The "I'm feeling hormonal today" excuse

[Artemis]

It's not about having a sex change, it's about embodying the values of men, about accepting them as the goal to achieve, about having equality in numbers, reaching occupation that are male dominated, without questionning if a behavior of competition is a valuable goal or not.

Sophie, are you talking about the feminism of e.g. Helene Cixous as well as Simone de Beauvoir?

I think their feminism, particularly Cixous'. sometimes seems challenging as it may appear to be counter to what feminists fought for. There is quite a lot of opposition to Cixous' ideas, although personally I like them.

What she is saying effectively is that feminists have erred in aspiring to have equality within the current patriarchal structure, when in fact they should be creating their own structure without reference to or basis in patriarchal ideas.

[lovefromgirl]

Sophie, are you talking about the feminism of e.g. Helene Cixous as well as Simone de Beauvoir?

I think their feminism, particularly Cixous'. sometimes seems challenging as it may appear to be counter to what feminists fought for. There is quite a lot of opposition to Cixous' ideas, although personally I like them.

What she is saying effectively is that feminists have erred in aspiring to have equality within the current patriarchal structure, when in fact they should be creating their own structure without reference to or basis in patriarchal ideas.

I've heard that argument before and I find I agree with it, by and large. Example: It's not necessarily that aspiring to careers that are dominated by men is a bad thing; it's aspiring to do so in a way that exactly mimics the oppressor instead of bringing one's own nature (whatever that may be) to the job that I balk at.

I think we do need to be working together to create our own standards, to suit our ideas, rather than attempting to be what we have despised. Equality on our terms, not theirs, whoever your personal "them" may be.

[Anise]

Contrary to liberal feminists, I don't think women should try and be men. I think we should accept that all of us, men and women, are sometimes having behavior based on hormones fluctuation (testosterone does fluctuate during the day for men too!) I think there should be a stop to pretend that we ought to be "rational" 100% of the time like the male "ideal" dictates. We are all subjected to desires, needs, hormones that are out of the grasp of our minds.

First off, I'll say I am no expert in the least in feminist theory, although I run into it in geopolitics and environmental studies- there is practically feminist critique of everything. :D

The problem I see with your statement of liberal feminists wanting women to attempt to be men is that it affirms a distinction between men and women and characterizes each group with certain assumptions. I may be a woman and like many women (although certainly not all women), I do experience hormonal changes. This however does not mean that I am more emotional and irrational than any man. The idea that hormones means emotional and irrational is a construct as is the inherent negativity of emotions and irrationality. I think that many feminists such as myself would affirm that both men and women display emotions and rationality, and neither of these behaviors/traits are inherently positive or negative. Also, in my opinion, there is more variation among each sex group than between them.

[Mama Mia]

But I don't think you can argue that society as a whole places an equal value on traits that are considered feminine and masculine. Logical thinking (masculine ) is given a higher value than emotional reasoning ( feminine ). There is no intrinsic reason why this is so. Black and white legalistic "logic" is placed above empathy and shades of gray that are attributed to emotional thinking.

I don't think any of this is "new" feminist theory, I know we discussed it when I was in college 25 years ago.

[spragger]

But I don't think you can argue that society as a whole places an equal value on traits that are considered feminine and masculine. Logical thinking (masculine ) is given a higher value than emotional reasoning ( feminine ). There is no intrinsic reason why this is so. Black and white legalistic "logic" is placed above empathy and shades of gray that are attributed to emotional thinking.

I don't think any of this is "new" feminist theory, I know we discussed it when I was in college 25 years ago.

Yes, this same debate was going on in college 10 years ago. It is never-ending, I guess. Also, in the grand scheme of things you could say10, even 25 years is "new" theory.

[Deleted03]

I never said it was new ;)

Anise I'm talking about gendered perceptions of masculine and feminine, not that every man has them and every woman has them.

Yes a lot of issues are debates that cannot be resolved because we all have different positions. There are many feminists, and liberal feminist does not mean you have to be on the "liberal" case in the political spectrum, it's a feminist theory.

[Deleted03]

First of all, I'm not a dude so don't call me that. I have read many, many "scientific" articles that say these things, and they're all junk science based on a patriarchal premise. Unless a "study" is conducted with absolutely no gender bias, it's a crock. And since when is having goals and achieving them, as well as working in a "male" occupation mean that a woman wants to be a man? At least I think that's what you're saying, because your post really did not make a lot of sense.

well first disagreement, there are no study with no gender bias, what I am saying other feminists have said. I'm a feminist, just not a liberal feminist. But you know, whatever ;)

[Deleted03]

I've heard that argument before and I find I agree with it, by and large. Example: It's not necessarily that aspiring to careers that are dominated by men is a bad thing; it's aspiring to do so in a way that exactly mimics the oppressor instead of bringing one's own nature (whatever that may be) to the job that I balk at.

I think we do need to be working together to create our own standards, to suit our ideas, rather than attempting to be what we have despised. Equality on our terms, not theirs, whoever your personal "them" may be.

Yes lovefromgirl.

And Artemis, don't need to go to Cixous' extremes to be making those arguments :) Liberal feminists are rarely loved within critical feminists, I might be a little unfair, but I do believe their analysis and the solutions they've promoted have lacked a self reflection on values that are "valued" in society and how we could rethink them, not simply adopt men's.

---

Yes my statement was a shortcut, I'm sorry I don't always remember I am not in class where people have read similar texts. It's also problematic that what you read in the media or mainstream journalistic stuff makes use of classification differently than theory does.

[Anise]

Anise I'm talking about gendered perceptions of masculine and feminine, not that every man has them and every woman has them.

If I read you correctly, you stated that women ought not to try to conform to that "masculine ideal" (because of those pesky, pesky hormones), while I am questioning whether it should be considered masculine or feminism, ideal or not, in the first place.

[lovefromgirl]

Anise--I find it helpful to reframe in terms of "my people" and "the people who are hurting my people". Intersectionality makes deciding which is which interesting! Removes the problem of "masculine or feminine", redirects energy towards cooperating with people who share my ideas.

[Witsec1]

I don't like gendering attributes like reason, logic, empathy.

Academic feminism is in worse trouble than I thought if it's now OK to accuse other feminists of "wanting to be men". Some women might want to be men because they are transgender, but accusing women who women who just want an equal chance at power, success, or achievement of wanting to be men? That is something that anti-feminists do.

[Witsec1]

Yes lovefromgirl.

And Artemis, don't need to go to Cixous' extremes to be making those arguments :) Liberal feminists are rarely loved within critical feminists, I might be a little unfair, but I do believe their analysis and the solutions they've promoted have lacked a self reflection on values that are "valued" in society and how we could rethink them, not simply adopt men's.

---

Yes my statement was a shortcut, I'm sorry I don't always remember I am not in class where people have read similar texts. It's also problematic that what you read in the media or mainstream journalistic stuff makes use of classification differently than theory does.

And it's always fun to accuse people of being sellouts! Yeaaaa, let's use anti-feminist insults on our fellow feminists!

[Deleted03]

If I read you correctly, you stated that women ought not to try to conform to that "masculine ideal" (because of those pesky, pesky hormones), while I am questioning whether it should be considered masculine or feminism, ideal or not, in the first place.

not at all. I'm saying instead of putting "reason" which is a gendered (attributed to male), racialized (white male are rational) and even maybe class based idea, why don't we question this reason and this idea of irrationality and hormones?

SO yeah no problem with women saying they have hormonal imbalances and that affect what they say. I,d even say males are also submitted to that, and let's just leave the rationality, I always have to be "rational" at the door.

I don't like gendering attributes like reason, logic, empathy.

Academic feminism is in worse trouble than I thought if it's now OK to accuse other feminists of "wanting to be men". Some women might want to be men because they are transgender, but accusing women who women who just want an equal chance at power, success, or achievement of wanting to be men? That is something that anti-feminists do.

I don't have a problem calling them feminists, some other strands of feminism might disagree on their being feminists. Yes feminisms is a broad spectrum! Some of the positions of "fellow" feminists I absolutely disagree with. Some of them are sellouts, yes. Do I think that everything they do is wrong? No because it's all about trade offs too. Feminists can be everywhere on the political spectrum, and I sure as hell won't side with far right feminists.

The idea is to make your own choices on what you believe or not, and there has been many debates on deciding if there's a common agenda or not, and many conflicts on how to best address certain issues. I think this diversity is a wealth as well as a big challenge.

A very good friend of mine is trans. I have no problem with his choice (when some radical (read here from the feminist radical school of thought) actually barred him from teaching classes), he's still feminist, and actually he would be even harsher on liberal feminists than I am. I don't have a problem with us making choices, but not questioning the gender structure apart from mere numbers on how many females are in what occupation, that I have a trouble with.

I know for you I must seem like a horrible feminist bashing on other feminists, but what I've seen and experienced in a very particular setting, the "intolerance" (and here I merely stated I did not agree with liberal feminist practices) is coming from some of the feminists from the 60's and 70's now in position of power (and no they're not liberal feminist either). You will certainly not believe me, but I'm among the moderates ;)

[Anise]

not at all. I'm saying instead of putting "reason" which is a gendered (attributed to male), racialized (white male are rational) and even maybe class based idea, why don't we question this reason and this idea of irrationality and hormones?

So are you saying that the whole idea of rationality is informed by white male, and that if we divorced rationality from that, there would be nothing left?

[Deleted03]

So are you saying that the whole idea of rationality is informed by white male, and that if we divorced rationality from that, there would be nothing left?

Yes rationality is a concept promoted by the Enlightenment, a group of white (relatively) privileged males and it needs to be contextualized as such.

I don't know about nothing left, because you can't separate ideas from their context and you should not. But instead of assuming everything was so good in the Enlightenment and in their concept, we should question that and see what power relations are actually carried through those concepts.

If rationality is used as an excuse for self-centered behavior, then it's problematic. If rationality is assumed of the "homo" economicus, but in reality does not work (see last economic crises, thanks to mathematical modeling using rational choice theories and math equation about our own economy and lives) well it should be questioned.

Yes it sounds like a lot of effort and a lot of talk, but there are many good things coming from those discussions, and yes concrete projects too.

[theologygeek]

Ok this is probably going to get me in deep trouble but I gotta say something.

We get all uppity about women's rights here. Nothing wrong with that. Then I read posters, over and over again, using the excuse "I'm hormonal". Does anyone else cringe when the read someone throwing out such an excuse? Is this really the image modern independent women should be projecting "don't mess with me today, I'm hormonal!"

Talk about setting the women's movement back a few steps.

I kind of think this sets women back more. There are women who suffer from hormonal problems which include post partum depression, post partum psychosis, pms, and other things. I hate when women's issues are declared insignificant or fake. Some doctors do it too. This is a lesson that I learned the hard way. When I was younger and women would say that they had horrible period cramps, I'd say in my head "Oh come on, they can't be that bad." After my last child was born, my body staged a revolt and I suffered from terrible cramps. I realized how wrong I was.

[theologygeek]

I get migraines. The doctor recently made a change in my blood pressure meds, and that seems to have taken care of them.

I'm not saying there are not physical effects from our cycles. What I'm saying is, we have to stop using said cycles as a crutch. If we want to be viewed as responsible adults, we have to act as responsible adults.

I believe that such excuses are a detriment to women because for too long, women were considered unreasonable because of their emotional hormonal natures. The ole canard that 'well, women aren't emotionally stable enough to make the important decisions'.

How do you know it's a crutch? Some women have pms so bad that they rage.

[Defrauding Errday]

I have very little tolerance for the "it's the hormones" excuse. For too long I have been the emotional punching bag for people who can't straighten up their shit and realize that their problems aren't a blank check to dump on everyone else. What's even worse is when women seem gleeful about being able to use PMS/pregnancy/(peri-)menopause to treat others poorly.

[valsa]

Nope, what I did was flat out aggressive disagreement. Nothing passive about it.

*ETA: Oh, I see what you were going for better now, I think. You're calling me hypocritical for "diagnosing" you as passive aggressive. Here's the difference - being bipolar is a mental disorder. Being passive aggressive is an asshole disorder.

Aw, this is why I think you're awesome, Lissar.

As far as the OP goes- I can be a bitch on any given day and I get downright mean when I'm PMS-ing. If I act like an asshole to someone I care about because of my hormones, I do tell them why I'm acting the way I am (usually they already know- even though my period is very irregular :? ) Frankly, I don't see the difference between saying "Sorry I'm acting like such a bitch, I'm PMS-ing" and "Sorry I'm acting like such a bitch, I had a horrible day at work" or "Sorry I'm acting like such a bitch, I'm super tired and have a migraine". I've said all of those (within the past few months, in fact) and all of them were true, but none of them imply I shouldn't be held responsible for saying whatever mean and petty things I did.

[Anise]

Yes rationality is a concept promoted by the Enlightenment, a group of white (relatively) privileged males and it needs to be contextualized as such.

I don't know about nothing left, because you can't separate ideas from their context and you should not. But instead of assuming everything was so good in the Enlightenment and in their concept, we should question that and see what power relations are actually carried through those concepts.

If rationality is used as an excuse for self-centered behavior, then it's problematic. If rationality is assumed of the "homo" economicus, but in reality does not work (see last economic crises, thanks to mathematical modeling using rational choice theories and math equation about our own economy and lives) well it should be questioned.

Yes it sounds like a lot of effort and a lot of talk, but there are many good things coming from those discussions, and yes concrete projects too.

Ahhh, okay. I get where you're coming from now.

I think I've gotten some of this perspective in the field of geopolitics with the feminist critique of the white male use of geopolitics in the last century which they characterized as too universal and centered on dichotomies.

I'm starting to realize just how much sexism underlies western perceptions. For example, the distinction between domestic space which is coded female and international space which is coded male. Or even orientalism in which certain traits deemed feminine and therefore weak or lesser (and as such justify domination and colonization) are attributed to non-western societies: for example, in the 1800s, the Middle East (also of course a construct) was considered feminine: sensuous, irrational. etc. Now, it is seen as more masculine, but still irrational.

It's fascinating stuff.

[2xx1xy1JD]

Contrary to liberal feminists, I don't think women should try and be men. I think we should accept that all of us, men and women, are sometimes having behavior based on hormones fluctuation (testosterone does fluctuate during the day for men too!) I think there should be a stop to pretend that we ought to be "rational" 100% of the time like the male "ideal" dictates. We are all subjected to desires, needs, hormones that are out of the grasp of our minds.

Just echoing that men are every bit as controlled by hormones as women are - they just have different hormones and different cycles. Researchers are discovering "andropause" - the male equivalent of menopause that results from falling testosterone levels, and is associated with depression. OTOH, testosterone surges can be associated with aggression.

[Anise]

My guess is that women experience their cycles and other effects of their reproductive systems (if they have them) differently. I'm more for sympathy, so my opinion is not to tell women to stuff it, but that ought to also be extended for men. It is possible that men are also subject to hormonal fluctuations, but as this culture expects them just to tough it out and that such responses are feminine and thus bad, there has not been as much research into it.

I'm not sure how authoritative the website is, but I found this:

"Again, there is the assumption that women are hormonal but men are moved more by logic. But the truth is men are as hormonally driven as women. In fact, men have a number of hormonal cycles:

. . .

What we've found is that one of the primary symptoms is denial. That is, men think the problem is anywhere other than in themselves."

source: http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/ ... ekey=53725

[LilMissMetaphor]

Personally, I've never understood why someone would mention any of a number of things on this board: that they're on the rag, or feeling hormonal, or that they have a certain kind of sex fetish. I mean, those are things I just don't think we need to know about each other. Or that are relevant, unless someone starts a Chatter thread entitled "How do you act on the second day of your period?" in which case, have at it.

Obviously if I snap at my sister IRL I might later tell her sorry, I am PMSing, but it would never occur to me to do that here. Partly because, like I said, does everyone else need to know what your current menstrual status is (no), and partly because it often does sound like a lame backpedal.

[JesusFightClub]

I dunno, I don't mind hearing about people's periods (and have explained mine, um, graphically here.) I've got this view they shouldn't be seen as shameful and something no one talks about. That doesn't mean talk about them obsessively,but here's an example from work:

Man: Wow, I thought you were away when you picked up your bag and took it with you!

Woman: *blushing* Oh yes.

Man: I was worried!

Woman: Oh, were you? I'm sorry.

Man: Just seeing you pick up your bag...

Woman: It had, er, makeup in it.

Man: Next time you should just take it out of your bag.

Woman: ....Right. Sorry.

Of course it was tampons she had in her bag and her period had started. If she could not be so embarrassed and it was seen as normal to explain that, I think it would be a step forward.

[Artemis]

This thread makes me realise that I actually don't know as much about feminism as I should, and that ignorance is not acceptable or admirable.

I mean I know the basics, and some more obscure stuff like Cixous, but the terminology gets me terminally muddled and if you asked me to categorise myself I'd be hard put to it to do so. As a 60s child, and a 70s teenager I just accepted certain feminist positions without questioning them.

I'll do some googling, but if anyone has a 'feminist primer' or any recommended sites I'd be interested to know of them. I think that if I really followed my inclination I might be a separatist, which in some ways quite alarms me.

JFC if I'd been your friend I would have looked the bloke in the eye and said 'I'm menstruating and I needed a tampon' and smiled. Nosy little sod - what business is it of his?