Happy Birthday Slutwalk!

[Witsec1]

NO! No no no no that is not what I meant! :lol:

Let me see if I can explain better...

The specific sentence I was addressing was,

My issue is with the way this is worded. It sounds as though there is a group of men who identify as Sexists who are like, "Yes, fun feminism is really excellent for us!"

That's just not the way it is. At least not in my experience. We live in a sexist society, and we are all indoctrinated into that from birth. If we are all indoctrinated into this sexist society it doesn't make sense to single out "sexist men" as though they are a unique and defined group.

I also don't think that Men benefit from sexism or patriarchy, and that is a strong opinion I have based on personal experience. Money and power aside, patriarchy oppresses equally.

Really??? I usually find the sexist men (and women) really easy to pick out. They're the ones making rape jokes or saying wives would never be abused if all women respected their husbands enough. I don't think you understand systemic oppression.

[holothuroidea]

Really??? I usually find the sexist men (and women) really easy to pick out. They're the ones making rape jokes or saying wives would never be abused if all women respected their husbands enough. I don't think you understand systemic oppression.

It's very difficult for me to point individuals out as sexist. I generally view people as whole persons and have a difficult time singling out one of their character flaws and labeling them because of it. People aren't born sexist. I think, "what happened to these people to make them this way?"

There are a lot of things I don't understand. I don't mind learning, though. Any information would be appreciated.

[bananacat]

I am really fucking sick of this shyness about calling sexist people sexist and calling racist people racist. You don't have to beat your wife and sexually harass every female employee and work to deny woman's suffrage to "count" as sexist. Likewise, you don't have to wear a white robe and lynch black people to be racist. So many "moderate" people are afraid of hurting some bigot's fee-fees that we have to tapdance around words and we can never accuse them of being what they actually are.

Also, I'm all for reclaiming words and it can word. Reclaiming doesn't even have to be about changing other people's minds. It can be useful simply to empower people within the oppressed group. Reclaiming the n-word has some controversy in the black community, but overall I think it reduces the sting and power of that word. Likewise, I am totally reclaiming "bitch". Yes, I'm a bitch and no, others don't get to call me that (unless it's in an empowering way). Slut also needs to be reclaimed. It can be done correctly and it can be beneficial even if it doesn't cause some bigot to suddenly change their ways.

[fluttershies]

:(

What do you think happens to children in patriarchy? Do boys not grow into men? Are they not abused?

Men suffer under the rigidity of patriarchal gender roles, too. They are not entitled to more individuality than women are.

I do agree that men have more money and more power than women. That's just a fact. I don't agree that having more money and more power makes you less oppressed.

I also have a much deeper reason for believing this, but it is my husbands story and not my own so I won't share it here. He's been far more hurt by the patriarchy than I have, and I grew up with a single mother in poverty.

As far as my use of the term "equally" I mean equal in magnitude but not necessarily effect.

Having more power (let's face it, having more money = having more power) is pretty much the definition of being less oppressed. Oppression is discrimination plus lack of power. Seeing as women have both of those, women are more oppressed than men. It's not rocket science.

And men are hurt by the patriarchy BECAUSE women are hurt by it, it's not equal. Men who flout expected gender norms, i.e. are more feminine, are disapproved of by patriarchal values because being female is shameful. That's why 'straight acting' men are often preferred within the gay (male) community, for instance. Men are hurt by the patriarchy if they are more feminine than is considered normal (i.e. feminine = bad, so = anti-woman not anti-man), women are hurt by the patriarchy all the time.

[kb2]

I am really fucking sick of this shyness about calling sexist people sexist and calling racist people racist. You don't have to beat your wife and sexually harass every female employee and work to deny woman's suffrage to "count" as sexist. Likewise, you don't have to wear a white robe and lynch black people to be racist. So many "moderate" people are afraid of hurting some bigot's fee-fees that we have to tapdance around words and we can never accuse them of being what they actually are.

I never understand the argument that you should tell someone they're "acting/speaking -ist," not that they "are -ist," because you can prove the first but get bogged down in the second. But if you tell someone the first they will interpret it as exactly the same as the second, and your argument will go exactly the same, and everyone will be equally offended, because people who act -ist are -ist, because pretty much the definition of someone who is -ist is someone acting -ist. This is a pet peeve of mine, because I always feel like anyone giving this advice has obviously not been in many "you're (acting?) -ist" conversations, and yet here they are giving advice. Sorry that this is only tangentially related to what you said, but I wanted to :angry-soapbox: .

[Witsec1]

It's very difficult for me to point individuals out as sexist. I generally view people as whole persons and have a difficult time singling out one of their character flaws and labeling them because of it. People aren't born sexist. I think, "what happened to these people to make them this way?"

There are a lot of things I don't understand. I don't mind learning, though. Any information would be appreciated.

First, read what Bougalou, fluttershies, bananacat, and kb2 posted.

Fine, if you prefer to point to instances of sexism and say,"whoa, that was sexist!", the person will still interpret that as "You're a sexist!" So good luck with that. Or do you just tend to give sexist remarks and sexist behavior a pass because the poor dears don't know any better?

Also, your " "clarification" earlier just repeated my interpretation back to me, it didn't make what you were saying any more sensible.

The specific sentence I was addressing was,

Quote:

And fun feminism is just what sexist men want.

My issue is with the way this is worded. It sounds as though there is a group of men who identify as Sexists who are like, "Yes, fun feminism is really excellent for us!"

That's just not the way it is. At least not in my experience. We live in a sexist society, and we are all indoctrinated into that from birth. If we are all indoctrinated into this sexist society it doesn't make sense to single out "sexist men" as though they are a unique and defined group.

Try:

"Repeal of sexual harassment laws is just what sexist men want"

"Restricting access to birth control is just what sexist men want"

"Repeal of women's right to vote is just what sexist men want"

Yes, there are sexist men who advocate these things and we talk about specific instances here. Yes, there are also women who support these things. (Though from what I understand, Thinking Housewife may be a pen name for a male writer) Fine if you want to figure out whether they saw something nasty in the woodshed that made them the way they are, but isn't it just possible that they don't want to bother treating women as people?

ETA: I still think that "fun feminism is just what sexist men want" is an arguable statement, but the counter-argument would be, "no, sexist men find so-called fun feminsm plenty annoying." Not "sexist men can't want anything because they don't exist".

[fluttershies]

First, read what Bougalou, fluttershies, bananacat, and kb2 posted.

Fine, if you prefer to point to instances of sexism and say,"whoa, that was sexist!", the person will still interpret that as "You're a sexist!" So good luck with that. Or do you just tend to give sexist remarks and sexist behavior a pass because the poor dears don't know any better?

Also, your " "clarification" earlier just repeated my interpretation back to me, it didn't make what you were saying any more sensible.

Try:

"Repeal of sexual harassment laws is just what sexist men want"

"Restricting access to birth control is just what sexist men want"

"Repeal of women's right to vote is just what sexist men want"

Yes, there are sexist men who advocate these things and we talk about specific instances here. Yes, there are also women who support these things. (Though from what I understand, Thinking Housewife may be a pen name for a male writer) Fine if you want to figure out whether they saw something nasty in the woodshed that made them the way they are, but isn't it just possible that they don't want to bother treating women as people?

ETA: I still think that "fun feminism is just what sexist men want" is an arguable statement, but the counter-argument would be, "no, sexist men find so-called fun feminsm plenty annoying." Not "sexist men can't want anything because they don't exist".

That would be my argument, FWIW :) However, I can still see that sexist men exist because...I have eyes? I don't get how one piece of anecdata not even properly explained is concrete evidence of men being oppressed by the patriarchy just as much as women. Wtf kind of sheltered world do you have to live in to think that women aren't affected by by sexism more than men?

[bananacat]

I think the "fun feminism" comment was supposed to be an attempt at shaming us for caring about things that holo things are trivial. It's the "bigger fish" fallacy, and it's a type of red herring fallacy. But instead of "how can you care about reclaiming a word when there are women being gang-raped in Africa?" it's more like "sexist men are glad you're paying attention to these silly unimportant issues so you don't pay attention to the real sexism they're doing." At least, that's the impression I got. But hey, taking the power out of the word "slut" absolutely will help with dealing with the "important" issues because people will have to look at rape for what it is and won't be able to as easily justify the raping of women who appear to be sexually promiscuous. Removing shame from victims will always be beneficial to them.

[Witsec1]

I think the "fun feminism" comment was supposed to be an attempt at shaming us for caring about things that holo things are trivial. It's the "bigger fish" fallacy, and it's a type of red herring fallacy. But instead of "how can you care about reclaiming a word when there are women being gang-raped in Africa?" it's more like "sexist men are glad you're paying attention to these silly unimportant issues so you don't pay attention to the real sexism they're doing." At least, that's the impression I got. But hey, taking the power out of the word "slut" absolutely will help with dealing with the "important" issues because people will have to look at rape for what it is and won't be able to as easily justify the raping of women who appear to be sexually promiscuous. Removing shame from victims will always be beneficial to them.

It was deelaem who made the remark about "fun feminism". I don't think she means that we can't care about slut-shaming because of bigger fish to fry, at least I think not. She'd have to explain more what she means, but I think it is a derisive term for what we used to call "sex-positive feminism". As to how she thinks that ties in to the slutwalk movement, or how it is more palatable to sexist men, deelaem would have to explain, because I don't agree.

[fluttershies]

I think the "fun feminism" comment was supposed to be an attempt at shaming us for caring about things that holo things are trivial. It's the "bigger fish" fallacy, and it's a type of red herring fallacy. But instead of "how can you care about reclaiming a word when there are women being gang-raped in Africa?" it's more like "sexist men are glad you're paying attention to these silly unimportant issues so you don't pay attention to the real sexism they're doing." At least, that's the impression I got. But hey, taking the power out of the word "slut" absolutely will help with dealing with the "important" issues because people will have to look at rape for what it is and won't be able to as easily justify the raping of women who appear to be sexually promiscuous. Removing shame from victims will always be beneficial to them.

IA totally. Sexism causes rape culture, not women wanting to reclaim a word. Sex-based slurs are part of rape culture too, and sexism is sexism and always important to the people it impacts. When I get catcalled at in the street, it is fucking scary and while it's not the same as rape, it still makes me feel like my sexuality makes me vulnerable. And I want to reclaim that and change that and say that fuck you random sexist truck driver, my sluttiness (or lack of it) is for ME to shout about, not you.

You don't even have to be having sex to get called a slut, let alone promiscuous - any Harry Potter fan will know how Ginny Weasley got labelled the slut of Hogwarts by fandom because she dared to have 3 boyfriends during her school years, one of whom she married :roll:

[Boogalou]

:(

What do you think happens to children in patriarchy? Do boys not grow into men? Are they not abused?

Men suffer under the rigidity of patriarchal gender roles, too. They are not entitled to more individuality than women are.

I do agree that men have more money and more power than women. That's just a fact. I don't agree that having more money and more power makes you less oppressed.

I also have a much deeper reason for believing this, but it is my husbands story and not my own so I won't share it here. He's been far more hurt by the patriarchy than I have, and I grew up with a single mother in poverty.

As far as my use of the term "equally" I mean equal in magnitude but not necessarily effect.

I'm not arguing that men are not hurt by patriarchy. But here is an example of how patriarchy hurts women more then men. We were having a discussion of feminism/patriarchy/words/power/women's issues etc. and it devolves into a discussion of how patriarchy hurts men too! Why is it not valid to have a conversation about women's issues without bringing men into the picture?

So men have more money and more power but they are not less oppressed? That doesn't make any sense. Oppress: to crush or burden by abuse of power or authority. It follows that the more power you have in a society the less likely you are to be oppressed.

I believe that your husband has been more hurt by patriarchy than you were but it doesn't follow that all men are equally harmed by patriarchy than all women. I can find individual women who make more than individual men but the fact remains that on average women make less than men. I read something interesting the other day but I can't find it, so I will do my best to paraphrase. Imagine life in the patriarchy is a video game. All straight white men (hereafter referred to as SWM) automatically play the game on the easiest setting. Everyone who is not a straight white man plays on harder settings. SWM level up sooner, win more points for equal tasks, etc. On this setting it is still possible for SWM to lose, it is just harder. All non-SWM can still win, again it is just harder. So, back to your story. Your husband may be more hurt by patriarchy than you are but that personal experience cannot be extrapolated out to all people, everywhere.

Finally you said "As far as my use of the term "equally" I mean equal in magnitude but not necessarily effect." (just putting it here so I can read it). I don't really care about "magnitude". Patriarchy has a worse effect on women. And at the end of the day the effect of patriarchy is what matters. You can't measure the magnitude of it, really, because it is all around us at all times, I believe someone on here said that patriarchy is like the air, it's around us all the time so that you are really not even aware of it any more.

[bananacat]

Men ARE hurt by Patriarchy, and that's why men need to be on board with feminism. The answer to oppressed men is MORE feminism, not less. It certainly ain't the anti-feminists that are trying to help oppressed and victimized men.

[desertvixen]

I still think that "fun feminism is just what sexist men want" is an arguable statement, but the counter-argument would be, "no, sexist men find so-called fun feminsm plenty annoying." Not "sexist men can't want anything because they don't exist".

I think the statement that sexist men want "fun feminism" is somewhat true - it can be like the "buy everything pink" campaigns to fight cancer.

Feminism should be fun at times,I think - if only because there are a lot of times when feminism is NOT fun, and some recharging is in order. That, and it may lead more women into more serious feminist issues.

[holothuroidea]

Thank you to everyone for the thoughtful replies.

I really feel like I'm not properly communicating to you my feelings on this issue, so far. It's probably because I've got a lot of unarticulated and conflicting ideas floating around in my head.

Boogalou, I am not the one that brought sexist men into this discussion, deelaem was, and I was like, "what sexist men?" And then everyone else was like, "THE SEXIST MEN ARE EVERYWHERE" And I'm looking around like, "???" :lol:

Anyway, I have been looking around for a book to read on this subject to maybe get my thoughts in order. There are a crap-ton of books and I have no idea where to start. If someone would point me in the direction of a good book to read I would be forever grateful. I was thinking that something like a compilation of essays by many different people would be good, so as to get the full scope of thoughts on the issues.

[desertvixen]

Boogalou, I am not the one that brought sexist men into this discussion, deelaem was, and I was like, "what sexist men?" And then everyone else was like, "THE SEXIST MEN ARE EVERYWHERE" And I'm looking around like, "???"

I wouldn't say that the sexist men are everywhere. However, men do benefit from sexist ideas more, and men tend to be less likely to speak up about it, or call out sexist men.

[Boogalou]

Thank you to everyone for the thoughtful replies.

I really feel like I'm not properly communicating to you my feelings on this issue, so far. It's probably because I've got a lot of unarticulated and conflicting ideas floating around in my head.

Boogalou, I am not the one that brought sexist men into this discussion, deelaem was, and I was like, "what sexist men?" And then everyone else was like, "THE SEXIST MEN ARE EVERYWHERE" And I'm looking around like, "???" :lol:

Anyway, I have been looking around for a book to read on this subject to maybe get my thoughts in order. There are a crap-ton of books and I have no idea where to start. If someone would point me in the direction of a good book to read I would be forever grateful. I was thinking that something like a compilation of essays by many different people would be good, so as to get the full scope of thoughts on the issues.

My bad. I can't keep things straight. If you want to see sexist men you need to get on my facebook. Every joke people make about women getting back in the kitchen and making sandwiches? Sexist. This is just from my facebook feed (a male posted it, btw):

[holothuroidea]

My bad. I can't keep things straight. If you want to see sexist men you need to get on my facebook. Every joke people make about women getting back in the kitchen and making sandwiches? Sexist. This is just from my facebook feed (a male posted it, btw):

That really stinks.

I see more sexism from women than men, but I'm not exactly exposed to a good population sample. I'm a SAHM and the only male I have daily interaction with is my DH, who is decidedly not sexist. All of my online interaction is at message boards that have around 95-99% female posters. All of my friends are other females with young children.

So, yes, my life is pretty sheltered. That's kind of the way it is when you're a mother of two babies and you choose to stay at home, thank you patriarchy.

In my yesterdays I had only male friends, and I can say sincerely that they were not sexist. At least not to me or when I was around, or I would not have been friends with them.

So when I say I don't know any sexist men, I really mean it. But, yeah, bad population sample.

[jaynie]

I think the problem is that there is a lot of sexism that is just accepted as fact by a huge number of people, that doesn't necessarily seem hostile or oppressive. For example, a lot of people believe that women are just better at reading emotions than men are. It's nonsense, and it could be damaging nonsense for a variety of reasons, but at lot of people believe it's a proven fact, like saying that the majority of people with two X chromosomes are born with ovaries*. There are people who believe this who will at the same time fight for equal rights for women, who would feel repulsed by the idea of the kind of patriarchal culture we talk about around here, who would insist that rape jokes are not OK etc. So I can see that calling those people "sexist" would seem to weaken the term, even though it makes perfect logical sense to call someone with a sexist belief sexist.

I think there is sort of a sliding scale of sexism, with "women's intuition" at one end and "women are evil" at the other. But I don't know if it's better to call them all sexist beliefs, to call all the people on the scale sexists, or to draw an arbitrary line in the middle where "making barefoot-and-pregnant jokes" is sexist but "imagining a male default in fiction" is a sexist belief. I think culturally we've sort of got this image of a "sexist" as a big scary rapist demanding women be stoned to death for wearing pants, which makes it hard for (some of) us to apply the label to people we otherwise like, and hard for people to accept the term applied to themselves -- but of course, using the term more plainly would probably help to change that perception.

I should say that the sum total of my feminist education is freejinger, the Hathor legacy, and the occasional post on freethoughtblogs, so I'm happy to expand my education if anything I've said is unbearably stupid!

*as a sort of related example, I had initially written "women are born with ovaries" instead of "the majority of people with two X chromosomes are born with ovaries". Of course that is incorrect. Am I ableist and transphobic for having written it without a thought? I don't especially want to be lumped in with bigots who think that transgender people should be round up and shot, or people who might think a woman born without ovaries is "defective". So if I'd posted that and somebody had called me ableist, I'd probably have felt defensive, whereas if somebody had said "that's a bit ableist, actually" I'd probably say "oh shit, yeah, I'll change that at once and try not to do it in the future." Even though it's logically the same thing.

[holothuroidea]

Jaynie, can I give you a giant internet hug?

I'm grappling with some of the same issues, and I think you expressed them very clearly.

So far, I'm really not okay with labeling someone who thinks men are inherently better at math a "sexist" and I would definitely not go anywhere near the word "bigot." Even though that is really and truly a very sexist thing to believe and it is crossing into the realm of bigotry to express it like it's a fact, it is such a universally accepted belief that the only appropriate thing to label them is "normal." Just an example of the normative sexism that exists in our culture.

My standard practice is to show them how baseless and wrong that idea is, and why it's a hurtful thing to say.

That having been said, I do see how this might be "apologist" and I understand the logic there, and also the conviction to refuse to accept any level of sexism as "normal" and then label people with sexist thought patterns who say sexist things as "sexists."

I just think that labeling someone as "a sexist" takes away a certain amount of their dignity, reducing a whole person to something very wrong and hateful without any consideration for other parts of that person's personality that would not want to be sexist if they knew their ideas were wrong. I don't find it to be fair.

[Patsy]

You seem to be saying that not only is it counterproductive to openly label a person "sexist" to their face when trying to reason with them (which I think everyone in this thread sees the value of, even if not all necessarily agree), but that the label shouldn't be used at all. Is that so? And for all sexist people?

I mean, want to take it to extremes? I know a few child rapists who wouldn't be if not for various things in their past, and who aren't entirely summed up with just the words "child rapist". Watch while I use that label, though.

[holothuroidea]

You seem to be saying that not only is it counterproductive to openly label a person "sexist" to their face when trying to reason with them (which I think everyone in this thread sees the value of, even if not all necessarily agree), but that the label shouldn't be used at all. Is that so? And for all sexist people?

I mean, want to take it to extremes? I know a few child rapists who wouldn't be if not for various things in their past, and who aren't entirely summed up with just the words "child rapist". Watch while I use that label, though.

No. Raping a child is a crime, saying women are bad at math is not.

I do make a difference between things that are not culturally accepted and things that are. Beating your wife is different from saying that women should be in the kitchen. One is a crime, the other is a social norm.

I say this while believing that these social norms are WRONG and need to be corrected, but as far as individuals believing them I do not fault them for participating in the culture they grew up in. I will tell them that their belief is wrong and why, but I won't assign them labels that are also assigned to criminals.

[bananacat]

Well I think it's counterproductive to tapdance around words just so we don't hurt the poor bigots' feefees. I'll call sexism when I see it, and it often can be productive. What's absolutely NOT productive is just pretending it isn't there.

[Patsy]

Yeah, it's a massively extreme example, I'm only using it to point out that labels being stigmatising doesn't mean they're not accurate.

I still don't understand your argument. You don't "fault" people who have sexist attitudes? You do seem to be saying something a bit stronger than "it's counterproductive to label everyone with sexist attitudes as 'sexist' to their face", but I can't really tell how much stronger. Should those who originally started saying "beating your wife is bad" have avoided labeling domestic abusers, because it happened to be the norm when they were fighting it? What is it that you think prompts things to no longer be social norms? There's a difference between personally choosing to be gentle on people, and saying that that we should never challenge anyone. I'm not saying that you're advocating the latter; I can't tell whether you are.

[desertvixen]

I do make a difference between things that are not culturally accepted and things that are. Beating your wife is different from saying that women should be in the kitchen. One is a crime, the other is a social norm.

Yes, but it wasn't really all that long ago that beating your wife WAS culturally acceptable. It was culturally acceptable to believe that a wife did NOT have the right to not participate in sex with her husband if she wasn't feeling like it. It used to be culturally acceptable to expect a female office worker to make coffee, serve the male workers, and accept men treating them like sexual objects.

The only way any of this becomes not culturally acceptable is for us to challenge them, and the people making these acts. If that involves labeling them, then that's what we do. To be fair, they may not realize it - and maybe being confronted with the idea that someone thinks they fit that label will cause them to examine their actions. Or they'll show their true colors and you'll know to avoid them.

[Glass Cowcatcher]

Yeah, it's a massively extreme example, I'm only using it to point out that labels being stigmatising doesn't mean they're not accurate.

I still don't understand your argument. You don't "fault" people who have sexist attitudes? You do seem to be saying something a bit stronger than "it's counterproductive to label everyone with sexist attitudes as 'sexist' to their face", but I can't really tell how much stronger. Should those who originally started saying "beating your wife is bad" have avoided labeling domestic abusers, because it happened to be the norm when they were fighting it? What is it that you think prompts things to no longer be social norms? There's a difference between personally choosing to be gentle on people, and saying that that we should never challenge anyone. I'm not saying that you're advocating the latter; I can't tell whether you are.

I think that's exactly what happened though. First people started to object to one egregious behavior, then, as social awareness built, you started seeing more awareness of emotional, verbal, financial, and other forms of non-physical abuse. Social change movements have to start with the most damaging elements first, then move on to other aspects.