Posts by Deborah
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Yet another day engaged in thinking about this issue - thank you! And thank you to the people who have contacted me off-line, and pushed my thinking along. You will see your influence in what I have written.... over several glasses of wine, and a brandy to top it all off. Thank goodness my significant other was cooking dinner this evening.
You know what this discussion reminds me of? Working on my thesis, and trying to deal with issues that really, really matter. I know there's a fair amount of disagreement here, but we are dealing with it, and we are talking very hard about something that matters. So far, no one has descended into the sort of personal abuse which can be seen from time to time on other blogs.
It's unsurprising that this has been difficult. Recall the old slogan - "The personal is political."? Most people here, myself included, with some notable self-outed exceptions, are ensconced, or would like to be ensconced, in relationships with the other gender. When we start talking about gender relations, we start talking about the fabric of our everyday, most personal lives. It touches us to the quick. I know that if I say something about men in general, I necessarily include my own beloved partner. That is, the man who has provided for me through two degrees, is the father of my children, has time and time again supported me to the hilt and beyond, who cooks and cleans and maintains and works to support me and our children, as indeed I cook and clean and maintain and work to support him and our children. In my earlier post on this thread, I referred to ODMs, or ordinary decent men. He's one of those, although in my book, an extraordinary ODM.
One of the things that occurred to me is that one of the problems we are running into is that there are several different feminisms, and I think posters on this thread are perhaps working with differing conceptions of what feminism is. Hence some of the cross talk (as in "crossing over" rather than 'tetchy", 'tho "tetchy" might be appropriate too).
I take it that everyone posting here, and most people lurking, buys into at least some basic notion of feminism - that women ought to have the same rights as men (you know, voting, education, jobs - and spare me silly cracks about sperm donors and wet nurses).
There's another form, which is about ensuring that women can compete in a man's world, provided they become the same as men (remember the shoulder pads and 1980s power dressing for women?).
And another version - that there is a world in which all can participate, because it is genderless. That is, gender doesn't matter; what matters is people's ideas and achievements.
That's pretty attractive, and based on what she has written here, I think it's the type of feminism that Emma (and many other women) buys into. I also think that it's the type of feminism that many of the men here buy into, without having to force themselves to it. Of course ideas and achievements ought to be counted without reference to gender. Hence the "me too" motif, and the concern to not be part of the problem, and to focus on the equal competition of ideas, and the equal vulnerability to abuse.
The standard critique of this type of feminism is that it invites us all to be genderless, and to think that our gender neither influences nor constructs who and what we are. However, another type of feminism says that gender is important. I think I only started to tune into this type of feminism when I had children, when I suddenly started viewing everything, and constructing everything, through the lens of motherhood. I realised that actually, gender does matter. Other people start to hear (as in 'comprehend' or 'understand') what this sort of feminism is about earlier, or through different routes (sexual harassment is a classic).
Which leads to another type of feminism - difference feminism, which says that men and women are fundamentally different, and the ways we approach the world are different. There's an overlay on this, that women's ways are necessarily better. You know, in prehistoric times we all worshipped some sort of earth mother and we were all peaceful and good, and if only women ran the world, it would be a better place.
I find this sort of analysis nauseating (if that's a word). It's based on some sort of mythology about women necessarily being better than men. So not only is it based on some sort of tale telling, it's tautological, and thus logically fundamentally flawed. There is however, a grain of truth in it. I know that in our house, some of us who have XY chromosomes are much better at single minded focus and getting things done, and others of us who have XX chromosomes are much better at organising the house, the children, the day to day routine, and getting the children's homework done while cooking dinner and getting three loads of washing though and paying bills and keeping in contact with family members and organising our social calendar. But that's different, not better.
The point is that gender matters, and that it's very hard to strip away gender, and approach the world as disembodied. This is why I'm not so happy with the type of feminism that works on the premise that all that matters is whether or not our ideas and achievements stack up. I think that our embodied experience matters. The fact that I cross the street at night when I hear footsteps behind me matters. The fact that I worry about how my colleagues feel about something, rather than the 'right' outcome, matters. The fact that I am prone to teariness, and chocolate cravings, about once a month, matters. (We have three daughers; my husband says that once they all reach puberty, he plans to spend about one week in the shed every month.) The extraordinary vulnerability that comes with late pregnancy (I recall that in the late months of my first pregnancy, I got a male colleague to walk me home, when normally I would have been quite happy to go by myself), and in the early weeks following childbirth, matters. The constant focus on children. (Recall the psalm that says that as a mother never forgets her children, so god will never forget his people. And even if a mother should forget, god would not, because they are carved on the palm of his hand. Not that I am a believer anymore, but I certainly recall this sentiment from the songs we sang at my convent school.) And so on.
If you buy into the version of feminism that says that what matters is ideas and achievements, not whether the person involved was male or female, and that it is important for us to make a society where this can happen, then it also makes sense to claim that abuse happens to men too (and I agree, it does), and that the abuse that happens is not gendered. That is, we are all equal here. And indeed, in this forum, we are. Genuinely, what matters is ideas. But, I don't think that PA is a 'usual' forum.
On the other hand, if you buy into the embodied sort of feminism, then you might be more inclined to think that the fact that a great proportion of the abuse is directed at women is a problem in itself. It's not just abuse, it's abuse of women qua women. ("Qua" is shorthand for "in the role of", or "in the position of" or "by virtue of being".)
I think the Kathy Sierra story is a classic instance of this. She wasn't abused for having opinions, or for writing, or for being out there in public. She was abused for having the temerity to be a woman. Hmmm... maybe that's an exaggeration. Maybe she was successful and popular, and being a woman gave people a way to attack her. Whichever way you view it, she was attacked qua woman.
BTW, I don't think that women are the only people to experience this. Anyone who is in the outgroup gets it. Try being an immigrant, or gay, or disabled, or mentally ill. It's an excellent avenue of attack for the hate mongers.
In a sense, "ideas are equal" feminism is an idealised form of feminism. If indeed the world really was this way, then it wouldn't be a problem. But this is the real world that we operate in, and in the real world, gender does matter, so we might need to construct institutions that take gender into account instead of acting as though it doesn't matter.
It would be interesting to understand the group dynamic of what's going on when white boys (and I say "boys" quite deliberately, because it strikes me as a particularly immature behaviour) attack outsiders (women, not-Anglo-Saxon men, cripples, mentally ill people, and anyone else who doesn't fit in). I could speculate that it's backlash behaviour - those who are now being forced to share power are fighting a rearguard action to retain it for themselves - but I simply don't know enough to make that kind of claim. My training is in philosophy, not sociology and pyschology.
To sum up - this discussion has been difficult because actually, it is difficult, gender does matter, and women do get attacked qua women. And so do immigrants, gays and lesbians, cripples, mentally ill people, any out dwellers, qua immigrants, gays and lesbians, cripples, mentally ill people, and out dwellers.
What to do about it? As I have said before, it's hard to say in a forum like this, where respect for each other (although we attack each other's ideas freely) is the prevailing ethos. But as long as ordinary decent men and ordinary decent women turn the other way and ignore the attacks, then the hate mongers will feel they have a licence to persist. We really do need to stand up and call them out. That already happens here on PA - people who have been abusive have been asked to leave. It would be good to be able to work out what to do about it on other NZ blogs.
-
No. Can't stand the social and moral conservatism of one, and the sheer viciousness of the other.
Although <cough>, I have only just started reading Span, which has been my loss.
I read DPF, but less and less, and I don't comment anymore, not only because of the cesspit in the comments, but also because these days he seems to be a National Party commentator rather than a right wing commentator. I would like to find a good right wing blog, because it's all too easy to read only people you agree with, and never challenge yourself with people whose views are opposed to your own.
-
So much for a quiet peaceful Sunday, having lunch with friends, doing some baking for the school lunches this week, washing and mending some clothes, supervising homework, generally just pottering around doing home things. I have spent most of the day thinking abut feminist political theory, and about whether I could make a useful contribution to this discussion. I had almost decided not to, but then there was a long, thoughtful, and somehow vulnerable sounding post from Finn Higgins, and this from Juha:
Hatred and bigotry are colour-blind and gender-neutral.
Well, yes, they are, but their objects are not. There's some evidence that being female, or gay, or black, or yellow, or disabled, or mentally iss, or an immigrant, invites hatred and biogotry in a way that being able, white and male does not. Not necessarily compelling evidence, yet, but nevertheless, something to take note of.
Having said that, PA and a number of other NZ blogs are bigotry and hatred free. If ever there was a site where women and gays and other non white-able-males could take part without fear, then this is it.
I think however, that it is futile to deny that e-women (meaning women who are active on the interweb) are targetted in a way that e-men are not. The whole Kathy Sierra story, and the follow-up stories in Salon and other places are testament to that.
But here's the rub. It seems that by calling the perpetrators on it, as they deserve to be called, ODMs (or ordinary decent men) feel as though they have been called on it too. Hence the vulnerable note in Finn's post above. Finn seems to want to sound a "me too" idea in his story about his friend, and "it wasn't me" in response to the whole discussion that Tze Ming has raised. Finn, everyone here knows it wasn't you, and I suspect that most people here, like me, were saddened, even appalled, by the account you gave us of what happened to your friend. Here's the thing - making it clear that you don't support what is happening, doesn't stop it happening.
Let me give an analogy. This is going to really upset some people, so let me make it very, very clear, that this is an analogy only, and I am only using it as a way into the point I am making. So take a deep breath, particularly if you are an XY type, and bear with me.
Remember the 'All men are rapists' slogan from the 1970s? Possibly not... and in fact, I don't actually remember it either, but I do know about it.
Right. Take a deep breath. Keep on reading. Please.
As it turns out, the slogan is a misrepresentation of the original claim.
The original claim was more like this. To the extent that ODMs benefit from the fear of rape that most women live with, then even ODMs are rapists.
Silly idea.
I don't think that ODMs either think or act like this. But there is another thought in here, that women will continue to live in fear of rape, and to regulate their behaviour accordingly, until ODMs stand up against it too.
Here's the analogy bit. We need the ODMs to make it very clear that they simply will not tolerate the abuse of women (and gays and blacks and mentally ill and disabled people) on-line. In other words, blokes, stand up and be counted.
Having said all that, as far as I can tell, the ODMs who populate this site have stood up to be counted. I first became aware of the Kathy Sierra story through Russell Brown's post on the topic. No one has dismissed the problem. More pertinently, the way this site operates is testament to ODMs and ODWs simply wanting to have a good discussion, without the bigotry and hatred that infest other sites. I love hanging out here. I have had some full-on disagreements with other people through PA, but not once has someone addressed my gender rather than my arguments. Maybe this is why some of the ODMs here feel just a little affronted and vulnerable given the Kathy Sierra story. It's because they know damn well that they are not, and would not be, parties to such behaviour.
But gentle men, you need to do more than just not participate in the behaviour. You also need to condemn it when you see it. As would I, I hope, when I see homophobia, or racism, or sexism, dressed up as 'free speech' on the web.
Some other thoughts:
I don't ever want to be treated as a man. I am a woman, and my experience of being female colours my whole perception of the world. I don't go the whole feminist epistemology route, and claim that women have different ways of knowing, but I do think that women can construct their worlds differently from men. So when I participate in the discussion here, it is as a woman, who is embedded in social networks and family concerns. Hence, Juha, my immediate rejection of simply saying that hatred and bigotry are colour-blind and gender-neutral, and my equally immediate grounding of hatred and bigotry in those who experience them.
And... ouch! In response to Megan's fascinating post, and having found out that Gender Genie thinks I am a man, I dug out my examiners' reports on my thesis. They both used words like 'clear, forceful, careful, direct' to describe my writing, and I took that as high praise. Maybe I will have to rethink that.
-
but said magazine really has turned to custard since Pamela Stirling took over, hasn't it?
Here's the wretched thing - I keep on buying it! Maybe it's designed to appeal to middle aged working women with children.
-
What do others think - why do you comment here but not on other political blogs in NZ? Why don't you start your own?
I do, sometimes, but the dog whistling and poisonous atmosphere (albeit in the comments) on the leading right wing blog upset me far too much. Craig Ranapia, if you are reading this, I would love to see some right wing political comment on your blog.... 'though don't give up the poetry - I'm enjoying it.
My day job constrains me with respect to blogging and even just commenting - there are some topics I stay away from completely. I don't even post comments from my work computer, although I do head down to the staff room from time to time to post comments on the computer there (separate connection to the interweb, not paid for by my employer).
Also, the discussion on PA is vigorous and feisty, but by and large, no one hits below the belt or on the breasts, and those who do are rapidly asked to go elsewhere. So I feel as though my ideas count here, rather than whether I am male or female, 16 or 40, married or single, straight or gay, whatever.
BTW, I explicitly identify as feminist, so I want to be identified as female, and for my experience as a woman to count.
-
Well, that's interesting. According to the Gender Genie I am male. Consistently. Across several pieces of writing. Including a review for an academic journal (in Philosophy) of someone's manuscript on motherhood. My comments on PA are male, according the genie. The only writing where I came up as female was a very short bit about myself, in a semi-formal publication.
I assure you, I am not male. I don't use a pseudonym. That's my real name (gendered as it is) under the cat.
-
So much so that he moved the cookies and milk to the side of the fireplace so that Santa didn't trip over them when he came down our (tiny flue) chimney. It's important that Santa leaves crumbs on the plate, as evidence that he's been.
Milk and cookies? Pah!!
In our house, we leave a good slug of brandy out for Santa.
I was able to sidestep the "maybe Santa isn't true" issue by the hoary old turnaround - "What do you think?" She and her sisters ran through the evidence for Santa, including the brandy glass being empty, and decided that maybe he was true after all. The 8 year old (who confessed to me last Christmas that the year before she had just been pretending to believe to keep us and her little sisters happy) aided and abetted me in maintaining the faith.
-
Happy birthday, Mary-Margaret.
David, when you have a moment, let us know what your responsible half got for your eight year oild.
-
Now she really does think it was the tooth fairy, and how do I tell her!
I finally got fed up with the Easter bunny stories (I'm sure there was no huge Easter bunny hype when I was a child), and told the girls that there was no Easter bunny, and that in our family, we get a few Easter eggs as a treat and we share them on Easter Sunday.
They were okay with that - I think they had always thought there was something dubious about a bunny with eggs.
But on the long drive home after the Easter break, one of my five year olds obviously spent lot of time thinking, and thinking, and thinking. As we were driving out of Wanganui, in a nice demonstration of inference, half worried and half puzzled, she said, "Mum, if the Easter bunny is really just your parents, then maybe Santa Claus isn't true, and it's really just your parents."
Oh dear. There goes the last magical Christmas.
-
In our house, we prefer the sitting chair.
Is there any another kind?
That's one of the interesting things about children. You can tell them virtually anything, and they will believe you. Including that unless they are smacked, their souls will be in peril.