Hard News: Feminist as crazy old man
468 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 6 7 8 9 10 … 19 Newer→ Last
-
Not at all Russell.
The way sexuality and gender roles are displayed will have a lot to do with the social construct though.
A non-breastfeeding mother, isn't a bad mother either.
I had in mind things such as, pederasty, which is seen as a crime today but not so in Ancient Greece, or that rape in marriage constituted a crime in England in 1994.
-
Here we go. Danielle said "There's definitely feminist stuff there to unpack." My point is that rape is not exclusively a feminist issue.
Did Danielle say that rape was exclusively a feminist issue? No, she did not. And it may be a broader issue than a feminist issue alone, but feminists have been leading the fight against it for a number of decades and we, men and women and children alike, ought to be bloody grateful for that. Jus sayin.
-
Are you saying that paedophilia and childhood abuse are invisible phenomena in New Zealand? Or that their reporting tends to focus on female victims only? Or to the extent that they might be under-reported and under-recognised, it is because of feminists? We just went through the repeal of section 59 and women and feminists were right at the forefront of that particular battle, beginning obviously with Sue Bradford. Beyond that I don't have any direct experience, in Italy I think the lifting of the veil on the abuse suffered by males - especially adult males - still struggles to take place, but it seems to me that feminists have been an ally there, by and large. Has the history been different in NZ?
-
it seems to me that feminists have been an ally there, by and large
By and large, sure, but I've heard some quite strident opposition. Certainly male victims of sexual and domestic violence are often subject to simple erasure.
When I was at Uni, Canta did a Men's Issue. The organised feminist group there was horrified, protested, and ensured it didn't happen again - at least as long as I was still in touch with uni life.
This despite the fact that the back page story was a beautifully-written harrowing account a male student had written of his own rape and the difficulty he found living with that without any support geared to men, and in the face of women, quite unwittingly, saying to him, "Well you're a man, you can't know what it's like to be raped." I can remember sitting in the main cafe reading that and crying. I'm damn sure that guy's bravery opened a few eyes and made them consider men as victims of rape for the first time. And the reaction of the loudest feminist voices at Canterbury was "this must never happen again".
And with a very deep breath, my own mother delayed leaving my father and going to a refuge until her sons left home, because she was told (not as official policy, I believe, just as a quiet word) not to bring teenage boys into a refuge. They suffered more than I did: the help we got was determined by our relative genders.
-
Yeah, the feminist movement is not immune to various kinds of erasure, including failing to acknowledge the varying concerns of non-whites, different classes, and as mentioned above, the fact that rape is not solely a women's issue. I do believe that feminism helped bring it to the fore as something that should be addressed on a systematic basis, not just blaming it on individual fucked-up behaviour.
Not so long ago, The Register did one of its "humour" pieces on two Swedish (?) women who were apparently roaming the countryside and sexually assaulting men. Most of the commenters on the story thought this was hilarious, with a few anti-feminist trolls who asserted that actual feminists would not consider that to be sexual assault. Of course, most of us would, but there is still that men vs women perception from non-feminists.
So, yes, the patriarchy (or to use the trendy term, the kyriarchy) fucks us all up. Men as a group may tend to benefit more in the long term, but that certainly isn't true of all individual men. The type of feminist who pretends problems like sexual assault are just problems for women are doing all of us a disservice. And it's bloody embarrassing for the rest of us. My understanding is that kind of stance has died a death in the last decade from those involved in providing assault support services; I certainly hope that it's the case. The last time I looked for support services for men here in Australia, they were actually mostly being provided as offshoots of women's shelters. Some progress there. I'm sorry that was too late for your family, Emma.
-
On another note, riffing off something that Jacqui said waaaay upthread, it is true that people like Julie Bindel can be held up to be kind of straw feminists these days. The kind of views epitomised by her ilk are not necessarily at the centre of feminist discourse these days, although they were par for the course from the mid-70s through to the mid-80s (at least, that was the last time anyone said to my face I was "male-identified" because I'm somewhat butch). But she and that kind of essentialist cultural feminist (I don't know if she IDs as such, but her ideas are in that vein) are a dying and increasingly marginalised breed. Well, at least that's my optimistic view - however, there's still plenty of it about, epitomised in that radical/cultural feminist type opposing themselves against what they call sex-positive "feminists" (yes, with the "feminist" in quotes). The sex wars are still not over for some.
But they no longer are the dominant influence in feminist circles. The change in perception of this type might be epitomised by what someone said the other day on my FB: "don't get me started on Jeffreys, Raymond and Bindel, they're like the holy trinity of [feminist] nutcases."
So, yeah, good to discuss them in the context of their influence on various phases of feminist history (oops, I feel Daly's cold glare in omitting HERstory from the grave), and their continuing influence on some now. But Bindel et al's views should not be presented as being the end-all and be-all of feminist thought (not that I'm trying to imply that Russell has that view, btw).
-
And with a very deep breath...
Emma, that's awful - all the more so for being a "quiet word" as opposed to official policy open to scrutiny and challenge.
-
OK, so "rape is a feminist issue" doesn't parse as "rape is an exclusively feminist issue". I'm fine with that. I presume there is some other meaning, like, perhaps "rape is something feminists talk about a lot"? Which I guess means I'm not a feminist after all since I don't really see much point in talking about it, other than to condemn it. In fact, if Danielle is right, there's no point me even mentioning anything about my feelings on the matter, they're meaningless, because only people in my demographic (basically 95% of the most powerful people in the world) could possibly find anything useful in it. I guess that leaves me with hegemonic discourse so I can serve as a whipping boy, or silence.
Cheers. Over and out on the subject.
-
Did Danielle say that rape was exclusively a feminist issue? No, she did not.
No, just to reiterate: I certainly bloody did not. I also think Emma's stories about the negation of sexual assault on males and the prejudice against her brothers are very sad and wrong, and I hope those assumptions are changing.
(I would like to note, however, that discussions about this on the interwebs almost invariably will start with rape ---> women/feminism and almost immediately divert themselves to "but prison rape!" ---> men. This thread was like a textbook case. It might be interesting to analyse why that is - why there has to be an immediate 'but also men!' before the discussion even gets going. Because I'm sure we all agree that statistically, rape and sexual assault are gender-imbalanced.)
Yeah, the feminist movement is not immune to various kinds of erasure, including failing to acknowledge the varying concerns of non-whites, different classes, and as mentioned above, the fact that rape is not solely a women's issue. I do believe that feminism helped bring it to the fore as something that should be addressed on a systematic basis, not just blaming it on individual fucked-up behaviour.
Yes, this. Why can't I just write this? Or what B Jones writes. Or something. :)
I guess that leaves me with hegemonic discourse so I can serve as a whipping boy, or silence.
Gah. Ben, your *feelings* on this aren't meaningless, and I've enjoyed reading them. My point is more that I think your 'non-theoretical' theory about 'this is how you do feminism when it comes to work and parenting' for people in our relative positions (I'm including myself as privileged here, since I could conceivably give up work) is really limited. It doesn't address underlying social structures at all. My main issue with your point is that this shit, like, *really needs theory*. No matter how uncomfortable that might make some people.
-
Not at all Russell.
The way sexuality and gender roles are displayed will have a lot to do with the social construct though.
But what you said was that sex and gender were a "total construct". And now you've immediately flipped to the social construct having "a lot to do with it". That's not the same thing.
Please don't take it personally. It just irks me when anyone (including Julie Bindel) makes an absolute statement about gender and sexuality that is palpably false.
-
This thread was like a textbook case. It might be interesting to analyse why that is - why there has to be an immediate 'but also men!' before the discussion even gets going.
It might be interesting to analyse why you seem to think you are privileged to decide what the discussion should be. The point about rape of men is important, as subsequent posts have shown.
My main issue with your point is that this shit, like, *really needs theory*. No matter how uncomfortable that might make some people.
This matter does not need any more pseudo-academic tosh, especially amateur structuralism – but it will get it anyway. I'm hitting the ejector-seat button.
Goodbyeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
-
My point is more that I think your 'non-theoretical' theory about 'this is how you do feminism when it comes to work and parenting' for people in our relative positions (I'm including myself as privileged here, since I could conceivably give up work) is really limited.
Yes, it was deliberately limited to the mere millions of people like me. Other people can and are doing the theory.
-
Goodbyeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
Bloody hell, Paul, that was six different kinds of awful.
Please don't take it personally. It just irks me when anyone (including Julie Bindel) makes an absolute statement about gender and sexuality that is palpably false.
You're right, of course, but I think that to the extent that those positions are ever worth defending, is that at their time in history they had some honesty and served a purpose: to show that gender and sexuality are in important respects in fact socially constructed, and that they can therefore be changed. I wonder sometimes if it is a function of how public and academic discourses work in the Anglo-Saxon world and especially in the United States that the opposite extreme had to be occupied in order for the point to be made at all (see also under American Postructuralism, Home of the Crazy).
-
It might be interesting to analyse why you seem to think you are privileged to decide what the discussion should be.
It's pretty obvious from my posts that I haven't decided anything about how the discussion 'should' go, Paul. I'm just noting a pattern to these types of discussions (at least, the ones I've experienced), and that it might be interesting/significant.
This matter does not need any more pseudo-academic tosh
Dammit, I'm not allowed to do that now? My whole world is crumbling!
Yes, it was deliberately limited to the mere millions of people like me. Other people can and are doing the theory.
But... Ben, I am honestly not trying to be antagonistic, but you said you didn't believe in 'people like you' taking any notice of the theory. I suppose I'm confused: what do you think the theory is 'for', then? Is it just to 'indoctrinate' people (apart from John Stuart Mill)?
-
A very small point, occaisioned by Russell's comment about him (not) breastfeeding: actually, human males can lactate (as can non-pregnant females - one of my sisters did this for her first adopted child.)
-
actually, human males can lactate
Now you tell me!
-
Giovanni- heh! Admittedly, it happens in rare & generally fraught circumstances (except with adolescent males um experimenting) but it does happen.
I invented a race of different humans for an ongoing trilogy where the males regularly suckle babies - if they so choose. (The females - and the other 4 genders - may so choose to do so too...) True mammals, the lot of 'em eh?
-
@Giovanni
Men also get breast cancer. I have read pieces about how hard it can be to be the only man sitting in the waiting room at the Breast Cancer Clinic and the looks you get when your name is called.
'Man Boobs' are an object of, often female, ridicule yet it seems like all the phytoestrogens, pthalates etc we are exposed to in modern life, along with overweight, does give men, real actual breasts that no amount of iron pumping will remove once developed. Which would be fine, if they were not then a source of constant shame.
But then men don't get to complain about their boobs since they are modern and women have had to put up with theirs for millienia. I'll stop channelling Julie Bindel there I think.
-
Hi all. I did realise such a discussion would get intense, and it has, at times. Thanks everyone for not completely spazzing out. To be honest, I can't recall a web forum where I've read a discussion this frank between men and women that's stayed mostly interesting and useful.
I'm off to bed now, serenely confident that the spazz-o-meter will not trigger its alarm ...
-
OK, so you didn't actually read it
I did, actually, I still wasn't very clear on what you meant or how it translated in a NZ context, which is why I asked the particular questions that I asked.
Rather than just saying stop wining, the feminist approach to male victims of sexual abuse is all sugar and spice and things nice.
It's not what I meant. There just seemed to be an implication at that point in the thread that rape isn't a issue pertinent to feminism, and I was responding to that. And at least in my culture and for what I know I stand behind the assertion I made - for my parents' generation sexual abuse of all stripes barely registered as a thing to frown upon, and we owe it first and foremost to feminists and their struggles that it is no longer the case. Which means among other things that we have a set of words now to describe what happened to a male very close to me (I'm not taking a breath as deep as Emma's) for whom at the time the experience was just nameless, therefore quite impossible to even process or describe to others. That is a contribution that I think needs to be acknowledged, without any sort of prejudice whatsoever to your experience, or Emma's or the situations that TracyMac has described.
-
If you're interested to check out what I actually said it's on page 5 & 6.
Sex is not sexuality and gender is not a gender role.
The term "total social construct" was in relation to race. The term used in regard to sexuality and gender roles was "falls into the same basket".
I assume there is another issue at play, would you care to share it?
-
JT, the sub-plot is available only to subscribers to the Premium Edition.
-
Please don't take it personally. It just irks me when anyone (including Julie Bindel) makes an absolute statement about gender and sexuality that is palpably false.
Also, biology isn't destiny; but neither does it go away with liberal applications of handwavium.
Men also get breast cancer. I have read pieces about how hard it can be to be the only man sitting in the waiting room at the Breast Cancer Clinic and the looks you get when your name is called.
Sure, but it seems to me that even with women you put "breast" and "cancer" together in the same sentence, then a lot of very complex anxieties come to the surface with very little encouragement. It's not only women who can invest a lot of their sense of sexuality and self-worth in a quote unquote "well-developed chest", just not in quite the same way.
-
-
Sex is not sexuality and gender is not a gender role.
The term "total social construct" was in relation to race. The term used in regard to sexuality and gender roles was "falls into the same basket".
So you were saying, as if it were received knowledge, that sexuality and gender roles are "a total social construct". I don't think that's remotely sustainable.
I picked the breastfeeding example because it's such a simple and obvious one. It's a biological reality of gender that I cannot breast-feed my children, and in that sense my "gender role" in parenting, and my relationship with my children, is different to that of my partner. It literally embodies a different nurturing relationship.
I assume there is another issue at play, would you care to share it?
No, there's no "other issue", and it's silly and impolite of you to suggest there is. I just think your bold statement was palpably wrong.
Yes, in some circumstances, usually with the assistance of drugs or a pituitary gland tumour -- or in cases of extreme starvation when the hormone-producting glands are inhibited -- a tiny number of men lactate.
What's your point? Are you seriously suggesting this as an option for modern couples? How many resources would you divert away from women to achieve this politically satisfying medical trick for men?
Post your response…
This topic is closed.