babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics

Topic Closed  Topic Closed


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » canadian politics   » Is sexism only permitted on the feminist forum?

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Is sexism only permitted on the feminist forum?
kropotkin1951
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2732

posted 10 March 2003 07:45 PM      Profile for kropotkin1951   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
You will not post material that is inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy or otherwise violative of any law. You understand that racist, sexist, homophobic and other excluding language is not appropriate on babble.

This is the policy statement we all are supposed to follow.

I have posted this on the politics forum to ensure I don't get accused of highjacking that forum.

I just don't understand how the following quotation has any place on these forums given the policy statement.

quote:
We have an ongoing 'overseer' debate - my friends and I. If you were the overseer how would you change the world - or would you change the world?
Recently my friend said, I'd 'dispose of' all but the healthiest men, place them strategically so that they can't cause any trouble and let women go about the business of running the world. She seemed convinced that we would achieve instant harmony.

Is this true?


If I tried to post a similar comment with a reversal of genders or race I would probably and rightly be told to cease and desist.

quote:
We have an ongoing 'overseer' debate - my friends and I. If you were the overseer how would you change the world - or would you change the world?
Recently my friend said, I'd 'dispose of' all but the healthiest women, place them strategically so that they can't cause any trouble and let men go about the business of running the world. He seemed convinced that we would achieve instant harmony.

Is this true?


quote:
We have an ongoing 'overseer' debate - my friends and I. If you were the overseer how would you change the world - or would you change the world?
Recently my friend said, I'd 'dispose of' all but the healthiest Jews, place them strategically so that they can't cause any trouble and let Christians go about the business of running the world. She seemed convinced that we would achieve instant harmony.

Is this true?


So my question is why is the first permitted?


From: North of Manifest Destiny | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 10 March 2003 07:49 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
kropotkin, you know very well the procedure if you object to a post. Email audra (audra@rabble.ca), specifying the url, the post, and why you think it violates policy.
From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
kropotkin1951
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2732

posted 10 March 2003 08:37 PM      Profile for kropotkin1951   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You misunderstand Lance. I am asking a question in the political forum because it is a political question. Should everyone be held to the same standards or is there an inherent right to dish members of a gender race etc if you feel like a part of a disadvantaged minority.

Or rather when is sterotyping permitted and why then?

Also I have observed that you often don't need a complaint before a moderator steps in and this would seem an example of one that in any other forum [with the changes I made] would not even have required a complaint because the moderator would find it offensive.

[ 10 March 2003: Message edited by: kropotkin1951 ]


From: North of Manifest Destiny | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 10 March 2003 08:49 PM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Also I have observed that you often don't need a complaint before a moderator steps in and this would seem an example of one that in any other forum [with the changes I made] would not even have required a complaint because the moderator would find it offensive.

Careful here. Don't assume that audra reads every single post. I'd be surprised if she does.


From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 10 March 2003 09:18 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Of course she doesn't. That would be a full-time job.

kropotkin, I for one didn't take that post (I read the thread, incidentally) as anyone "dishing," as you put it, men. The person starting the thread was simply paraphrasing what a friend said. It's an idea, by the way, I consider fairly nutty -- as nutty as when I first read it in 1987, in Sally Miller Gearhart's "The Future, If There Is One, Is Female" -- but basically harmless. Quit with the preaching, would you, it's tedious.

[ 10 March 2003: Message edited by: 'lance ]


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
kropotkin1951
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2732

posted 10 March 2003 09:32 PM      Profile for kropotkin1951   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The person starting the thread was simply paraphrasing what a friend said.

Its hearsay so I'm allowed to repeat it no matter what the message.

And the reason I started this thread is because of your last comment. Some topics are not allowed on the feminist site because it is the grrrills show but apparently not allowed any where else either because its preachy.

Wow I apologize profusely and will stop my postings because you don't like my preaching.


Come on you would have to shut down 90% of the threads if being preachy was a no no around here.

I am serious this is an area that apparently no male can enter. If a man gender slanders a woman it is msyogny. If a woman gender slanders men it is fair comment.

If a man says be fair they are called many things usually uncomplimentary. Actually to your credit preachy is one of the least offensive terms I've encountered. Whining is the preferred retort that I have noticed.


My message is preachy. If you want respect and allies in a fight to better society you should treat everyone with respect. Sexist jokes are sexist jokes, don't you understand.


From: North of Manifest Destiny | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
andrean
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 361

posted 10 March 2003 10:56 PM      Profile for andrean     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
kropotkin, I feel your pain. Clearly, the post that you've quoted (in several threads) has bothered you deeply and your concern has not been met with the support for which you had hoped.

So, let me just acknowledge that I, and probably most babblers, get that it's not okay even to joke about "disposing of" another segment of humanity.

But really? Angela recalled an anecdote about a game that her friends play when they're drinking - I don't think that it really represents her or anyone else's political agenda. You're right - in and of itself, the suggestion is hateful. However, it set a context for a discussion that Angela was starting, i.e. would the world be a better place if women ran it? And, in the context of that thread, as I read it, it seemed that the answer was no. So clearly, nobody thinks it's a good idea to "dispose of" all but a few males. Maybe you could ask Angela to edit that part of her post, improve the delivery so that it's a little less shocking? Or maybe you could follow the suggestion that 'lance made and voice your concern to Audra. Because I don't think that this thread is going to get you the response that you're hoping for.

But in response to your question:

quote:
Should everyone be held to the same standards or is there an inherent right to dish members of a gender race etc if you feel like a part of a disadvantaged minority.

First, I think you mean "dis", as in "disrespect" since "dish" generally means to gossip about. This is not a language flame, btw, I'm seriously trying to make sure that we mean the same thing. And second, though we may not like it, I think that as members of the dominant group we have to accept a little disrespect from those who have less privilige than us. So, yes, as a woman, I do get a little leeway in bitching about men; and yes, as a white woman, I have to accept a little harshness from people of colour.

Once we all enjoy the same privilige, we'll change those rules.


From: etobicoke-lakeshore | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
audra trower williams
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2

posted 10 March 2003 10:59 PM      Profile for audra trower williams   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Also I have observed that you often don't need a complaint before a moderator steps in ...

Do you have access to my inbox?


From: And I'm a look you in the eye for every bar of the chorus | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 11 March 2003 11:13 AM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
While I wasn't overly perturbed by the thread in question, it certainly does raise some interesting questions. It certainly does seem to be far more acceptable to make comments about men or portray them in ways that simply wouldn't be tolerated if the subject were anyone else. A few quick examples:

- can you imagine if Andy Capp beat his wife as often as she beats him? Would anyone laugh? How about Dagwood?

- can you imagine an ad featuring a man in heaven complaining about the "dumb" female slave who won't bring his cream cheese the right way?

- have you ever seen a made-for-tv movie where the "evil woman" kidnaps the child and the dad has to traipse around the world searching it out using only perseverance and "father's love"?

Keep your eyes peeled - there's plenty more.

Before anyone sees a good straw man here, I'm NOT suggesting that these potshots at men somehow make us as oppressed as women (so don't even start), but I do think it's interesting that while ostensibly working toward universal equality and tolerance, we still let crap like this through unchallenged. It's easy to conjecture why some women might want to let it pass, and may even secretly enjoy it or feel "empowered" by it, but I hope it's something more than that.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
writer
editor emeritus
Babbler # 2513

posted 11 March 2003 11:24 AM      Profile for writer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
kropotkin, how could you possibly notice whether audra responds before anyone complains? The process is to e-mail her directly with concerns. Include the URL and the offending post.

Posting your complaint directly on a thread doesn't necessarily result in action by the moderator. Because she doesn't have time to read each blessed thread every blessed hour of the blessed day.


From: tentative | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Aviator
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3299

posted 11 March 2003 11:59 AM      Profile for Aviator     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
This is a tough one. I know that Audra has a tough job; she is in a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't position.

BTW, I was a little bothered by the overseer post, too. But, then I wondered if I was being a little too hypervigilant! In my hometown, there is a cafe generally recognized as a hangout for those who tend to be left wing in political persuasion. Great place for a debate (the food is just a little too expensive, and the coffee is awful). When the capitalists and the socialists gather the debates are very lively. No one gets angry, they just get enthusiastic. The kind of debate I love.

Now when it is the just left wingers debating it is a totally different story. They are all so hypervigilant! All worried about how the other guy feels. Fumbling for the "right" word: is what I am about to say ageist, sexist, jingoist, capitalist, lookist, racist, blah, blah, blah? Some people go as far as to make up words to avoid offending someone. Say what!? It can be the most painful thing you'll ever witness.

Now don't get me wrong. I don't think we should be uncaring about the feelings of others, but at the same time we shouldn't be monitoring every word that someone else utters.

BTW, everyone, this is not to discount your feelings. You are right to question as to whether or not a double standard is being applied.
These are just random ramblings.

BTW, as for the overseer debate, it would just be best if I ran the whole show (the planet that is)


From: British Columbia | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Lima Bean
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3000

posted 11 March 2003 12:37 PM      Profile for Lima Bean   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
- can you imagine if Andy Capp beat his wife as often as she beats him? Would anyone laugh? How about Dagwood?

- can you imagine an ad featuring a man in heaven complaining about the "dumb" female slave who won't bring his cream cheese the right way?

- have you ever seen a made-for-tv movie where the "evil woman" kidnaps the child and the dad has to traipse around the world searching it out using only perseverance and "father's love"?


Who writes Andy Capp and Dagwood?

Who writes the cream cheese ad? Who pays for its production and air time? Who profits by its existence?

Who writes those scripts for those after-school specials? Again, who pays for their production and distribution? Who profits by it? What stereotypes and norms are created or upheld by them? What is their message to the world?

Why do they all employ "man-hating" as a motif?

Women are generally not in control of the media or the means of its production. When we are, you can expect us to account for the anti-male sentiments in it. At present, I think I can understand why a group of women talking about a world where we are in power are required to imagine a world almost devoid of men just to do make it seem possible.


From: s | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 11 March 2003 12:51 PM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
BTW, as for the overseer debate, it would just be best if I ran the whole show (the planet that is)

I serve at the pleasure of Aviator. Now can we talk about that Porsche I've had my eye on?


From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 11 March 2003 12:56 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Who writes Andy Capp and Dagwood?

What difference does it make? Could they write a comic about a man beating his wife? Could a woman?

quote:
Who writes the cream cheese ad?

I have no idea (could be men, women, or both), but I'm guessing it's intended to get women to buy cream cheese. And since it's been around for years, I'm guessing it's successful. So why does seeing Linda Kash belittleing her male slave make women want to buy cream cheese?

quote:
Who writes those scripts for those after-school specials?

Again, could be men, women, or both, but I think that the target audience (and I'm not talking about after-school specials, I'm talking about movies, with titles like "I Want My Baby Back" or "Woman Betrayed") seems to prefer a story about a needlessly evil man and an honest woman who sets out to right his patriarchal wrongs. They're pretty heavily skewed... almost simplistically.

quote:
Why do they all employ "man-hating" as a motif?

That's my question. It's pretty well tolerated, so I'm assuming that someone out there agrees...

quote:
At present, I think I can understand why a group of women talking about a world where we are in power are required to imagine a world almost devoid of men just to do make it seem possible.

I'm not complaining about the thread that spawned this one; conjectural party games like "could you kill someone if you had to?" don't indicate anything worrisome to me.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Lima Bean
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3000

posted 11 March 2003 01:26 PM      Profile for Lima Bean   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
I think you missed my point, Mr. Magoo.

And you haven't shown at all that you thought about who profits from these images and scenarios. It matters.

If you're worried about anti-male sentiments in the media, it isn't us women that you should cry to. We're not profiting from it, we're most often not at the helm of those great ad campaigns and after school special productions, we didn't ask for it, and we're no more 'tolerating it' than you are. If you don't like it, YOU oppose it.

We're busy trying to be safe in our homes and on our streets, working over time to make what you make 9-5, and scrambling to feed our families or or otherwise struggling against all the obstacles in our way as women.
We don't have time for your problems too.


From: s | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
fatcalf
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3859

posted 11 March 2003 01:48 PM      Profile for fatcalf        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
And you haven't shown at all that you thought about who profits from these images and scenarios. It matters.

We live in the year 2003. Plenty of women work in advertizing, own advertizing companies, produce and direct commercials etc. An incredible number of women own shares in such ventures. So yes, men AND women both profit from sexism in the media. It cuts both ways. However, I would prefer not to use the word "cuts" -- tickles would be a better word. For example, there was a commercial not long ago in which a wife tosses her hubby's golf clubs into the Grand Canyon or something. Very funny -- you can hardly take offence. But I do wonder what would happen if the man tossed his wife's clubs into the same canyon.


From: vancouver | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 11 March 2003 02:07 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
And you haven't shown at all that you thought about who profits from these images and scenarios. It matters.

I'm not sure how. If a movie is made, or a product sold, I'm assuming the creative team(s) will be made up of men and women. Likewise any stockholders who might financially profit.

I'm far more interested in the market, and the attempts to satisfy this market. Whether making a movie or selling cream cheese, marketers spend a great deal of money on market analysis, consumer studies and focus groups, to find out exactly what people want to see, and more importantly, what will induce them to spend. From the point of view of these marketers, it doesn't really matter what that is, so long as it works. If a commercial featuring a minute's footage of grass growing would sell twice as much product, then that's what they go with. It's not a matter of their personal tastes or politics; it's whatever hits an emotional nerve in the target market and convinces them to buy.

So, for that reason, I'm wondering why belittling a male angel sells cream cheese, and why having a "mean man" as the antagonist of a made-for-tv movie guarantees an audience. In short, why do (some) women want to see this? How does it fit in with the idea of equality?

quote:
we're most often not at the helm of those great ad campaigns...

Again, if you're the target market, you are. The marketers are going to do whatever you demonstrate works.

quote:
We don't have time for your problems too.

I thought equality was everyone's problem?


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
dale cooper
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2946

posted 11 March 2003 02:11 PM      Profile for dale cooper     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
But I do wonder what would happen if the man tossed his wife's clubs into the same canyon.

This is such a pointless thing to say. Obviously people would be up in arms (possibly not in this exact scenario, but if the implied statement behind it were to occur). But so what? Read the responses to every other time this sort of comment has come up. YOU get up in arms about it if you have a problem. Lima Bean says it perfectly well in the above comment. Why do so many men feel the need to go crying to the nearest woman whenever this occurs? "Someone made me (men) feel stupid. See, now we have equality in all things. Make it stop! sniff sniff"

You can't look at it on such a limited scale. Just because advertising and pop culture occassionally use men as dumb props does not mean equality has been acheived. And by the way there's a whole backlash to this sort of thing going on in the media now too. The whole pimp culture/'let's glorify how depraved men can be' sort of thing. A gender is not a single organism. Just because some men/women may act a certain way, is no reason to use it as ammo to try and take down the whole equality effort.

Suck it up and stop complaining.

[ 11 March 2003: Message edited by: dale cooper ]


From: Another place | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
audra trower williams
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2

posted 11 March 2003 02:13 PM      Profile for audra trower williams   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
can you imagine if Andy Capp beat his wife as often as she beats him? Would anyone laugh? How about Dagwood?

What about a comic strip with a 20 year hilarious subplot of sexual harassment?

quote:
can you imagine an ad featuring a man in heaven complaining about the "dumb" female slave who won't bring his cream cheese the right way?

Yeah, ads that were sexist against women would
never
be
permitted

quote:
have you ever seen a made-for-tv movie where the "evil woman" kidnaps the child and the dad has to traipse around the world searching it out using only perseverance and "father's love"?

yeah, there are no movies about crazy dangerous women.


From: And I'm a look you in the eye for every bar of the chorus | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
fatcalf
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3859

posted 11 March 2003 02:18 PM      Profile for fatcalf        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Suck it up and stop complaining.

hmmm... an interesting philosophy ...

Advertising usually employs humour -- the golf clubs down the canyon gambit is rather funny.

Does this "suck it up and stop complaining" philosophy of yours condone inequality ... to get even? To swing the pendulum the other way for a generation or two?

I think we have to pick our battles. Cream cheese boy-toy-slaves and golf-club tossing harridans aren't going to cause anyone grief (assuming they are fictional portrayals!) Yet if someone wants to say, "Wait a second ... you don't like the commercial where a woman brings her boss a coffee, but there's a cream-cheese slave in heaven on another station ... tit for tat?" Well, they have a point. Perhaps it's a tempest in a teapot (or on a bagel).


From: vancouver | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 11 March 2003 02:29 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Audra: touché, but your examples are all female-negative depictions that have received discussion, and will continue to. There's no shortage of concern when women are the targets of gender aggression in television or advertisements.

The page you linked to at mediawatch has a page of "Negative Imagery" from advertisements. Guess how many of the 27 ads they selected are "male-negative"?


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
fatcalf
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3859

posted 11 March 2003 02:30 PM      Profile for fatcalf        Edit/Delete Post
Maybe it's simply a mistake to use the medium of advertising as a barometer for social equality/inequality.
From: vancouver | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 11 March 2003 02:43 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
How and why we choose to spend our money may actually tell us more about ourselves than what we say in the abstract. It's easy to say "I'm for equality, and against violence", but if you find it funny when a product is advertised by showing a woman throwing all of her boyfriend's possessions out on the lawn, and if you support that product, then you might want to reconsider your statements.

BTW, this isn't meant to be a war between the sexes, just a topic of discussion. I think that many women find a little man-bashing to be a "guilty indulgence" and this includes women who, if asked, would deny that they support anything but equality. This contradiction interests my wife and me, who enjoy analyzing television for gender-based aggression. If this doesn't interest you then you needn't join in, but if you do then I hope you have something more enlightened to say than "quit whining" (I'm not), or "I have my own problems" (we all do).


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
girlpublisher
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2367

posted 11 March 2003 03:05 PM      Profile for girlpublisher   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Mediawatch's mandate is to look at how women are portrayed in the media. They purposely do not look at 'male-negative' material. Maybe another organization could do this, but to fault them is a kin to faulting the Heart & Stroke Foundation for not caring about cancer.

As for the overseer posting, I was offended by it, and I was also annoyed at the peace about Women and Peace by Judy Rebick. I do not like it when people presume that women are inherently more peaceful than men. It's pigeon-holing and stereotyping and putting my womenhood in a box. It's possible that women may well be more peaceful, but we don't know that, and I find it unhelpful to imagine that women's rule is the solution to our problems. I could go on and on about this. But I will spare you.

I did not bother to make these comments on the thread because they were essentially being made for me, by smarter, more succinct people than myself.

As to the 'male bashing' I would have to point out that those ads/cartoons are funny precisely because they play upon role-reversal. Once we have achieved a better balance of power, and women are not largely considered to be at a disadvantage (I'm sure some other more knowledgable babblers have some good stats to back me up on this), then it won't be seen to be a funny play on traditional roles. And that will be nice, don't you think? When men aren't constantly given the message that they are idiotic, insensitive clods who would starve to death before learning to make an omelette and women are needy, dependent, flightly creatures put upon by their families?

[ 11 March 2003: Message edited by: girlpublisher ]


From: here to eternity | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
audra trower williams
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2

posted 11 March 2003 03:07 PM      Profile for audra trower williams   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Mr. Magoo: What girlpublisher said.

also: A two-second Google search found a whole lotta essays about the affects of advertising on boys and men. The most extreme example being here.

[ 11 March 2003: Message edited by: audra estrones ]


From: And I'm a look you in the eye for every bar of the chorus | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 11 March 2003 03:13 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Argh. I find it difficult to support "men's rights" websites... they take the swing of the pendulum waaaay too far. They're just Andrea Dworkin with a penis. Anyway, thanks for the headsup on MediaWatch's mandate.
From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
fatcalf
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3859

posted 11 March 2003 03:20 PM      Profile for fatcalf        Edit/Delete Post
To much drumming and Robert Bly, I would think...
From: vancouver | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
kropotkin1951
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2732

posted 11 March 2003 03:33 PM      Profile for kropotkin1951   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
My personal problem with the first quote above and both the ads Maggo highlighted and the ads etc. that Mediawatch highlights is the same.

I passionately believe that you cannot achieve equality by employing the same crass sexist language and tone from either gender. It is the old cliche that two wrongs don't make a right.

The reason I posted is because the "suck it up reply" seems to be a prevalent response to anyone man requesting respect in the feminist forum.

To me it is a matter of someone saying people "like" you have treated people "like" me disrespectfully so you have no right to complain because I am treating you the same.

Well I am not one of the people "like" me who engages in that kind of disrespect because I think it is inherently disruptive to any society which is trying to achieve equality.

It is also tied into the view that in ads only men benefit. This is an analysis that is not supported by the evidence. Yes more men that women profit from sexism but some women profit as well. The flip side of that argument is that most men do not profit from sexism, it hurts us all and only benefits the select few, some of whom are women.

And yes I am sensitive but shit isn't that what feminist women want from men, sensitivity to sexism and the real effects it has on our culture. I cannot intellectually or emotionally change the fact that it hurts to have people who should be allies treat me as the problem by using language and analogies that I have tried for years to change amongst the members of my own gender. It is an equality of respect issue.


From: North of Manifest Destiny | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
dale cooper
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2946

posted 11 March 2003 03:55 PM      Profile for dale cooper     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The reason I posted the "suck it up" comment was that I myself was forced to learn to "suck it up". I used to do the exact same thing as I am suggesting warrants a good "suck it up" - which is to enter the feminist forum (or thread in this case) and try and point out all the short-comings of the feminist philosophy. For no good reason at all other than I must have been feeling threatened?

I have since learned the obvious. There is not one feminist philosophy. Just because one female does something, does not mean the entire feminist population is accountable for it. The feminist forum is a place for feminist discussion among feminist thinkers who don't need every new babbler coming in explaining why they are wrong because of "anti-male" commercials or because some feminists are extremists or whatever. There is no reason why we should expect feminists to get up-in-arms everytime we notice an injustice against men by women or by men or whoever just to justify their beliefs in equality.

The reason I say "suck it up" is because now is not the time for argueing for equal rights on the side of men. Men, as a gender, are still lightyears ahead of women as far as global treatment goes. If you are concerned about having your toes stepped on a bit in an effort to make equality happen, then there is but one three-part word for you.

Petty-petty-petty.

[ 11 March 2003: Message edited by: dale cooper ]


From: Another place | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 11 March 2003 04:03 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
There is not one feminist philosophy.

Agreed. Women, feminist or not, are not a homogenous group.

quote:
Men, as a gender, are still lightyears ahead of women as far as global treatment goes.

But men are also not a homogenous group. While Bill Gates or Ted Turner may enjoy the many perks of their male status, I'm not likely to benefit in the same way... anymore than women in general have benefitted from Oprah's recent induction into the Billionaire's club.

quote:
There is no reason why we should expect feminists to get up-in-arms everytime we notice an injustice against men by women.

Who asked for "up in arms"?? What would it cost to say "ya, you're not wrong"? Either equality is or it is not everybody's concern.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
angela N
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2705

posted 11 March 2003 04:04 PM      Profile for angela N   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
kropotkin, I am sorry you took offense to the overseer game, I knew it could be seen as hateful towards men, so I took special care to provide some context that would show the game for what it was... silly .. I mean honestly, we are talking about an overseer after all. The real question was more to do with the idea that ‘if given an opportunity, would women (as political and economic leaders) do a better/fairer job than men have’. As Lima Bean aptly explains it’s difficult to imagine women rising to such a challenge while these pesky men are still going about the business of running the world as they always have, so, we had to have an imaginary holding place for them as we allowed ourselves to explore the possibilities of a female-run planet. It’s just a thought experiment, and, as it turns out, my friend feels that death is an appropriate holding place. Personally, I would be happy to ship you off to Venus instead... or is it Mars? It doesn’t really matter ... what happened to the men wasn’t really the point. The post was about women and their potential.

In any case, please accept my apology for being insensitive about your imaginary death and the death of your fellow dudes.

The overseer has spoken.


From: The city of Townsville | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
kropotkin1951
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2732

posted 11 March 2003 04:09 PM      Profile for kropotkin1951   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
If you are concerned about having your toes stepped on a bit in an effort to make equality happen, then there is but one three-part word for you.

The problem is not that I don't like getting my toes stepped on. The problem IMHO is that tit for tat is inherently a self defeating strategy that does a disservice to the cause of equality. I raise it not because I am necesarily thin skinned but because I really believe it hurts the feminist cause itself.

Like in war and violence an eye for eye leaves everyone blind. Sexism in response to sexism leaves a divided sexist society.


From: North of Manifest Destiny | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 11 March 2003 05:33 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
There seems to be a "musical chairs" attitude that somehow there's only so much respect to go around, and if you start giving it to men then you must necessarily be taking it from the "real" victims.

It costs nothing to be respectful of men AND women, of people of all colours (including white), of people of all ages and abilities, nationalities and religions. If you believe that you need to prioritize your respect because you haven't got enough for everybody, then it's only because you want to.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
dale cooper
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2946

posted 11 March 2003 05:57 PM      Profile for dale cooper     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I agree that we should be respectful of all people (and things).

But IMHO, it is disrespectful to stop along the way and make a stink about the group (WASP-male) who is in the highest "power position" or whatever you want to call it being disrespected when it is just a drop in the bucket compared to the inequalities faced by all others.

And I think often, that contributing to the argument that points out the way some groups who should be working for equal rights are using inequalities to be heard, even though they are often just a vocal minority within the group, can cause a backlash against the equal rights movement in general. Pardon my awkward wording.

My example of this (I think I mentioned it above) is the pimp-lifestyle/"Man-Show"/revelling in the depravity of men (see various magazines currently on the stand - Maxim,Stuff,etc.). These are all a backlash against feminism/equal-rights brought on by men who feel insecure in the fact that they may not be handed everything in life on a platter.


From: Another place | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
kropotkin1951
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2732

posted 11 March 2003 06:33 PM      Profile for kropotkin1951   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Thanks for the clarification Dale.

I guess I should just not talk about inequality anymore because I am a white male.

Shit all those years calling other men on their behaviour and attitudes and I thought I was doing a good thing.

Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea culpa.

I will try to act more like some of my male acquaintences YES DEAR ANYTHING YOU SAY DEAR.

[the most effect use of YES DEAR is of course while channel surfing looking for hot babes or even better hot wrestling babes]

I have been duly put in my place and I guess I'll just have to learn to be a sexist pig as my place in society predicts.

[ 11 March 2003: Message edited by: kropotkin1951 ]


From: North of Manifest Destiny | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
dale cooper
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2946

posted 11 March 2003 06:45 PM      Profile for dale cooper     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I said what now??

kropotkin - where, anywhere - did I say you should not speak out against inequality just because you're a white male? Or is it offensive for me to utter those words at all? Read my post(s) again for clarification. Or not. I don't care. But don't put words in my mouth just so you can make-believe oppressed.

I can appreciate an honest understanding because I tend to jumble my speech, so here is my statement as simply as I can put it:

white male - not oppressed
everyone else - more oppressed than white male
slim minority of equal rights activists - use "eye for an eye" technique to be heard
making a stink about above mentioned slim minority instead of focusing on real issue - futile
kropotkin1951 - to be applauded for speaking out against sexist attitudes in other men, despite being a white male himself


From: Another place | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
kropotkin1951
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2732

posted 11 March 2003 07:35 PM      Profile for kropotkin1951   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
white male - not oppressed
everyone else - more oppressed than white male

So Ms. Rice in Bush's cabinet is more oppressed than all white males. The street people in Vancouver who are white males are definitely not oppressed.

Love the logic. I wish I was as oppressed as Ms. Rice then Bush might take my advice.

Women generally are more oppressed then men but generalities are the problem. There is no analysis of class in a strict gender view.


From: North of Manifest Destiny | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
angela N
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2705

posted 11 March 2003 09:02 PM      Profile for angela N   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You talk as if you are concerned about inequality but have spoken of nothing but your own oppression as a white male.


From: The city of Townsville | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
kropotkin1951
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2732

posted 11 March 2003 09:29 PM      Profile for kropotkin1951   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Wrong!!!

I have spoken often in these forums and in person against oppresion in all forms.

And I don't see where I have said I was oppressed, could you quote it for me.


From: North of Manifest Destiny | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
DingleBall
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3323

posted 12 March 2003 05:53 AM      Profile for DingleBall     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You will notice that in most of the ads that feature an idiot man there is usually an equally offensive female character.

Typical commercial:

Man is getting ready to go golfing for the afternoon.
Woman: Honey, don't forget to pick up my drycleaning.
Man: No problem.
Man goes golfing. Man scratches armpits. Man drinks beer. Man belches. Man pees in a bush. Man comes home sans drycleaning.
Woman: Honey where's my drycleaning?
Man: Uh...
Woman: I can't BELIEVE you forgot my drycleaning. What is WRONG with you? Don't you love me? You're sleeping on the couch tonight.
Man: Hangdog look.
Dingleball: *BARF*

Both men and women make sexist jokes, just turn on The Tonight Show and you'll hear a bucket load within 15 minutes. It isn't male-bashing, it's morons who are too lazy or too pea-brained to figure out that not all men are grunting neanderthals and not all women are shrill control freaks.


From: Halifax, NS | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
angela N
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2705

posted 12 March 2003 10:45 AM      Profile for angela N   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I guess I should just not talk about inequality anymore because I am a white male.

Shit all those years calling other men on their behaviour and attitudes and I thought I was doing a good thing. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea culpa.
I will try to act more like some of my male acquaintences YES DEAR ANYTHING YOU SAY DEAR.

[the most effect use of YES DEAR is of course while channel surfing looking for hot babes or even better hot wrestling babes]

I have been duly put in my place and I guess I'll just have to learn to be a sexist pig as my place in society predicts.


Your bizarre but enjoyable communication invites us to believe that somehow you have been badly abused by us women and specifically by me. There is no other reason that I can think of why one so informed and skilled would resort to the shameful use of false alternatives and belligerent shows of sarcastic drivel.

I believe that within the original thread and within this thread I have tried to show that the overseer experiment was an examination of a theoretical switching of roles where women could try their hand at leadership. What happened to men in this scenario was of little consequence, we simply needed to imagine that they (men) would not be around to contaminate the hypothetical female run world.

Obviously you feel the need to see it as male bashing and for whatever reason you have no interest in discussing the issue with me but instead prefer to build up a nice little straw man so that you may shoot him (or her) down. By ignoring the context of the original post and focussing solely on the fate of men in this intentionally ridiculous paradigm, you reveal your need to play the victim.

I have apologised for the inappropriate extermination of men in the overseer game, and have offered you alternative destinations in the hopes that you will see this for what it is, but apparently, it seems like you can't see beyond this perceived hatred. The irony, of course, is that you have taken a feminist issue (albeit a comical approach to it) and turned it into a male issue. At least you had the good sense not to attempt this in the feminist forum.


From: The city of Townsville | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
Sisyphus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1425

posted 12 March 2003 11:03 AM      Profile for Sisyphus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
AngelaN, I hope you will bear with me, while I seek to clarify my position on the Very Serious topic of white male oppression by...um...well, by everyone else.

quote:
I have apologised for the inappropriate extermination of men in the overseer game, and have offered you alternative destinations in the hopes that you will see this for what it is, but apparently, it seems like you can't see beyond this perceived hatred.

You describe here, what the great German physicist , Ernst Mach, called Gedankenexperimente , or "thought-experiment", a very useful technique in science. I believe Galileo was one of the first practitioners of this technique, which allowed him to deduce qualitatively what we now know as Newton's First Law of Motion.

I believe no apology is necessary, as I spent many happy hours as a young teenager performing a variation of the Gedankenexperimente that offended so many in this thread , wherein all males on Earth were exterminated except for me.

[ 12 March 2003: Message edited by: Sisyphus ]


From: Never Never Land | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
nonsuch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1402

posted 12 March 2003 11:19 AM      Profile for nonsuch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Two more takes on this, for what they are worth.

One:
It's okay - indeed, unavoidable - to talk about the death of 200,000 people, a million, six million people. This has happened in the real world and is about to happen again: a lot of people are getting ready to kill a lot of other people. The people getting ready to do it (this time) are American and Britsh; the people they mean to do it to are Iraqi (this time). Obviously and demonstrably, not all of the American and British populations are guilty and not all of the Iraqi population is innocent. Yet, we talk about them as though each were a single entity. Because, in the context of war, each nation is an entity. It would be very difficult to talk about the situation at all, if one had to say "20 percent of Britain and 67 percent of the US are about attack 85 percent of Iraq in order to replace 9 percent of Iraqui leadership".

In some situations, on some subjects, clarity is achieved by generalization, rather than strict accuracy or political correctness.

Two:
People get mad at other people for various reasons. People fantasize, do thought experiments, conjecture. If they're not allowed to talk about it, you'll never know what they're thinking. If you don't know what they're thinking, everything they do will take you by surprise.


From: coming and going | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Aviator
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3299

posted 12 March 2003 11:27 AM      Profile for Aviator     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
To much drumming and Robert Bly, I would think...

Thank God, that movement is dead!


From: British Columbia | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 12 March 2003 12:24 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
What happened to men in this scenario was of little consequence,

Well, with all due respect to your friend, if it didn't matter how they weren't there (on vacation, ruling a planet of their own, visiting other planets), but she chose a world where they were all dead... well, I think that says something about her.

I mean, what would you think if a man openly admitted that his utopia would begin by killing all the women? I don't mean this to have more weight than it does, nor to turn this into a big issue, but things like this seem a little gratuitously male-negative, and I do find it mysterious that progressive people would give themselves permission to think this way.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Aviator
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3299

posted 12 March 2003 12:44 PM      Profile for Aviator     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Just random thoughts here, so excuse me if I wander a bit.

quote:
I was also annoyed at the peace about Women and Peace by Judy Rebick. I do not like it when people presume that women are inherently more peaceful than men.

I think people would find When She Was Bad by Patricia Pearson interesting reading.

quote:
There seems to be a "musical chairs" attitude that somehow there's only so much respect to go around, and if you start giving it to men then you must necessarily be taking it from the "real" victims.

Thanks for pointing this out. We see the equivalent when we ask the rich to pay their fair share of taxes. "Well, if some poor disadvantaged person gets an extra $3, that means your taking in away from me!"


From: British Columbia | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Sisyphus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1425

posted 12 March 2003 12:47 PM      Profile for Sisyphus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I mean, what would you think if a man openly admitted that his utopia would begin by killing all the women? I don't mean this to have more weight than it does, nor to turn this into a big issue, but things like this seem a little gratuitously male-negative, and I do find it mysterious that progressive people would give themselves permission to think this way.

I don't know, Mr. Magoo, but within my circle of male acquaintances are men who are paragons of feminism and those who most definitely aren't. Such is the hurly-burly of the real world.

"Women: Ya can't live with 'em; ya can't shoot 'em" Ever heard it?

I expect if most of the latter type of man wasn't twenty times more exquisitely sensitive to any intimation of homosexuality than a shark is to blood, men-only scenarios would figure in a fair number of their conversations.

I can't believe the hyper-sensitivity to a hypothetical situation.

Tell you what, I give you my permission. Imagine, if you dare, a world without women.
It's OK, I promise.

Say we can clone, but only males.

How would this world be different than the one we have today? Would it be like summer camp or prison or something else? Would we have toilet seat lids or the colour taupe?

Have fun!

Don't look for me, I'll be in a world populated with only women and me, making sure to put down the taupe toilet seat .


From: Never Never Land | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 12 March 2003 12:50 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Ya, that's true.

Mind you when it comes to money, there is only so much to go around, and I'd never suggest that money should be streamed from, say, funding Women's shelters to funding a study on "Male Oppression" or anything like that, because of course it really would give to a less important issue by taking away from a more important one. But I do maintain that respect and concern are free and exist in endless supply, so there's no need to allocate, ration or prioritize.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
dale cooper
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2946

posted 12 March 2003 12:59 PM      Profile for dale cooper     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think I'd be more inclined to be upset over this 'overseer' scenario if there was a part in it about HOW the men are killed or if the men were enslaved rather than killed. I don't know if Angela's friend actually said 'killed' or 'didn't exist' or what, but unless she shows actual homicidal feelings in a desire to rid the world of men, I think we're just nit-picking over words. As it stands, it's just a fantasy.
From: Another place | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Boydfish
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3667

posted 12 March 2003 01:03 PM      Profile for Boydfish     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Those of us in British Columbia will know what I'm talking about, those not, well, just go back to shovelling snow or something.

Advertising standards are very much a area of double standards: Look at the recent spate of anti-smoking ads set in a bar/comedy club. The "Baltic Phenom", "You're-a-slav" Popov(I'm not sure if they just did it by accident, or if it's a hidden slur, but the pronunciation was terrible), comes on stage and begins his set by telling a joke in what I believe is Polish. One guy in the bar, dressed to look as "Slavic" as possible, laughs. The point then is made that bars shouldn't cater to the smokers who are in the minority.

Every image of the people from the Baltic is a negative one. I happen to be of Baltic heritage and found it offensive. If that ad had used Asians, SUCCESS would have firebombed the anti-smoking HQ. But, because us Baltic people aren't recognized in society as having been worked over by several other cultures, it's OK for us to be made public fools.

So what? I don't care what the anti-smoking nazis care or think, nor would I care to talk to any person who thinks that all Balts are like that.

I quit smoking years ago, so this isn't some latent dislike of the message.


From: British Columbia | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 12 March 2003 01:11 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Dale: I basically agree. I think it's worth noting (especially on a message board where the whole purpose is to discuss things), but it's not a huge thing.

Boydfish: You might not actually care, and that's healthy, but regardless of the "harm" that slurs or disrespect may or may not cause, if they're entirely gratuitous, I say get rid of them. They don't serve any positive purpose either.

That said, my personal fave (being Irish) is the "Notre Dame Fighting Irish, and their little Irish mascot bristlin' for a fistfight. Not too stereotypical, huh? If they could have indicated that he was drunk, I'm sure they would have!


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
angela N
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2705

posted 12 March 2003 01:11 PM      Profile for angela N   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
As it stands, it's just a fantasy.

A thought experiment dammit!!! ... and trust me any fantasy of mine will most certainly include men.


From: The city of Townsville | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
dale cooper
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2946

posted 12 March 2003 01:18 PM      Profile for dale cooper     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Sorry Angela N. Read that as my own personal issue with accepting the reality of life. All experiments are fanatasies. Which makes my life really sad, I guess, because I do experiments with wastewater treatment.
From: Another place | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
angela N
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2705

posted 12 March 2003 01:36 PM      Profile for angela N   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Which makes my life really sad

Your life sounds pretty nice on that other thread


From: The city of Townsville | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
dale cooper
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2946

posted 12 March 2003 01:43 PM      Profile for dale cooper     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Fantasy, Angela. All fantasy.

Except the wife. I'm pretty sure she's real.


From: Another place | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
kropotkin1951
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2732

posted 13 March 2003 02:20 AM      Profile for kropotkin1951   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well Angela I guess it depnds on how you read the posts and what each other is replying to. I apologize if you are offended but I will show you the order that I read the posts.

your said

quote:
kropotkin, I am sorry you took offense to the overseer game, I knew it could be seen as hateful towards men, so I took special care to provide some context that would show the game for what it was... silly .. I mean honestly, we are talking about an overseer after all. The real question was more to do with the idea that ‘if given an opportunity, would women (as political and economic leaders) do a better/fairer job than men have’. As Lima Bean aptly explains it’s difficult to imagine women rising to such a challenge while these pesky men are still going about the business of running the world as they always have, so, we had to have an imaginary holding place for them as we allowed ourselves to explore the possibilities of a female-run planet. It’s just a thought experiment, and, as it turns out, my friend feels that death is an appropriate holding place. Personally, I would be happy to ship you off to Venus instead... or is it Mars? It doesn’t really matter ... what happened to the men wasn’t really the point. The post was about women and their potential.
In any case, please accept my apology for being insensitive about your imaginary death and the death of your fellow dudes.

The overseer has spoken.


your next post in the thread said

quote:
You talk as if you are concerned about inequality but have spoken of nothing but your own oppression as a white male.

I can't for the live of me figure why I responded with sarcasim.

Sorry there I go again. The reason I posted and started a thread is because I really do believe it is inherently destructive to adopt the attitudes and world view that one is trying to overcome. It doesn't work and is potentially very harmful.

I don't apologize for trying to engage a debate that might get some people to realize that sexism is sexism and the more we all engage in it the more it breeds. Equality is essentially about respect.


From: North of Manifest Destiny | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
audra trower williams
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2

posted 13 March 2003 10:18 AM      Profile for audra trower williams   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Kroptkin: What is it going to take to console you on this issue?
From: And I'm a look you in the eye for every bar of the chorus | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 13 March 2003 11:19 AM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Why is there a thread called "boycott the war" but no thread called "girlcott the war"? I think it's sexism!
From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 13 March 2003 11:31 AM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Glad to see it's a joke. Boycott was a ruthless British landagent in Ireland, nothing to do with boys or cots.
From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 13 March 2003 11:33 AM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Did you seriously think I was serious? Anyway, interesting anecdote about the word's origin. But now you've spoiled the potential party.

Stupid flood control!


From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 13 March 2003 11:39 AM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
No, of course not. I'm a terminal word-geek.
From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
kuba walda
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3134

posted 13 March 2003 12:22 PM      Profile for kuba walda        Edit/Delete Post
But I like it next march I'm gonna have a sign GIRLCOTT THE WAR!!!!!!!!!!

GRRRRRRRRRRRRRILLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL POWER FUELS THE WORLD NOT OIL


From: the garden | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
angela N
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2705

posted 13 March 2003 01:49 PM      Profile for angela N   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I don't apologize for trying to engage a debate that might get some people to realize that sexism is sexism and the more we all engage in it the more it breeds. Equality is essentially about respect.

Fair enough, I respect your position on the matter but ... what happens when there IS inequality as there happens to be when we compare any given group to say .. white males. Should we go around being all respectful-like and imagine that in time they these men will see how oppressive they are being and rectify the problem of their own accord?
(insert hysterical laughter) Probably not.

Until I get paid what you do for the same work, as long as I walk at night looking over my shoulder in fear, as long as get bypassed for jobs that I am qualified for because I have the potential to have a baby... you'll probably hear me bitching about men, and you, courteous fellow that you are, should be able to understand and deal with that.

[ 13 March 2003: Message edited by: angela N ]


From: The city of Townsville | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 13 March 2003 01:59 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
...you'll probably hear me bitching about men...

Any chance you could only bitch about the bad ones?


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
angela N
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2705

posted 13 March 2003 03:27 PM      Profile for angela N   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'll see what I can do Magoo.

ps. I am not typically a male-bashing feminist, but I do take exception when I hear the whining about reverse sexism... no, you are probably not one of the men that I speak of when I refer to oppression, however the legacy of the white man has a lot to answer for and until such time as the world sees true equality among races and sexes you are going to be seen as the villain. Keep in mind that you have not earned the advantages that you enjoy and whether or not you have perpetuated the system that ensures that those advantages are intact, you will be seen as complicit.


From: The city of Townsville | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
Rebecca West
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1873

posted 13 March 2003 03:58 PM      Profile for Rebecca West     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
What every boy child should be told:
quote:
Keep in mind that you have not earned the advantages that you enjoy and whether or not you have perpetuated the system that ensures that those advantages are intact, you will be seen as complicit

From: London , Ontario - homogeneous maximus | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
dale cooper
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2946

posted 13 March 2003 04:04 PM      Profile for dale cooper     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think that's something every child of a privileged background should be told (although white western-cultured boys more-so). It should take the place of the Lords Prayer in morning exercises.

"I have not earned the advantages I enjoy. Whether or not I help perpetuate the system that ensures that these advantages are in place, I will be seen as complicit."

I think I'll hang that up above my bed.


From: Another place | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 13 March 2003 04:07 PM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
This is a complicated issue: 'complicit' to me implies taking some active or knowing role in it. For instance, it is possible to be actively negligent. However, most men in Western society (and even most women) don't even actively see or realize the discrimination against women. Then how can they be complicit in anything?

Complicity is quite different from being responsible for ending it. It is possible to be responsible for ending something from which one benefits without being 'complicit,' which involves a measure of collective guilt, in this case.

Telling a boy that he is guilty of something he didn't do is probably not the right message.


From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 13 March 2003 04:10 PM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The other moral point is that the way it appears to be phrased, not only can one be complicit without having any knowledge of it, but one can also be complicit in such a way that there is no way to escape from some measure of complicity without running into the jungle and living as a hermit.
From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Rebecca West
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1873

posted 13 March 2003 04:22 PM      Profile for Rebecca West     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You have missed the most pertinent part of that: you will be seen to be complicit. Not, you are complicit. It is not an accusation. It is a statement of fact that includes a possibly unfair perception that boys will have to accept exists because of a general state of unfairness in the world.

[ 13 March 2003: Message edited by: Rebecca West ]


From: London , Ontario - homogeneous maximus | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 13 March 2003 04:35 PM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
But that leads us to another ambiguity. It doesn't specify whether or not this perception is right or wrong. By telling them that, are you trying to get them to accept it? Because if you didn't tell them that, then presumably they would not expect to be seen as complicit and thus take umbrage at being seen as complicit. But now that you told them that...what reaction do you expect from them when they realize that they are being seen as complicit?

My position is that someone shouldn't have to expect to be seen as complicit (as distinct from responsible), and therefore they needn't be told that. But maybe I'm just a nitpicker.

[ 13 March 2003: Message edited by: Mandos ]


From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
bevy
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3778

posted 13 March 2003 04:42 PM      Profile for bevy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
If the men who have been whining about reverse sexism and asking women to justify or explain their feminist stance (especially that which has appeared on the pro-feminist section) to them spent half as much time ACTIVELY stopping male sexist behavior - think of how much they would have accomplished. Maybe their precious status as sensitive feminist men would have even risen a little.

I'm not sure why I read this garbage. I see through you and I’m sure a lot of other women too. I can't believe how much time is spent asking women to defend their positions to explain once more why their feminism exists the way it does. It doesn't matter. If you were really concerned about feminist issues you wouldn't waste women's time with this nitpicking. The reality is you will never know what it is like to be a woman. You'll just have to accept women's own interpretations of their lives and what they feel would make their lives better. The reality is things still aren't equal here, women's voices still aren't being heard and you're not helping any by drowning them out with your incessant objections.


From: toronto | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michael Hardner
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2595

posted 13 March 2003 04:48 PM      Profile for Michael Hardner   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
half as much time ACTIVELY stopping male sexist behavior

I've never heard a male acquaintence, or anyone in my presence advocate the elimination of females.

Maybe it IS time for us to start thinking as human beings instead of as women and men.


From: Toronto | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 13 March 2003 04:50 PM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Note, bevy, that this wasn't posted on the feminist forum and therefore some tolerance should be given for complaints about material on the feminist forum (though after a while it got rather silly). This was established a little while back that if the feminist forum wasn't taken over by such complaints, then there wouldn't be that sort of objection to complaints elsewhere. This is a side effect of the feminist forum/everyone else dichotomy that I think everyone will have to tolerate (though my own opinions on the matter are relatively well known).

I have a specific problem with this statement.

quote:
The reality is you will never know what it is like to be a woman. You'll just have to accept women's own interpretations of their lives and what they feel would make their lives better.
Some of these interpretations and life-improvement recommendations overlap on men's lives and self-perceptions. Even though men's interpretations are privileged, women's interpretations cannot automatically be assumed to be correct/fair/etc, which is basically what you seem to be demanding. In fact, this is precisely the point that I was arguing with RW.

From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 13 March 2003 04:51 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
It is atatement of fact that includes a possibly unfair perception that boys will have to accept exists because of a general state of unfairness in the world.

It also exists because people who should know better would rather tar all men with the same brush. Which is really what this thread is discussing.

Is it that tough to differentiate? We expect ourselves to know that not all young black men are gun-toting gangbangers. We expect ourselves to know that not all lesbians are angry, hairy women with brushcuts. We expect ourselves to know that not all Asian women walk 10 paces behind their husbands and give good backrubs. We speak and act accordingly, and we have limited patience for those who can't be bothered to even make the effort.

So.. why can't we be just as considerate to men who don't fit the "oppressor" stereotype? Learning to say "some men" instead of "men" is no tougher than learning to say "chairperson" or "firefighter".


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
bevy
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3778

posted 13 March 2003 04:52 PM      Profile for bevy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
of course you wouldn't hear that many of your male friends actively suggest the emlimnation of women. Why would they? The patriarchy is set up men benifit from women not being equal. Why think of all the unpayed labour that mainly women do that men would have to participate in! but that's only the begining!
From: toronto | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 13 March 2003 04:58 PM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Actually, there have been lots of sexist writers who fantasized about the elimination of women. Such fantasies are one of the cornerstones of misogyny.
From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Rebecca West
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1873

posted 13 March 2003 05:06 PM      Profile for Rebecca West     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
So.. why can't we be just as considerate to men who don't fit the "oppressor" stereotype? Learning to say "some men" instead of "men" is no tougher than learning to say "chairperson" or "firefighter".
When I no longer enjoy unearned privilege as a white woman, I will ask my brothers and sisters of colour not to make assumptions about me based on my skin colour. Until then I will quite willingly - as one babbler has put it - suck it up.

I suggest you do the same.

[ 13 March 2003: Message edited by: Rebecca West ]


From: London , Ontario - homogeneous maximus | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 13 March 2003 05:09 PM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Umm, this might work for the converted...
From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 13 March 2003 05:11 PM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
...and I'm also not 100% convinced that a member of a privileged class must give up the expectation of being treated as an individual. This certainly does not preclude discussion of the class as a class.
From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
dale cooper
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2946

posted 13 March 2003 05:18 PM      Profile for dale cooper     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think one of the big problems here is learning to view this issue not as a subjective issue, but as an objective one. When I was going through the co-op program, I used to have serious issues with this, because the standard order of hiring for co-ops is 1. Exceptionally bright, hard-working males. 2. Females 3.The rest of the males. Every faculty, every co-op term, this is the order it took. And being one of the rest of the males, I thought "I've never oppressed anyone. Why am I being punished?"

But once out in the real world, I see that this is often just a practise used by companies to make it look as though they are employing both women and men. As soon as it comes to full-time hiring, I think the majority of men have an easier time getting the jobs. This is specifically geared at gov't jobs which often operate as a "boys club". Some of the things I heard the full-time male employees say (which numbered about 14 out of 15 in my department) would have made you sick.

What did I learn from this? It doesn't matter whether I've been good or bad (well, it matters if I'm bad) there is still gross inequality from which I benefit in the long run. And even if I was to never personally benefit, I still belong to the white male sector of humanity which has been benefitting for centuries. I guess it's a sort of "sins of the fathers" sort of thing.

I didn't mean to be harsh when I said 'suck it up'. I just meant that sometimes it's necessary to lay down your ego to help benefit the world?? I don't know. Something like that.


From: Another place | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michael Hardner
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2595

posted 13 March 2003 05:18 PM      Profile for Michael Hardner   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
of course you wouldn't hear that many of your male friends actively suggest the emlimnation of women. Why would they? The patriarchy is set up men benifit from women not being equal. Why think of all the unpayed labour that mainly women do that men would have to participate in! but that's only the begining!

The patriarchy wasn't "set up". That would imply intelligence and forethought.

I think that kind of mindset is conspiracy-minded and destructive.

There are bad men and bad women, but people are mostly good and the time has come for people to think of themselves as people first.


From: Toronto | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 13 March 2003 05:24 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
When I no longer enjoy unearned privilege as a white woman, I will ask my brothers and sisters of colour not to make assumptions about
me based on my skin colour. Until then I will quite willingly - as one babbler has put it - suck it up.

Umm... any particular reason why they can't stop stereotyping you now? Is it part of your collective punishment or something?


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
kropotkin1951
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2732

posted 13 March 2003 07:52 PM      Profile for kropotkin1951   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I deliberately posted this thread outside the feminist forum because it would have been unwelcome in that forum. Or are some people ssaying that this is a topic that cannot be discussed anywhere. Curious for an open forujm like babble.

I guess what irks me about the whole thing is it requires me to tell my son that no matter how hard you work and how fair you are personally anything you accomplish is a sham because it was given to you. That to me is not acceptable. It is in fact the reverse of the argument that people use against affirmative action. The right likes to say that any person who gets ahead because of affirmative action didn't have the merit to do it alone. I disagree with both the statements.

I wonder about any theory that is logically inconsistent. If you have twins born tomorrow is the male child an oppressor and the female child oppressed. Be careful because the two statemenets are not mutually inclusive. At birth the structure of society may make the female child more oppressed but it certainly does not make the male child an oppressor. He didn't have anything to do with the system, he was born into it just like his sister.

The question then is if you want both your children to grow up equal is it helpful if you blame your son for the problems he inherited. If I am blamed for things I didn't do and told to accept that view and suck it up what is the incentive to help change the world.

And Bevy this attitude is supposed to help what?

quote:
If the men who have been whining about reverse sexism and asking women to justify or explain their feminist stance (especially that which has appeared on the pro-feminist section) to them spent half as much time ACTIVELY stopping male sexist behavior - think of how much they would have accomplished. Maybe their precious status as sensitive feminist men would have even risen a little.

This thread has nothing to do with a feminist stance unless you believe that male hating is a feminist view. I don't think so and I'm surprised you would. And making arguments based on how much time individuals spend actively stopping male behaviour tells me you have judged us all and found us all lacking. You don't know most of us in our real lives so you are making sexist assumptions about men. It is the equivalent of my presuming that feminists are male haters (which I don't belive} and in fact the reason I posted this thread topic.


From: North of Manifest Destiny | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
nonsuch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1402

posted 13 March 2003 08:24 PM      Profile for nonsuch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
molehill in a teacup
From: coming and going | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
fatcalf
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3859

posted 13 March 2003 08:44 PM      Profile for fatcalf        Edit/Delete Post
Statements like this make me cringe:

quote:
When I no longer enjoy unearned privilege as a white woman, I will ask my brothers and sisters of colour not to make assumptions about
me based on my skin colour.

It makes me cringe because of its inherent assumptions. Many, many white women enjoy little or no privilege. And why would civility (not making assumptions) be conditional upon a change in society (ie. those privileged women losing their privilege). Isn't making assumptions a form of prejudice in any event?

The phrase "brothers and sisters of colours" makes my teeth grate. First of all, you're probably not talking about your kin. Secondly, are "white people" (whatever that really means) people of non-colour (ie. invisible). P.C. jargon.


From: vancouver | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Rebecca West
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1873

posted 14 March 2003 11:07 AM      Profile for Rebecca West     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
It makes me cringe because of its inherent assumptions. Many, many white women enjoy little or no privilege. And why would civility (not making assumptions) be conditional upon a change in society (ie. those privileged women losing their privilege). Isn't making assumptions a form of prejudice in any event?
You obviously have no understanding of how racism impacts on people. If you're suggesting that what I say about skin colour and privilege is racist, then I must suggest that you're talking out of your ass.

quote:
The phrase "brothers and sisters of colours" makes my teeth grate. First of all, you're probably not talking about your kin. Secondly, are "white people" (whatever that really means) people of non-colour (ie. invisible). P.C. jargon.
Your obvious ignorance of the issues involved renders your opinions on "PC jargon", and how I might express my opinions, uninteresting at best.

*yawn*


From: London , Ontario - homogeneous maximus | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
fatcalf
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3859

posted 14 March 2003 11:16 AM      Profile for fatcalf        Edit/Delete Post
If you can find the time, read Orwell's essay "Politics and the English Language" -- then you might understand.
From: vancouver | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
paxamillion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2836

posted 14 March 2003 11:31 AM      Profile for paxamillion   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I think that's something every child of a privileged background should be told (although white western-cultured boys more-so). It should take the place of the Lords Prayer in morning exercises.
"I have not earned the advantages I enjoy. Whether or not I help perpetuate the system that ensures that these advantages are in place, I will be seen as complicit."

I think I'll hang that up above my bed.


I recognize I'm responding a "fair distance" from this quote, so please accept my apologies in advance.

People are going to see what they are going to see. If someone wants to see me as perpetuating a system of oppression by virtue of how I appear, regardless of what I do, there really is very little I can do about that.

I can continue to try to do my best to live by what I say I value. Some people appreciate my efforts and activities and some people don't. It remains within my purvey to decide where and with whom I spend my time.

Perhaps, instead, you might try hanging this one above your bed. It works for me in tough going:

quote:

God, grant me the serenity
to accept the things I cannot change;
the courage to change the things I can; and
the wisdom to know the difference.


From: the process of recovery | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Rebecca West
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1873

posted 14 March 2003 11:37 AM      Profile for Rebecca West     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Generally, the best you can do is understand the context of how and why people perceive you in a certain way. What is fair, and what is understandable, given a particular social and historical context, are not necessarily the same thing.
From: London , Ontario - homogeneous maximus | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
dale cooper
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2946

posted 14 March 2003 11:40 AM      Profile for dale cooper     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
God, grant me the serenity
to accept the things I cannot change;
the courage to change the things I can; and
the wisdom to know the difference.

How about if I hang that one above my mirror in the bathroom and change God to Self or Free-will (French-will?) or something along those lines.

I guess it's the root of both statements that attract me "Keep a realistic perspective on life". Hard thing to do sometimes...


From: Another place | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
paxamillion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2836

posted 14 March 2003 11:48 AM      Profile for paxamillion   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
If you think that will help, by all means try it.

Some athiest and agnostic friends of mine choose to see the word "God" as an acronym for "good orderly direction." It works for them.

[ 14 March 2003: Message edited by: paxamillion ]


From: the process of recovery | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
bevy
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3778

posted 14 March 2003 12:52 PM      Profile for bevy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Whether or not this thread was posted in the feminist forum doesn't really matter to me. If I see or hear comments that I feel are sexist or unsupportive I will comment on them, as I feel all people should. That's the responsibility of someone with power - make sure you don't ride on the backs of others and make and effort in actively changing things. every day. It shouldn't be up to the people who are being discriminated against to do all the work involved in ending discrimination. In fact, it's impossible. It requires people who have power, the voice and money in this particular society to freely give some of it up - it requires white men (and women) to educate themselves and their friends to the inequity around them and to ask people facing discrimination every day what they can do to support their struggles. It's a difficult task - I know. But it requires being aware of talking too much, asking for too much validation instead of listening and hearing what someone is saying. It requires stepping back and letting someone else take the lead. I know it's hard not to put your two cents in all the time, but their are times when it is better to sit back and let someone who doesn't get heard often speak.
From: toronto | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
kropotkin1951
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2732

posted 14 March 2003 02:18 PM      Profile for kropotkin1951   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Bevy well written response and I can't disagree with any of the concepts.

But in my world it does not include sitting quietly while people make negative assumptions about me or anyone else based soley on their race or gender. The reason being is because I like to act on my believes and it is my believe that a too simple analysis of patriarchy is a negative force in the struggle to advance to an equality driven world.

In my world patriarchy has build a pyramid structure not bunk beds. Not all men are in the top bunk and all women in the bottom bunk because it isn't a model of two genders. In the structure of the pyramid while there are more males with power there are also females with power. Any feminist analysis that does not admit that the current system creates winners and loser and that the vast majority of both men and women under that system are losers is I think myopic.

As well in the class of winners are women albeit a minority of the winners class. This is the real world. If the analysis does not take this into account how can it help to build alliances between all the people in the other than winners class. It seems to be it is not nuanced enough to be helpful in pointing the way to a better world.

The other thing that needs to be understood is that while men have an easier time walking through the doors of power it requires either a birth place in the ruling class or an unconditional acceptance of the ruling patriarchy to be let into the winners inner circle. Most of the men I know would never sell themselves out to gain access to that world and I and others find it insulting when it is presumed that even if given the opportunity we would buy into the patriarchal status quo and work to enhance it.

Many men will walk through that door but so will many women and they both sell their virtue and ethics for a free ride on the gravy train. That is the real face of patriarchy in 2003.


From: North of Manifest Destiny | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
itchy
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3810

posted 14 March 2003 03:01 PM      Profile for itchy   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
hey all, i've been following this thread for a while now and i just wanna put my two cents in while the puttin's good.

kropotkin, as a fellow whitemiddleclassmale, i have to say that i'm a little frustrated with the way you're treating this issue. yes, oppressions do intersect in a way that gives, say, condoleeza rice, more enconomic power than you have, but that alone does not equate privilege. it is only one type of privilege and can't be used as a measuring stick to compare your overall status. so while she may be richer or more powerful in some ways, she still runs the risk of getting raped by a stranger or a friend or a partner, she still has to put up with the leering gazes of men everywhere. these are things you and i will never experience in the same way and frequency. plus, i'm willing to bet that she gets talked down to, talked over, and interrupted by her so-called peers, simply because she is a black woman. that's something, no matter how many times people talk down to you or over you or interrupt you, you will never experience from that point of view.

secondly, you've said over and over that you understand where bevy is coming from but then you drum up the same old line of 'why aren't you supporting my struggles for liberation as a man?' that's been explained to you many times over. women are the ones who need our support in their struggle. our issues as they might relate to race, class, sexual orientation are worthy of support, but women giving up time and energy to support men's liberation? c'mon. an analogy i might use follows:
A millionaire who loses a dollar and asks an overworked minimum-wager to help him find it. When the minimum wager says, 'sorry, i'm too busy trying to get to my second job,' the millionaire screams, 'WELL DON'T COME LOOKING TO ME FOR HELP NEXT TIME THEN!'
You see, women are not responsible in any way for helping men achieve equality because it is men who have power, privilege and status already.

I would suggest reading this article about reverse racism as it applies quite nicely to sexism as well. for what you've been complaining about is reverse sexism. and it cannot be reversed, not now, not in this society.
Honky Wanna Cracker? The Myth of Reverse Racism

more of his articles can be found at:
Articles and Essays by Tim Wise

also, i highly recommend the book, men's work by paul kivel, if you're interested in learning more about sexism and how you can help in the struggle.


From: toronto | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Lima Bean
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3000

posted 14 March 2003 03:42 PM      Profile for Lima Bean   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The question then is if you want both your children to grow up equal is it helpful if you blame your son for the problems he inherited. If I am blamed for things I didn't do and told to accept that view and suck it up what is the incentive to help change the world.

Here's where you lose it. We're not talking about blame. We're talking about a huge, megapower structure that favours people in your position (white male middle class). We're not asking you to accept blame for The Way Things Are, but to acknowledge that in The Way Things Are you and your kind (wmmc) have a lot less to worry about than the rest of us, generally. To complain about an imaginary scenario posted for discussion as male-hating is just petty whining.

I think it's fair to assume that at present most of us are working towards (or at least ambiguously hoping for) a more equitable and balanced societal system in which uncontrollable variables do not dictate your place in the world. But let's focus first on where the work is really needed, and not get sidetracked by these petty technicalities that arise out of imagination and the pursuit of alternatives.

Because let's face it, nobody would ever ever ever be able to, or want to rid the world of males in actual reality. The very idea was just the leap of imagination that was necessary to be able to brainstorm about how the world might or could be different if women, instead of white middle and upper class males, were the leaders.

That's what we should be talking about.


From: s | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
fatcalf
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3859

posted 14 March 2003 05:34 PM      Profile for fatcalf        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Your obvious ignorance of the issues involved renders your opinions on "PC jargon", and how I might express my opinions, uninteresting at best.

How patronizing. How rude. How misinformed. Why can't one question the phrase "people of colour"? In the past, the word "negro" was used, then it changed to "black", then "African-American". None of these terms is perfect, and I would always defer to what INDIVIDUALS wish to be called. It's their call, pure and simple, not a case of groupthink.

"People-of-colour" is a dumb term because it is vague and imprecise. Although of northern European stock, I am far from lacking colour, especially in summer. In fact, I am probably darker than Colin Powell. Am I not a "person-of-colour". Even if I was as white as the driven snow, I'd have a colour. The term is meaningless.

Now if you want to be addressed as a person of colour, I would follow your individual wishes.


From: vancouver | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
kropotkin1951
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2732

posted 14 March 2003 05:41 PM      Profile for kropotkin1951   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Nope, sorry never asked any woman to fight any battles on my behalf. Only asked to please keep the friendly fire incidents to a minimum.

Respect is a precurser to change. If you cannot respect people you cannot change their views. My views are already what they are but if the intent is to get more white males to voluntarily give up their privilage do you really think insulting them gratuitously will achieve that. Again it is self defeating and the achilles heel of many of our progressive movements.

I understand that patriarchy is an effective affirmative action program for white males but it doesn't mean that I should be vilified for things that are clearly beyond my control. It isn't that I want any special privileges or for women to speak up for me I just don't want to be told that I should be murdered or raped because some men rape and murder women.

So why not discuss it. Better to discuss how to change Bush's view of the world. Not likely to happen but in my view if more feminists begin to be careful of language then it will be of benefit to us all. I have been actively using non-sexist language for almost thirty years now so I am just wondering when the change is going to occur. When I call men on their language and attitudes the male bashing they hear becomes their primary defence. I want that defence gone.


From: North of Manifest Destiny | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Lima Bean
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3000

posted 15 March 2003 12:25 PM      Profile for Lima Bean   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
if more feminists begin to be careful of language then it will be of benefit to us all

I think the benefit is more likely to come when more non-feminists start being careful about language. Or maybe when women are no longer raped or beaten or poverty stricken just because they're women. Maybe when we have just as many women at the tops of all the power structures as we have men. Or perhaps it'll come when women are allowed to discuss an imaginary scenario among themselves and not have to justify it to the men around them.

Maybe it'll come when women can imagine being in power without having to invent a world that will never be.


From: s | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Tackaberry
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 487

posted 15 March 2003 05:39 PM      Profile for Tackaberry   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I've been lurking this post from the start, and I realize the following views will result in the usual ritualist lynching.

More women are kept down by the inequity of class than of the perceived inequity in gender.

Want to talk about where feminists should devote their time to make things better? they will see more effect if they devoted their time to class inequity.

Women are not being shut out of university, poor families and their children are.
Social change is a long process. When you examine women's growth in the workplace you see it at the bottom of the professional classes for example, and you see it is creeping up the ladders as an educated generation of women who are as commited to a professional life as men enter the workplace.

this is not happening for poor. In fact the gulf is widening, not narrowing as it is for women as their victories play out over a genration.

and things will not get better for the working poor, they will get worse, since more are now being excluded from what has become a necessary post-secondary education. Cuts in all areas of social programs are excasperating this effect.

The last census data showed only white males over 50 are gaining. Women are gaining to a lesser degree and everyone else, especially the poor, are getitng poorer.


From: Tokyo | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
fatcalf
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3859

posted 15 March 2003 05:49 PM      Profile for fatcalf        Edit/Delete Post
Truer words were never spoken (or written). I completely agree that class issues, rather than gender issues, handicap both men and women.

We can look to Canadian examples validate this idea -- in Quebec, the majority of people entering medical school, for example, are female. The other provinces show very similar statistics. Stats for entrance to other professional schools show a similar phenomenon across the country.

If we're all being honest, if you are a woman from a middle-class (or higher) background, there are no impediments to gaining an education, career etc. (at least none particular to gender). But if you are a working class man or woman, there may be many impediments. Show me home with few books, and I'll show you a home in which few children will go on to post-seondary education. Show me a home where working class parents have to hold down several jobs to put food on the table, and I'll show you a home where the parents are simply too exhausted to read to their children. And so it goes. And it has precious little to do with gender politics.


From: vancouver | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 15 March 2003 09:54 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It is to be parenthetically noted that conservative Reaganite or Bushite cutting of social program spending has its first impact felt on women, who are more likely to be lower-income in the first place.

It is worth noting that class and gender do intersect and in some cases are not easily separated from each other. For example, do you explain the fact that there are generally more poor women than poor men on the basis of class factors or gender factors?

Both explanations are applicable and in fact both can be combined quite easily.

How is this done?

It is to be noted that women have experienced gender discrimination for... well, at least the last fifty years if not longer. If I go back far enough there are the matriarchal societies anthropologists discuss, but this gets away from the salient point. Thus, due to persistent gender discrimination, women have some catching up to do.

It is also to be noted that in modern western nations whose governments are less interventionist, poor people tend to stay poor longer and rich people tend to stay rich longer. This holds with the most force in the USA. It is thus not unreasonable to also explain female poverty using class factors, but this analysis does not explain whether or not females are poor not because they have remained poor, but because they lack opportunities for advancement offered to men.

Food for thought.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
writer
editor emeritus
Babbler # 2513

posted 15 June 2007 08:00 AM      Profile for writer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
rape and the feminist oppression of white straight men
From: tentative | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Scout
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1595

posted 15 June 2007 08:23 AM      Profile for Scout     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Four years ago eh? Somethings and some people really haven't changed.

quote:
And if you get your dream I hope in your next life you are reincarnated as a white man.

Wow Krypotkin, your still a prick. Four years of access to Feminists education and have learned nothing. How are you still even allowed to post here?

And people wonder why we get so fucking pissed off! The information men keep demanding from us is already here, reams of it! Get off you lazy paternalistic asses and look it up your damn selves.

writer is bluntly showing a pattern of years of abuse to Feminist dialog on babble. It's no wonder I am such a bitch. Who wouldn't be?

And sadly I see all the female voices gone, and not cause of any crap last year. Gone over the years because most progressive men aren't and they never shut up.


From: Toronto, ON Canada | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
writer
editor emeritus
Babbler # 2513

posted 15 June 2007 08:26 AM      Profile for writer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Word.
From: tentative | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Stargazer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6061

posted 15 June 2007 09:09 AM      Profile for Stargazer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Exactly....hard to speak in a place where you have next to no voice.
From: Inside every cynical person, there is a disappointed idealist. | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 15 June 2007 10:36 AM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Scout:
Four years ago eh? Somethings and some people really haven't changed.

Wow Krypotkin, your still a prick. Four years of access to Feminists education and have learned nothing. How are you still even allowed to post here?

And people wonder why we get so fucking pissed off! The information men keep demanding from us is already here, reams of it! Get off you lazy paternalistic asses and look it up your damn selves.

writer is bluntly showing a pattern of years of abuse to Feminist dialog on babble. It's no wonder I am such a bitch. Who wouldn't be?

And sadly I see all the female voices gone, and not cause of any crap last year. Gone over the years because most progressive men aren't and they never shut up.


quote:
Exactly....hard to speak in a place where you have next to no voice.

They are relentess in their unwillingness to let go of their priviledge, and they do not even see it for what it is.

When juxpositioned with an image of the opposite of how it is now, all they can do is for some reason scream foul, instead of realizing, from their appalled state of imaging women in control, that they are part of the ones up holding the current state of affairs.

1. Why can't they realize women and other minorities are in the "foul" position, we have to live that position, all day everyday, and all they have to do is imagine it and they freak ?

2. When they freak about the injustice they would experience if the situation was reversed, it is because they KNOW it is injustice that they are perpetuating.

3. Because they know about the injustice they are perpetuating, and yet doing nothing because they are the beneficiaries of the priviledge, they pose the question, in some form or another; "ok critic, what changes would be better than what we have now?", as if the answer somehow lays outside their ability to change it. I guess the 'Emperor wears no clothes' they need to shed!

Of course, it is hard for them to accept strategies that would take away their "special" priviledgesd status, and as such cannot see them themselves.


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
jrose
babble intern
Babbler # 13401

posted 18 June 2007 05:10 AM      Profile for jrose     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Too long. Feel free to start a new thread.
From: Ottawa | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Open Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca