perspective, in my view, leads to less understanding rather than more.
Physical/biological differences (and lack thereof), as they apply to health care, however, are really important, and still not getting enough attention. Though I would say that the male/female dichotomy is not enough for this stuff either, and may lead health care professionals and others to miss important things.
Figuring out that men are "naturally" like so and women "naturally" like that gives one little real insight and marginalizes those who don't fit those rules.
Thank you! These categories are just false: what about gay people? What about trans folks? What about intersex individuals? Too often, the scientists and media folks reporting "inherent" differences between "men" and "women" seem to be reaffirming, according to their own views, how "normal" men and women are, and how everyone else should be.
I would suggest that people approach Courtney's question #1 with her attitude in question #6: sex and gender are a spectrum of identities, interests, and aptitudes, like sexuality. Our brains are influenced by our pre-natal environment, chromosomes, hormones, our culture, and the continual feedback loop of environment/brain that causes our brain connections to grow and re-grow over time. Why focus on the trends when those trends change over time and across cultures, and when there are so many exceptions?
When is it best for me to talk? When is it best for me to listen?
Can a woman have domination fantasies and still be a feminist, especially when women like Catherine McKinnon made direct links to women's treatment in pornography and rape?
Does living in the bay cloud my views on women in the rest of America?
These too are tough questions. The talking & listening issue is something I address in my life constantly, not just on feminist issues--its always going to be hard to find that balance, so just enjoy the process, I suppose.
To your second question...well, this touches on voluptuouspanic question about feminism & sexual pleasure. There's an awful lot of academic-type writing on this issue which I won't get into. But in my mind, this is what the issue comes down too: if you spend your whole public (and usually private life) working against submission, taking leadership roles, and making yourself heard, then I think it's completely natural that every once in a while, we'd like to hand over the reins and let someone else be in charge! I think things get touchy when OTHER people being politicizing private sexual lives. I can critique the institution of porn all I'd like, but in the end, my personal feelings are between me and my browser.
Anywhere you live will lend itself a bias, but its much more rewarding to think of it as a lens. A lens can shift or change or be made stronger by working to understand women throughout America and the world. I don't think any of us should feel guilty for living in areas where our feminism is better received than others; this should, however, encourage us to share the wealth!
(Thanks everyone for these questions--so great thought-inducing posts here!!)
The porn issue is so complex. That's one thing I was trying to get at. Is the industry abusive of women? Oh definitely, hands down. Is pornography on the whole bad for women as a social group? I don't think so. There are examples of porn that are feminist, I think. And they've made excellent contributions to my sex life!
Well, to #1 I don't think there will ever be a definitive answer because the catagories themselves (men and women) are not fixed or wholly separate; it's the overlapping nature of human characteristics and qualities that make it nearly impossible to come up with definitive biologically based answers. It's hard enough to find a 100% catch-all definition for what constitutes "men" and "women," let alone define what differences exist in the brains of individuals who comprise these catagories; even "XX" or "XY" chromosomes aren't sufficient enough to lable all people either "man" or "woman" or their sex-based "male" and "female."
While I find neuroscience fascinating, I don't want or need an answer to a question like "What is the accurate, once-and-for-all differences between men's and women's brains," because the answer doesn't really matter to me in any real, meaningful way, and whatever "differences" are purported, they will most certainly be used to justify new or existing prejudices and stereotypes.
I'll come back to the list later, I'm sure. Very thought provoking post, Courtney!!
I have an extension to number 1: How do hormones affect people's behavior?
If hormones create a real statistical difference in behavior, does society have the right to change its behavior in response?
Can society be practical in the short term without being racist or sexist in the long term (i.e. discrimination has caused poor performance in minorities and women)?
When can we get rid of affirmative action? How will we know when that's happened?
doubleb, you said "I don't have any data, but I personally suspect that children are more mentally healthy when they have stability of parents as opposed to one parent who has multiple sexual partners."
No, you don't have any data. And I think that is a very unkind and quite possibly inaccurate thing to say about single-parent families. Are two parents always stable? No. Does every single parents have multiple sexual partners? No. And why is it wrong for a child to see a happy mother with "multiple sexual partners," anyway, if that WERE the case?
I find your assumptions in that sentence very offensive.
You're right, that initial thought wasn't fully hashed out.
All else being equal, I think children benefit more from having a stable parental relationship. I didn't claim two parents were always stable. I didn't claim that every parent had multiple sexual partners. I didn't claim that it was "wrong" for a child to see a single parent with multiple sexual partners. I said that if all else was equal, given the difference between two stable parents raising a child and one parent raising a child with multiple partners, my intuition would be that the first situation would produce a more mentally healthy child.
I am also not saying that this is certainly the case, or even probably the case. I am saying that it is an intuition I have. I don't want to offend anyone, but I think I should be free to have opinions and say them, particularly in a normatively neutral tone.
No, you didn't claim those things. But plenty of people, myself included, read between the lines. You contrasted "married couples" with "single parents with multiple sex partners."
Uhhh, you don't have to be married to be monogamous or committed.
And even if you DO think marriage is the best environment in which to raise children, I don't see why that should stop you from critiquing certain aspects of the institution.
On the contrary. I didn't contrast "married couples", I contrasted "stable partners" in a "committed relationship". So basically, I said exactly what you criticized me for denying after you put new words in my mouth.
I understand your instinct to "read between the lines" because you are suspicious of everyone who says anything not patently mainstream feminist, but I choose my words carefully: specifically so that there is no need to read between the lines.
I don't think so. We must eliminate any inherent ability as a possible basis for discrimination. The reason is that judging people based on their personal abilities is never completely possible. So if two candidates are identical within the limit of your testing process, the correct move is to use probability indicators.
If all I know is that I need to hire someone to life boxes, and I have a 20 year old high school graduate male, and a 20 year old high school graduate female, If I can discriminate based on gender, I should choose the male. The average male is physically stronger than the average female.
That's an extreme example, but limited resources mean that we must make decisions based on limited information. When two candidates are functionally equivalent, discriminating based on known gender factors is prudent.
I'm sure I'll get flamed for this post, but really, consider my argument first.
But in your hiring hypothetical you haven't considered whether the job (lifting boxes) requires more strength than the average female. If your boxes don't weight all that much, why should the female be disqualified?
Also, when evaluating a candidate an employer ought to evaluate the individual rather than assume he/she is the "average". You wouldn't reject a 5'10" woman who played college basketball for the box lifting job and favor the 5-8 man who never saw the inside of a gym on the reasoning that most men are stronger than women. I hope not anyway.
Right, but in all your examples we're adding information. If we don't know anything about the boxes to be lifted, there are scenarios where both could perform equally, but there are scenarios where strength will help. With no more info, choose potential advantage.
When you add info about the people like height or background, then you can make a more informed the decision. Sometimes it is economically inefficient to gather more information. The hypothetical is just to illustrate that in those cases, the default position is discrimination. This shouldn't be a large problem at all, but the fringe cases are the interesting ones.
OK, but I'm arguing there needs to be 1) more evaluation of the requirements of positions (combat pilot, e.g.) to see if requirements are arbitrarily in place which unjustly discriminate and 2) more information obtained from applicants (size if that's a factor) to leave behind discriminatory factors which are of marginal utility.
Oh, certainly. My only point is that when it is not economically rational to collect more information, and and potential people are still functionally equivalent, it would be rational to discriminate. I think that even that should be illegal. So basically we want the same end result. I'm just saying that even in a world free of prejudiced people, such a rule would still be required.
1) Given that we are all, on some unconscious level, sexist, racist, etc., how do we live as if we weren't? How do we ensure that voluntary egalitarianism wins out over involuntary prejudice? How do we deal with the times when it doesn't?
2) How can feminism undermine the logic of in-group and out-group that makes hatred of the Other so vital to so many men's worldview? How can feminism expunge the same in-group tendencies from itself?
3) How do we transmit feminism to future generations? What can we do, today, to ensure that today's children will be tomorrow's feminists? What cultural weapons can we deploy to counteract the overwhelming bias of children's and teens' media?
kjt: Why are so many women who are feminists still quick to shrink from the word "feminist"?
I can tell you why I stopped identifying as feminist: too many associations with other areas of "liberal" ideology, only some of which I agree with. At some point, feminism stopped being about sex egalitarianism and started to be a grab-bag of numerous positions. Most self-described feminists will argue that I am a feminist because I believe in sex egalitarianism, and that's all it takes, but sometimes when it comes to convincing me of their other, unrelated positions, they'll call it a feminist issue, and say that a real feminist would agree with them there as well.
This is interesting, Alice. What kind of other issues are you talking about?
The biggest one that comes to mind is economics and the limits of state power. Feministing.com has often made me thing, "Since when has feminism become anti-market?" as when enoughenough.org was linked, and it seems to be mostly taken for granted that someone who favors gender-blind pay must also favor forcing gender-blind pay by legislative fiat. My position is that market economies are essential to all individual freedom, including that of women, and that having the government stick its nose into private transactions is something to be avoided on principle, which puts me at odds with more statist feminists who think that morality and law should be the same thing, and who therefore question whether I'm actually in favor of sex egalitarianism in the first place.
This is rarely explicit. Usually it takes the form of me arguing against the government doing something to force equality, and being responded to as though I was arguing against equality itself.
"it seems to be mostly taken for granted that someone who favors gender-blind pay must also favor forcing gender-blind pay by legislative fiat."
Is there any way to work towards gender-blind pay without legislation that mandates it? Or do you not feel it is something we as a society should work towards?
I actually agree with you that there are "too many associations with other areas of "liberal" ideology" and I used to be a hardcore Ayn Rand fan. But I was pretty upset when the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act was defeated. I feel like in the case of Ledbetter, what Goodyear did by paying her less than all the male managers is analogous to Goodyear stealing money that was rightfully hers. And no one (well, maybe not no one...) would argue that there shouldn't be legislation against theft.
Accidentally responded with using the "Reply" feature. Response further down in the thread.
The question which I struggle with the most (though it is a bit more personal and less general) is "Is spending way more money and time than my male friends on bath products, cosmetics, fashion and hair cut/style o.k.? Especially when some, like hair removal products and makeup, are gender specific. If it is ok, at what point is it not ok?" At times I enjoy playing around with makeup looks and nice products but I also sometimes resent the pressure to do it and the cost. (I was just thinking the other day about how much of my life has been spent "getting ready" to go out, especially as opposed to the guys I know.) Plus, if I wasn't judged so much on my appearance would I give a damn about any of it? How much of a hypocrite am I that I decry the pressure on women to conform to the pressure of media to look "beautiful" (which often means cosmetics, styled hair, etc) yet still feel the need to do my makeup before I leave the house? Should I be less harsh on myself or hold myself to higher standards?
I totally understand your conflict here. A few years ago I decided to stop spending money on most of the cosmetic products that I used because I absolutely hate the "beauty industry" and I was sick of giving them, literally 100+ dollars every month.
So, I stopped buying disposable tampons/pads and use rewashable handmade ones. The shampoo I use is basically "gender" neutral (it's not marketed specifically at women or men) because it's organic/fair trade (and it's actually cheaper than your standard herbal essence, pantene, whatever beauty industry brand marketed at mostly women)...for an all purpose hand & body soap I use Dr. Bronner's which, oz. per oz. is much cheaper than dove or similar brands. I have some lotion that I use, but it's inexpensive organic stuff, again without large marketing expenses, you'd be surprised that there are actually affordable organic health and beauty products out there. And that's basically it.
I don't use deodorant anymore because it's full of harmful ingredients and I actually find, interestingly enough, that I sweat less without it(although I hardly sweat at all, so for me it's not a big deal going without)...If anything sometimes I'll splash on some tea tree oil that I also have laying around which also doubles as an aid to apply to cuts & burns. I don't use any of the the hair moose/gel/spray that I used to use...because I wear my hair more natural now...same with my face and makeup - I maybe use lip balm now and then and a small amount of eyeshadow that I got as a gift my last birthday. But pretty much my only recurring purchase every few months is a bottle of shampoo and Dr. Bronners soap. In fact, now that men are more and more being targeting with cosmetic products as well, I probably actually spend less money than most men do!
And it feels great that I'm not giving $100+ dollars each month to an industry that I loathe. I suggest trying to eliminate things slowly, and try finding substitute products that have multiple uses (like tea tree oil for deodorant/cuts/burns etc, Dr. Bronners all purpose soap for hands, body, laundry, cleaning, etc.)...You'll be surprised how much the "beauty industry" has convinced us that we absolutely can't live without their products, and, how much of their products you actually can indeed eliminate.
These are really good questions to think about. Some questions that I think about a lot:
- Similar to what kjt said, when will careers/hobbies/interests cease to have gender-related meanings? (i.e. when will a love for cooking stop meaning that one is "unfeminist," or a love for hockey stop meaning that one is "unfeminine")? Is there anything that we, as feminists, should be doing to de-emphasize the arbitrary gendering of hobbies and likes/dislikes?
- Is it possible for feminism to be made up of a wider variety of women, such as homemakers, mothers, married women, and religious women, without losing meaning or focus? Is it possible for a woman to believe in the importance of marriage and be a feminist? To believe that life begins at conception and be a feminist? To want to quit her job to raise her kids and be a feminist? If not, why not, and is that okay?
Here, I'll take a stab at these.
1. None. On average, men will have a different hormonal environment than women, and will almost certainly face different psychological/social factors that will modify the brain in ways we do not understand. But at the core, before these are factored in: no difference.
2. Can super-invested fathers still have careers? Yup. How can mothers achieve the same? Probably the same way: Giving 100% to their careers, but only during working hours. (I would say "You can't in this patriarchal society" but that's too depressing.)
3. Education, education, education. Make it clear at every level that brutal attitudes towards women are not acceptable. And education for women that a boyfriend who hits is not really a boyfriend in any sane definition of the word.
4. Wish I knew. Versus malignant bosses, I'll often give them a piece of my mind. That's right, in a way (and satisfying) but not very effective for my career!
5. Reporting people directly for sexism, racism, etc can breed a backlash, no matter what supposedly enlightened policies your workplace has. Dialoguing with a diehard sexist usually is a waste of time and is counterproductive if they're your boss (see #4). So when can we use our more direct methods? When we have direct proof (emails, etc) we can show to the powers-that-be so that it is not a he-said-she-said argument.
6. Beats me. Ask the Mormon church. Actually, some in the gay community are equally biased against bi people and embrace the same "pick a side already, damnit" attitude as many homophobes -- especially with bi men. Dan Savage used to be notorious for this.
7. Romantic delusions, perhaps. Hey, I'm not immune to this either. Pledging your life to your partner, to be there forever in sickness and in health... gays are fighting for marriage rights for a reason.
8. Here's an idea: invite people outside of your rich white circle to the conversation. *We have to move feminism out of the ivory tower.* You just won't find too many African-American single moms in your elite Ivy-league women's studies class. We need to stop theorizing and start offering real-world solutions for real-world women (people, I should say).
9. Very. But we have not exactly done a very good job pitching feminism to women outside of upscale white college campuses, now have we?
10. Beats me. But then again, as the above makes clear, I'm not exactly a big fan of making women's studies college courses the cornerstone of feminism as a political movement. :)
Re: (6), I think it's just a general fact that humans love to categorize things in ways that, when you get down to it, are pretty arbitrary. Why do we all focus on liberals, moderates, and conservatives, when it's obvious that political views lie on a spectrum?
The point generalizes all over the place. Feminism comes on a spectrum, too -- but there's not necessarily anything wrong with categorizing people into feminists and nonfeminists, for some purposes.
So I don't think the problem is that people think in terms of categories instead of a smooth section -- the problem is that for some baffling reason, lots of people care about what gender other people are attracted to.
Mine relates to #10:
How do I reconcile my desire (to spread feminist values to the working-class women, like my family in Eastern Kentucky, who need it) with my job (where I pass feminism down only to those privileged enough to go to a university)?
There is certainly an abundance of criticism of the institution of marriage from feminists, so you aren't claiming there isn't any such criticism.
Your use of "so many" suggests that you believe that not enough feminists are critical of marriage.
Your use of "resist" suggests that such criticism should be the norm or that the institution is so worthy of criticism, that any feminist thinker would have to swim against the force of a tide of normal feminist thinking to avoid being critical of the institution.
So, I guess you dislike the institution of marriage so much that one can hardly be a feminist and not criticize it, much less ever get married oneself?
Marriage as an institution doesn't necessary have to be misogynist. That some are, that historically women within marriage were treated as 2nd class citizens, even more powerless than unmarried women, doesn't mean it has to be. It's not the institution; it's the people in it.
Courtney, I'm not sure what you mean in question 10 by ethical. I think one thing that Butler and hooks do is try to challenge our usual ways of thinking - and reading. It's hard for college students, but college is SUPPOSED to be hard, and helping them learn to read and comprehend something that was too difficult for them to grasp on the first time is a great service to their intellectual development.
I'm still curious about the intersection of feminism and sex work. That is, can prostitution be a feminist act? Is women using sex to climb the ranks (be it in the corporate world, entertainment, etc.) just an advantage we should exploit or something to steer clear from?
I'm still curious about the intersection of feminism and sex work. That is, can prostitution be a feminist act? Is using sex to climb the ranks (be it in the corporate world, entertainment, etc.) just an advantage we should exploit or something to steer clear from?
As for the first question: Why does it matter? Since brain matter is far from static, the question seems sort of chicken-or-egg: Did socialization cause men's and women's bodies, brains included, to adapt differently, if they ever did, or were they different to begin with?
Personally I find any answer irrelevant at best and harmful at worst, and I look forward to the day when I don't have to listen to other people's conversations about the differences between men, women and their respective relationship needs and courting practices. (I was subjected to another of these recently at the hands of an insufferable cousin.)
Here's my attempt to answer your questions. I'll tackle the ones I feel I can really say something about.
1. Difficult to say. There's no thick line between the cultural and the natural. I think we need to be patient while biologists and psychologist tackle the problem for us before we attempt to try and solve this one ourselves.
2. Depends on what you call "super invested". Being a 19 year old man I wouldn't know the first thing about mothering but, being a rather creative person myself, my guess is that for the creative/intellectual part, all you really need is a bit of motivation with some free time by -and for- yourself. For the professional part, it's probably very hard if not impossible because there are only 24 hours in a day and to have a healthy career, you need to be available.
3. I think part of the answer would be more openness towards the male inclination to seek sexual pleasure. There are countries, especially in the Muslim world, where people (men AND women alike) are CONVINCED that if a woman is raped or sexually harassed, somehow SHE'S partially to blame for it. The reality of these sexual impulses is vastly overestimated, witch makes things a lot worse. When a man becomes aware of this he can better understand where these urges come from, and can start learning to control them.
4. Trying to understand reality should be done when you need to know HOW to be effective. Just remember that if you're always wrong because you don't take the time to learn about what's around you, people will turn away from you and you'll become inefficient. You should not separate effectiveness and being right, but combine the two in order to REALLY create an impact and become 100% efficient.
5. I really don't know. I suppose you should think about what is the most effective in a given situation (see .4).
6. Because people have the tendency to categorize individuals into cultural groups. This is not specific to sexual orientation, it's the way society defines a culture. I'm not sure whether this is good or bad, since giving you a standard and an example helps you define who you are, but they become hard to escape from. However, it's a fact and should be taken in consideration.
7. I haven't noticed. Most feminists I know openly criticize marriage. Not that I'm in a position to doubt your opinion, but are you sure it's a significant tendency among feminists? If it is it would be an interesting issue to investigate. If not, then I guess there are only individual reasons and you should ask them directly.
Skipping 8., because I really don't know. Moving right along :P
9. VERY. They don't have to actually burn down houses and throw flaming bricks at people with the slightest sexist tendency, but just for the sake of being a feminist. I think that the feminist issue shouldn't be exceptional, as it is today (the very fact that it's called a "label" illustrates my point), but should be openly brought to mind in everyday life so that it would become normal for everyone to ask her- or himself "Does this hurt feminist values" or "Is what I'm doing devaluating women's role in society", because most harm done towards women is not active and deliberate, but subtle and unconscious. It is crucial that women embrace the feminist label until it becomes a NORM, and no more a "label".
10. repeat 8.
OK, my turn. Here's a question I've been thinking about. I think that in order to turn feminism into a norm, you have to teach women to embrace feminism on one hand, and you need to convince men to cut women some slack on the other. My question is this:
When can we say MEN are responsible for social injustice towards women, and when can we say WOMEN are responsible for not asking to be treated equally.
I mean, if women in some company are given a smaller salary than men for equal amount and quality of work, isn't it unrealistic to expect change if these women don't stand up and ask for it? ( YES YOU CAN, ladies! ;) )
You can only get away with a name like that if you are a total dick.
Wow, how is that relevant?
"You can only get away with a name like that if you are a total dick."
You can only make a comment like that if you are not a nice person.
To be honest, Nice Guy's non-ironic use of "ladies" bothered me as well.
Yes, it's irritating, but is it a valid reason to silence him? Does it invalidate everything he said? That just seems kind of extreme to me.
It was a joke.
While I don't want to disparage a 19 year old male from being involved with this site, as I think that is commendable, I do respectfully take issue with you saying that women are responsible for not demanding equality. I'm sure most women are not okay with getting paid less to do the same job as a man and we are working hard to change that, but realistically if a female needs the job or wants to keep it, in many situations there is only so much she can do. If a group of people is being oppressed or a victim of inequality the blame should not fall on that group of people. There may or may not be actions that group can take to help themselves, but the moral burden falls on the group which is benefitting from taking advantage of them. So, while I appreciate your encouragement, it is often a lot more complicated than "yes you can".
Oh, by the way, I just wanted to add that I would hope that since you expect women who are paid less than men to "ban together and demand equal pay" that if you also worked at that company that you, as a man, would also be right there working with and supporting them. So really, instead of "yes you can, ladies", it should be "yes we can."
I definitely have to agree -- the "ladies" bit at the end, along with that whole phrase, is kind of nauseating. Especially with the little winky-face.
What really amazes me is that nobody called you out yet on #3: "I think part of the answer would be more openness towards the male inclination to seek sexual pleasure. There are countries, especially in the Muslim world, where people (men AND women alike) are CONVINCED that if a woman is raped or sexually harassed, somehow SHE'S partially to blame for it. The reality of these sexual impulses is vastly overestimated, witch makes things a lot worse. When a man becomes aware of this he can better understand where these urges come from, and can start learning to control them."
You seem to be arguing that rape in such places is at least partly due to men overestimating women's sexual impulses... Wow. First off, women tend to have at least as much sexual drive as men -- it's just not recognized. When it IS overestimated is in a traumatic situation such as rape. I think it's quite obvious that the woman wouldn't be feeling very horny at that point.
Secondly, you seem to be falling prey to the old, old fallacy that rape is a result of men being incapable of controlling their sexual impulses. That is a falsehood, the purpose of which is to shield men from responsibility for their actions. "Sorry darling, I just couldn't help myself... my manly hormones took over, and you know how THAT goes." You also seem to subscribe to this false inequality between men's and women's sex drives given that your answer refers specifically to "the male inclination to seek sexual pleasure" (emphasis mine).
How 'bout we get more openness toward the female inclination to seek sexual pleasure? Guys have tons of male-directed porn and Viagra, while a woman seeking contraception is likely to get shamed -- even if it's for menstrual irregularities.
Finally, men seeking sexual release is NOT the cause of rape. As you'd be aware, had you spent some time reading and listening to feminist info sources before trying to solve all our problems, it's about power. Pure and simple.
For #1 the answer is simple, there is no physiological difference between men's brains and women's brains. At all. Take a basic college class on Physiological Psychology, or Neurological Studies and someone will always ask that question. There is no difference, take a look at any peer reviewed studies on the topic and they will give you the same answer.
And I think there is a lot of confusion among people and the definition of gender and sex. So, once and for all: Sex = Male, Female; Gender= masculine, feminine. It drives me crazy when I fill out a form that asks for "gender" and then has a check box for male and female. Gender refers to the "socially constructed roles, behaviors, activities, and attributes that a given society considers appropriate for men and women." And Sex refers to biological and physiological characteristics.
That's funny, because as a veteran of many college level science classes, I have seen quite the opposite. Just go google "Differences between men's and women's brains" and you'll notice that every link contains an article that says they are indeed different.
Can you point me to some article that says there is no difference?
see my comment above-look at the difference between sexes and the difference within the sexes. This does mean you have to read the whole study, not just the media report from Google, but still.
The conclusions remain valid, as per my response above.
That's just the problem, you aren't going to find reliable sources from doing a google search on the differences between men and women's brains. It is such a popular myth that there are differences between men and women that you will of course find Google results to support your theory. There are dozens of articles about studies that rely on correlation, and you cannot determine causation from a correlation.
If you look at peer reviewed articles from accredited journals you will find data that is actually reliable. Let me say that again, peer reviewed studies. I really do not have the time to look them up, but do some research of past articles in "The American Journal of Psychiatry", or "Neuropharmacology" you can find them at any library or University database. Please do not rely on your Google search engine to come up with reliable data, that's just as bad as using Wikipedia.