I really shouldn’t take the time to post today, but I’ve got to clear some of these links off my desktop! Some of them I’ve lost the source of; my apologizes to anyone who I should have hat-tipped but didn’t.
By the way, if there are any links you’d like to post, or anything you’d like to discuss, that doesn’t fit into the other threads on “Alas,” then feel free to post it in the comments here.
In no particular order:
-
Ex-Gay Watch has some interesting information about the swell folks behind Defend Maryland Marriage (who I posted about yesterday).
-
Hey, cool, Jill at Third Wave Agenda just called “Alas” one of her favorite blogs. Thanks, Jill! The only problem is, now adding Third Wave Agenda to the “Alas” blogroll may look like payback for flattery, when actually I’ve been meaning to add it since I first noticed it a couple of days ago. Well-reasoned and passionate – a recipe for kick-ass feminist blogging. I recommend that y’all check Jill’s blog out.
-
A mini-debate between me and Elizabeth Marquardt at Family Scholars Blog about her famous “hooking up” study.
-
Heart, who is like me a veteran of the Ms Boards, has been posting to disagree with me and other skeptics regarding the “become a prostitute or lose unemployment benefits” story on this “Alas” thread. It’s an interesting discussion. There’s also some discussion of it on Heart’s website (Note: Heart’s website is women-only. Any male “Alas” poster who posts on Heart’s website will no longer be welcome to post on “Alas”).
-
RadGeek argues, persuasively, that the Founding Fathers did so intend a separation between church and state.
-
Natalie at Philobiblon discusses “the school slut” and the book Fast Girls: Teenage Tribes and the Myth of the Slut by Emily White.
-
Bouncing off a comment Kip left on “Alas,” Pinko Feminist Hellcat discusses classism and “personal responsibility.”
-
A good Ellen Goodman article points out that finding “common ground” in the abortion debate, as the mainstream presents it, usually means pro-choicers giving up on our principles in exchange for no compromise at all from pro-lifers. Via Jill at Third Wave Agenda, who adds good comments as well.
-
Amanda at Mouse Words argues that porn is not inherently degrading to women (although many specific examples of porn are). I pretty much agree with Amanda’s views, although I do think some kinds of porn – rape porn and child porn, specifically – should be censored. (I’m not assuming that Amanda disagrees with me on that).
-
In the news: “A National Institutes of Health study suggests that the region of the brain that inhibits risky behavior is not fully formed until age 25, a finding with implications for a host of policies, including the nation’s driving laws.” And whether or not people should get married young, I’d add. (Unfortunately, I don’t remember where I found this story – sorry, whoever I’m not crediting!)
-
I’m planning to order my next batch of checks from these people. I’m torn between the variety pack, the anatomical theme, and the insect theme.
-
College paper article about a recent bell hooks lecture
-
The Bush administration has pressured PBS into pulling an episode of “Postcards from Buster,” because the episode included some children whose parents are lesbians. The article describes some past episodes of the series: “One episode featured a family with five children, living in a trailer in Virginia, all sharing one room. In another, Buster visits a Mormon family in Utah. He has dropped in on fundamentalist Christians and Muslims as well as American Indians and Hmong. He has shown the lives of children who have only one parent, and those who live with grandparents.” So apparently queers, and queers alone, are the only people Bush considers beyond the pale to show as part of a family on TV. Via Jack Bog’s blog.
-
Basic Rights Oregon is suing to prevent Measure 36 – the voter-approved Constitutional Amendment preventing Oregon from recognizing same-sex marriages – from being put into the Oregon Constitution. I’ll be blogging more about this in the future, but for now I’m posting it here to preserve the link.
-
Another terrific feminist blog added to the blogroll: Pseudo-Adrienne’s Liberal-Feminist Bias.
-
The New York Times describes some of the ways folks in Chile preserved their freedom before divorce was legalized last week: “The most creative schemes involved civil annulment, which required the separating couple to persuade a court that the original marriage had not met legal requirements. So marrying couples frequently left an escape hatch, in case things didn’t work out. Witnesses to a wedding, for example, would sometimes deliberately misspell their names or give an incorrect address. Or a couple might marry in a jurisdiction in which neither lived. More than 5,000 annulments were granted annually; the beneficiaries included President Ricardo Lagos.”
-
A CLASP policy brief (pdf file) sums up the social science research regarding if married parents are really better for kids. (Short summary: Yes, kids of married parents tend to have better outcomes, but not 100% of the time, and there are other essential factors too). Both this and the previous link were via Family Scholars Blog, by the way.
-
Another totally excellent Ornicus post defending hate crime laws. He harps on something that always bugs me – 90% of hate crime law critics clearly have no idea what hate crime laws are or how they work.
-
Jeremy Wagstaff provides an interesting statistic on spam email: “The index goes back to November 2002, with a value of 66.67 — i.e. about 67 spam messages for every 100 valid emails. Now the index is at 782.12. That’s 800 spam messages for every 100 valid ones.” Hat tip: Kip.
-
Damnum Absque Injuria, an anti-feminist blogger, reviews the “male privilege checklist.” What a shock – he don’t like it.
-
This student’s paper on the Morning After Pill is good reading, especially if you’re looking for a basic summary of the scientific issues involved.
-
Someone on a men’s rights forum suggested this link as a one-stop summary of what men’s rights activists are complaining about. So, in case you were wondering…
-
This pamphlet written by Mary Schweitzer in the run-up to the 2004 election is still very worth reading, especially for her thoughts on the economic situation in the US. (Mary Schweitzer wrote this recent “Alas” guest post).
-
Very interesting debate about affirmative action and black law students.
Ah… the desktop looks much cleaner now.
How is it OK to have a web site which excludes men?
I think that if someone films the rape or abuse of another person, then they committed a crime, which is the rape or abuse. And if anyone gives that person money to see that tape, they are c0mplicit in that crime. So yes, I think that criminal penalties should follow anyone who rapes a woman or child on tape or someone who pays them money to do so. Frankly, I don’t see why existing laws against child abuse and rape aren’t sufficient to cover these crimes–if I paid you money to rape someone right in front of me, we’d both go to jail. Why does the actual videotape muddle what should be obvious?
Novlis: How is it not okay?
Amanda: I’m defining “rape porn” more broadly than you are. I think all pornography which is advertised or presented in a way so that a reasonable person could think it was a film of an actual rape should be illegal – even if the film actually shows actors who have consented to depict a rape, and no actual rape took place in making the film.
Amanda, to answer your question, from a law-enforcement perspective it makes sense to try and reduce the motivation to produce child porn by outlawing the entire market, rather than just the direct production of it.
To see why I don’t support your suggestion, let’s say the cops catch Bob selling Andrew child porn. Bob didn’t produce the porn himself, and they can’t find any evidence that Bob ever directly paid money to the producer of the child porn.
Under your system – in which only those who directly produced the porn or paid the porn producer are complicit – the cops would have no grounds for arresting Bob or Andrew. The market for child porn would essentially be legal, except for those rare occasions when a producer can be caught and successfully tried. However, a legal market might encourage producers to make more child porn. So it seems to me justifiable to ban the entire market, as long as “porn” isn’t defined overly broadly.
I see what you mean. And yes, I think child porn should be outright illegal. But I do worry about laws that over-reach in defining what it is, to the point where “Romeo and Juliet” could count as child porn.
Anyone who has a website gets to decide who to include and who to exclude. Sometimes it makes the debate less interesting; sometimes it makes the debate more interesting because it’s more civil. And sometimes it depends who’s evaluating it.
Pingback: Resonant Information
Ampersand: It’s not acceptable to discriminate based on sex, except to remedy a case of systematic discrimination. That is to say that I’m not opposed to affirmative action, but the blogosphere is not place with tons of systematic discrimination. The number of blogs which don’t permit female commenters is tiny (I’ve never seen one), and most blogs are written by females.
It’s not acceptable because all people have the same basic rights. This seems to me to be a principle so basic to the ideals of human rights that it needs no explication. Additionally, there are various prudential reasons to reject these sorts of restrictions; they merely provide more fuel for anti-egalitarians elsewhere.
Ampersand: I worry about the “fake rape” prohibition because I think it could be applied to more legitimate works – erotica involving BDSM, most probably. (Would it be enough to have a disclaimer that the incidents depicted are fictitious?)
Novalis: I think we run into problems when we tell people they can’t keep their private forums private. If a male wants to comment about a blog that has disallowed comments from males, he can either link to it somewhere else or use something like Wikalong.
Novalis –
Blogs are not public accommodations. They are private property, created with the labor and time of individual persons working toward their own means. You may be as egalitarian as you like, with the property belonging to you, but your rights to dictate the terms under which the labor and time of other people will be disposed is starkly, starkly limited.
There is a legitimate argument to be made that certain kinds of private organizations may not discriminate on the basis of sex; indeed, we have laws that uphold that idea. Organizations of a certain size that offer paid employment, that are gatekeepers for political success in a community, etc.; for those institutions, there is a credible case that discrimination in those arenas will have results so odious that they cannot be borne by civilized people, and thus discrimination there is unacceptable, and we override the strictest interpretation of the private property rights of the institution’s owner(s).
Blogs, however, are the equivalent of a circle of friends, or a private residence. I can limit my circle of friends to one gender; I can bar all members of a particular race from my home; I can declare that only left-handed homosexual Zoroastrians with a taste for Chianti can post comments on my web page. These are elements of the purely private sphere, where the only policies or opinions that hold any weight are those held by the owner of the private resource.
All people do have the same basic rights. Among them is found the right to dispose of private property, within the bounds of law, at the discretion or whim of the property owner. Not to be found anywhere in the canon of rights is the notion that one person’s preference for absolute equalitarianism has force outside that individual person’s private choices – any more than someone else’s preference for rank anti-egalitarianism requires other people to behave in a particular way.
Regarding your post that “A CLASP policy brief (pdf file) sums up the social science research regarding if married parents are really better for kids.”…
These quotes are from the Liz Library at http://www.thelizibrary.org
Myth — Children are faring much worse now than in past decades. Â
Fact: “In recent years, the lives of America’s children have improved in measurable ways, according to a new collaborative report from federal agencies. Â America’s Children 1999 shows that youth are less likely to smoke, die and or be victimized by crime, but they have made fewer gains in areas that predict their economic futures… Â Among the report’s most positive results is a 40 percent drop in serious violent crime involving juvenile offenders since 1993.” Â Some indicators of child wellbeing have gone down; but others have gone up. [Pascual, Patrice, “America’s Children 1999,” Connect for Kids, Benton Foundation 1999.]
Myth — Youth from “fatherless homes” are at higher risk for substance abuse. ]
Fact: Youth living with two biological or adoptive parents are significantly less likely to use alcohol, tobacco, and illegal drugs, or to report problems with their use, than youth not living with two parents. “[However] the highest risks of youth substance use, dependence, and need for illegal drug abuse treatment are found in families with a father and stepmother. Â Risks of youth substance use, dependence, and need for illegal drug abuse treatment are generally higher among youth who live with a biological father and a stepmother than among youth who live with a biological mother and a stepfather. Â Youths who live with a biological father and no mother or stepmother are more likely to use substances, to be dependent on substances, and to need illegal drug abuse treatment than youths who live with a biological mother and no father or stepfather.” [Johnson, Hoffman, and Gerstein (1986), on the effects of family structure on adolescent substance abuse, data from 1995 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse.]
Myth — Research shows that children do better the more contact they have post-divorce with nonresidential fathers. Â
Fact: “Limited research has been conducted on the relationship between child outcomes and involvement of fathers who do not live with their children. Most of this research has focused on the provision of formal child support and the frequency of father-child contact.  Divorce and nonmarital childbearing do not preclude fathers from being actively involved in their children’s lives.  [However] while the percentage of children living apart from their fathers has increased in recent decades, little national-level research has been conducted on the role that fathers living apart from their children play in their lives, and the relationship between nonresident father involvement and child outcome.” [Child Trends, “What Do Fathers Contribute To Children’s Well-being?” A Summary of Research Findings, Child Trends, Inc. ]
Myth — Research on single mother households proves that divorce harms children.
Fact: “[T]he effects of marital disruption are often collapsed with single parenting or female-headed households. Â Distinctions are not made between the homes of never-married women and divorced and separated women…. More basic studies and secondary analyses are needed… to support the sweeping generalizations that are made about the impact of father absence from a relatively small core of data. ” [Gadsden, Vivian L. and Marcia Hall, National Center on Fathers and Families. Intergenerational Learning: A Review of the Literature]
There are many more where they came from, plus my own web site page about fatherlessness
J: That there are other, more difficult and less effective, means by which men may comment on the blog does not take away from Heart’s actions. There’s still invidious discrimination being practiced, and I think that, as liberals and feminists, we ought not to stand silent in the face of it.
Robert, I’m not asking whether it’s legal — I know the answer to that question. I’m asking whether it’s something that we ought to support or accept. Surely we would choose not to patronize a restaurant which did not admit (say) gentiles. There are many things which we do not wish to forbid, but wish to condemn. Discrimination of this sort is one.
Funny, I just decided to memorize Petrov’s name.
Any reason for censorship that sounds plausible but lacks scientific proof rings alarm bells for me. I mean, it sounds plausible to say we could reduce terrorism by banning Islam, and it seems plausible to me that (socially speaking) monotheism might hurt children more than sexual abuse. I say encourage NAMBLA to meet in known locations and let “tourists” take their picture.
I haven’t read the heart link (I’m arguementitive by nature, and without knowing the nature of the topic, fear I may be too tempted to reply)
but I can understand the reasoning, conceptually, behind a women’s only posting blog.
for obvious reasons, a discussion board about rape survival would want to be women only. even men who are victims of rape would need to find another support network to rely on.
seeking to establish a similar support network and feel free to voice their opinions without men’s rights activists making asses of themselves in response.
the sad truth is that men’s rights assholes aren’t going to respect their “women only” rule, while men that would respect such a rule are less likely to be contradictory and unfairly critical, but that is neither here nor there.
I think more than the women only nature of that blog, I’m offended by amp’s casual use of threats to steer male readers away from posting.
“this is a women’s only blog. Male alas readers should not post responses here” would certainly have been enough to prevent me from posting. hell, if he said nothing, but there was a sign on the heart blog itself, I wouldn’t.
I realize I’m not really the person that message was intended for, but I still end up taking it personally.
Novalis –
Practicing personal non-discrimination in (say) economic matters is certainly a noble and lofty thing. However, to apply the concept to affiliational questions is faintly ridiculous. There are certainly some types of invidious discrimination in that area which you or I might not approve of. However, I don’t think desiring to have membership in a monotonic community of one sort or another is automatically objectionable.
It is human nature – and not an evil, wicked part of human nature – to occasionally seek the company of those we perceive as being “like” ourselves. (However he or she define that “like”-ness.) There are other social avenues and communities where the same person seeks out people who are different (however he or she defines different). So long as those little platoons do not evolve into genuinely harmful institutions (such as men’s clubs where membership is the access point for the governance or economic management of a community), I see nothing objectionable in their existence.
Sometimes gay people want to hang out with just other gay people. That doesn’t bother me. Sometimes a Christian reading club might want only Christians; not a problem. In the circumstances of the society we live in, I can certainly understand why women might want a woman-only space in which they can interact in ways that they do not feel able to interact in mixed-gender environments. I can also see why men would want that. It’s not healthy to go around interacting with people only of your own particular platoon, but neither is it my job to tell other people how to live.
(Although you might be forgiven for not getting that impression, sometimes.)
I’m offended by amp’s casual use of threats
I also found it unpleasant. What’s up with that, Amp? It’s not like you to wield a big stick for no reason.
That was over-the-top, wasn’t it?
I’m sorry I gave offense (although Karpad is right; if you didn’t need the warning, then it wasn’t intended for you!). There’s a bit of a history there; on the Ms Boards, years ago, the establishment of women-only threads (which were, iirc, started by Heart) was a subject of some controversy. I’ve been accused, incorrectly, of being someone who opposed women-only areas. And disagreements like that, on the Ms board, got very passionate and very personal. (If you weren’t part of the now-defunct Ms Boards community, it may be hard for you to imagine how nasty the atmosphere there could get.)
Given that history, ridiculous as this sounds, I really, really, really didn’t want a blog I run to be the source of anyone breaking Heart’s women-only rule.
Nonetheless, leaping to the threat first thing was wrong of me, and I apologize for that.
I also believe very strongly that there is a legitimate need for women-only space, especially within feminism. Maybe someday, in a perfect nonsexist society, there will no longer be such a need. Who can say?
But in our society, today, some women find strength and community in having women-only groups. There’s nothing objectionable about that. Given all the real, harmful examples of sexism in the world today, the place to fight discrimination is not all-female feminist groups.
I also very much agree with everything Robert has posted on the topic here.
There are at least two problems I see with exclusive spaces, although I don’t think either is sufficiently grave that a sensitively defined space can’t overcome them.
The first of these is the tendency to simply close down debate, or to turn debates into arguments over straw men and stereotypes. Once a space gets defined in a particular way it can be very unreceptive to people questioning the inclusivity or proper scope of that definition and can swiftly degenerate into fairly standard self (good)other (bad) dichotomies. Those spaces will then tend by their nature to rely on stereotypes and assumptions about who their ‘others’ are and what they’re actually like. The exclusivity of a space and the sense of personal and community identity such a space is likely to project into an individual’s wider interactions serve to exclude the members of that space from the prime means of breaking down prejudice- actually interacting with the othered group. There’s also the more general problem of ‘identity’ spaces, which is the tendency to conform to some stereotype and the whole judgey, hierarchical setup a lot of spaces tend to evolve (but I think this is probably a characteristic of all spaces, rather than just x-only spaces.)
My second problem with exclusive spaces is that it can be extremely hard to draw the line as to where an exclusive space ceases to be a benign one and starts to become one that controls the levers of power or acts to block egalitarian outcomes. I don’t in general think that women-only spaces suffer particularly from this problem, but there are specific instances, such as the issues surrounding rape crisisshelter services and trans women, where W-O spaces have acted in a malign manner. More generally, there have clearly been cases of x-only spaces that were extremely problematic- racially segregated facilities are the most obvious. Similarly, the acceptability of a space is likely to vary according to prevailing power dynamics in society as a whole; a men-only space sounds a lot less acceptable than a women-only space. The caveat to the above being that some spaces should sensibly be segregated by virtue of their function, as in the case of bathrooms; although there are a lot of places where unisexsingle-stall bathrooms make sense, the existence of segregated bathrooms isn’t neccessarily a problem. The same functional logic would apply to excluding men from women’s shelters etc. However, the problem remains that nominally benign exclusions can easily end up becoming malign, particularly when the tendency towards insularity and othering that x-only spaces can suffer from arises.
So, although I agree that women-only (or particular examples of x-only) space are both important and valuable I’d want to add that by creating an x-only space the organisers and participants assume a special responsibility to be mindful of those they exclude and to be open to revising and reconsidering the boundary definitions of a particular space.
Also, I badly need to remember to include spaces between paragraphs- sorry about that.
[Spaced added! – Amp.]
i have to wonder about people who want to make some information of theirs public, but only to part of the public. especially when they try to do it on the ‘net.
after all, for crying out loud, this is the internet we’re talking about here; this is the original place where noone knows you’re a dog. trying to put roadblocks in the way of some, but only some, people here is just inviting the ‘net at large to interpret your efforts as damage and route around them.
i haven’t gone to Heart’s website, and i’m extremely unlikely to. because, no matter what Amp may think, i’m convinced that anyone who’d behave in such a manner can’t really be all that bright.
You know, I’m sure I could set up a blog where only people with a password could log in and read my posts. Maybe this would be for close friends and family who wanted to read up on what was going on with me; maybe it was so I could discuss some personal things and not announce it all over the internet. Maybe I just don’t want comment spam for fucking poker or the newest med–maybe I don’t want some random loser posting inflammatory BS. Maybe I just want to include only the people I invite.
NOW–internet safety and the dangers of hackers aside, is it somehow wrong for me to do that? Do I owe everyone on the planet access to my thoughts?
I also belong to a private, invitation-only message board. One reason why we do this is to avoid pointless flame wars and trolls. Contrary to popular myth, people who hold similar positions don’t agree on everything, and discussions about certain issues can get contentious–but they are far more interesting since we don’t get the “YOU HATE AMERICA, YOU FUCKING FEMINAZI C**TS!” which is what I’ve seen on public boards.
Look, these sites don’t host major events of interest to many people like the PGA tour and the men’s only (and previously whites-only) country clubs.
Privately owned and run websites are the equivalent of someone’s cyberhouse party. Some are open to all; others aren’t. I’m not obligated to invite the entire town to my home, nor am I obligated to include random strangers in conversations I have with people I know. The same goes for websites–it’s the site owner/operator’s choice and right to decide who gets to participate. Either way, you’ll live.
invitation-only spaces are one thing, but how do you manage to invite the set of all women online (and only them)?
yeah, i’ll live either way; no website is essential for anybody’s health, after all. but i reserve the right to think limited-audience broadcasting on a medium that wasn’t designed to allow for limits on broadcasting, and which historically has striven to defeat such limits, is downright silly. invitation-only spaces is narrowcasting, which at least is doable on the internet, even if perhaps not optimal. since there’s no secret password known to and only to all members of one gender, trying to limit access to a website based on gender status seems futile to me. the ‘net just isn’t set up to do that kind of task well, if at all.
and yeah, i think this does matter to the site owner’s credibility. she’s obviously someone who wishes to publicize her views; it is wise for public speakers to consider the limitations and peculiarities of their chosen medium before speaking up, because trying to say the right thing in the wrong place is just as much a mistake as saying the wrong thing in the right place.
Spoil my fun, why doncha.
Tarn, you said what I was trying to but more eloquently. There’s nothing unacceptable about a women-only blog, but certainly in that particular instance it seemed to have the effect of reinforcing the general view rather than exploring other views. If that’s what heart wants, fine, but it’s not something I found all that interesting.
Maybe she doesn’t care whether you find it interesting.
I’ve noticed a lot of language that sounds like entitlement when debating the merits of women-only discussion spaces. I think one of the things that males involved with feminism need to recognize is that, in some discussions, we’re not going to have anything to contribute, or the act of our participation may be counterproductive, but that doesn’t mean that those discussions aren’t worthwhile.
Nomen–I agree that a public board online only open to women (or to any segment of the population) isn’t very practical. For one thing, it’s downright impossible to figure out who is genuine and who’s pretending.
However, I’m not sure why there’s all this defensiveness over the very idea about this board. I mean, sheesh, we’ve got the PGA still holding tournaments at country clubs that only allow men (and up until recently, only allowed Whites), but people shrug that off. And you know, it’s their perogative, but it’s also my perogative to not support the PGA because of this. The Promise Keepers march and the Million Man March were open to men only. There are male-only spaces and events out there, such as the Promise Keepers’ Men’s Conference. There are also males only spaces on the web on various sites–including religious and political sites. Bohemian Grove is an all-male party for the uber-elite; no matter how rich or powerful a woman, she is not welcome (though my problems with BG go beyond the gender exclusion; I’m more concerned with the backdoor policy making and dealing that goes on there. Still, it’s chilling that so many policy makers and the ultra-elite have so much power and make policy that affects us all. The male only policy solidifies male power, much worse than an innocuous message board, IMO.) So why all of the defensiveness and anger when there is a female-only space out there?
Again, it’s her party. And while I think she’d need to do an invitation-only closed board to have any semblance of keeping the board open to women only, I tend to see this differently than an issue of “credibility” or exclusion. This is basically the equivalent of a group of people meeting up in a coffee shop and talking about stuff, or a conference somewhere. Some can participate. Others can’t.
And here’s the thing about credibility–Heart doesn’t strike me as someone who wants to publicize her views. She strikes me as someone who wants to discuss aspects of feminism with other women. (And if she isn’t credible, then I’m mystified as to why so many guys here are expending so much energy and outrage over her and her site.)
Also, I agree with Jeff–I don’t think she really gives a rat’s ass if male posters (or even if I) think she’s credible. Though to be fair, I couldn’t give a flying red raspberry if anyone thinks I’m credible, so there ya go.
I didn’t mean it that way; more as an illustration that the debate wasn’t as meaningful as it could be. It shouldn’t make a difference, but I’m technically female and the assumptions being used made me feel I wouldn’t be welcome in the discussion either.
I don’t see women-only areas as any different from (say) Alas kicking out spammers and uncivil folk to make a better place for the rest of us. It cuts down on the diversity of views presented, but if you think the views presented by the ones you’re excluding are more trouble than they’re worth, you’re going to exclude them.
Pingback: Daddy, Papa & Me
i largely agree with you about gender-specific spaces in general (though i do think the PGA are being ridiculous, IMHO); my disagreement is much more narrow than the examples you listed. specifically, it’s with gender-restricted but otherwise public, broadcast fora on the internet.
by now, regular people are reading this comment with a strange look in their eye, going “who cares?”. well, probably only computer geeks like me. it just happens that the details and characteristics of different communications media pique my interest; if not for that, i likely wouldn’t have given the whole issue a second thought.
though, if you’re correct about Heart not particularly wanting to publicize her views, i can think of an alternative strategy that might suit her better. one or more e-mail lists, with subscription subject to moderator approval, and a web page to serve as gateway to let people find them (and possibly also as a limited, read-only archive). well, that’s what i’d say if she cared to ask for my opinion, anyway; since she hasn’t, i guess i might as well bow out of this.
I should point out that it’s pretty easy to distinguish an invite-only space from an otherwise public space which excludes some classes of people. I’m not opposed to the idea of excluding some classes of people from discussions — I don’t want jerks in my discussions, and when I’m moderating a discussion, I kick them out. But that’s a behavior-based restriction, rather than one based on a person’s intrinsic properties.
I’m even inclined to not oppose a discussion group which only permits those professing a certain set of beliefs — it’s hard to have a discussion when you have to keep going back to basic premises.
Robert sets up a balancing test between indulging people who do not want a diverse environment, and the importance of that environment in mainstream social culture. I reject this for two reasons: First, I don’t think this sort of discriminatory preference ought to be given any weight, and second, because I don’t think that Heart’s board is entirely unlike golf clubs. It’s unlikely that my future job prospects will be enhanced by playing golf (fortunately!), but I was hired for my current job at least in part based on my boss’s personal knowledge of me. That kind of networking can happen anywhere. It happens that for me it was at a computer conference. But I work in the nonprofit world, and I hope to continue to do so. It’s hard for me to meet people interested in feminist issues if major feminist message boards are not open to me. And that does affect my job prospects.
I’m also not singling out this case. I speak out against these restrictions wherever I see them. But I don’t see them a lot in my daily life. One instance that comes to mind is rejecting a free trip to Israel which wasn’t open to non-Jews. It’s not fair to me to assume that I’m speaking out in this case because it happens to be the only time it affects me, or because I oppose feminism. Neither is the case.
From a strategic perspective, I think it doesn’t help feminism any to push away potential male allies. And if men cannot participate in certain discussions, then they can never be fully part of the movement. Further, among people who are not yet feminists, but might eventually be, the perception that feminism is about exclusion is quite harmful.
“Heart’s website is women-only. Any male “Alas”? poster who posts on Heart’s website will no longer be welcome to post on “Alas.””
Don’t worry. I would never even think of posting at such a discriminatory site. Shame on them.
I think some of the objections to the “women only” policy have in fact demonstrated why that kind of policy is necessary.
Sheena, as far as I can tell, nobody here has been anyone but polite. What’s the problem?
As a woman and a feminist, although I find some of the conversation at Heart’s website very compelling, I will not post there if men are not allowed to do so. I feel that posting there when men are not allowed would be antithetical to my feminist and liberal beliefs.
I can sympathize with women who feel that they want a “safe space”, but the reality is that they are not guaranteed of that safe space by excluding men. There are plenty of women, including self-identified feminists, that are insensitive and can trigger women’s trauma. Just the other day in the comments of a feminist blog (Was it here? Can’t remember…), a feminist woman was unbearably obnoxious to another poster for objecting to the term “retarded” referring to someone’s behavior. (Which was unbelievably hypocritical for a feminist, but that’s another post.)
Additionally, I have been incredibly lucky to have encountered many radically feminist men who have fought the good fight with me and deepened and enriched my commitment to feminism. Why should they be assumed to be potentially unsafe?
This situation seems to me the equivalent of an acquaintance of a feminist barring all Muslims from their home because in the past, some Muslims have committed unsafe acts. While obviously that wouldn’t be illegal, you’d better believe that a great deal of the population, including (in my humble estimation- no links to studies on this!) 99% of all feminists, would find it immoral. They would strongly criticize their friend, and try to persuade her to change her thinking. They might even have rallies and write blog articles about such bigoted action. Why is the situation so different when it comes to men being excluded?
As a feminist, I can not condone damning stereotypes and assumptions about any group: Women, Muslims, Men, Conservatives… I must treat them as individuals as much as possible and respect each one until she has been proven unworthy of that respect. Frankly, to me, that is what being a feminist is all about.
On the other hand, I just realized that I participate in a monthly “women’s night out” with friends, so I guess I am quite the feminist hypocrite. : ) Yet somehow, a women’s night out doesn’t seem the same type of wrong to me as a women’s only feminist website. You are all very good logical types, help me out here: Am I just being hypocritical in not having problems with a “women’s night out”? After all, that excludes our male friends simply based on the fact that they are male. Or is that okay according to my own beliefs of not wanting to exclude men because it is only part of the time that we do so?
Seriously, I would love to hear your comments on this. If I am not being consistent in my moral beliefs about gender and exclusion, than I will need to give up the women’s night out. Is this logically/philosophically consistent?
-emma
I agree with the general proposition that anyone may impose whatever ridiculous restrictions they wish on who can comment on their site. Personally, although I’m definitely female, I decided I wouldn’t post on Heart’s discussion board. I find Heart’s brand of feminism offensive and pointless, and thus I doubt my opinion would be of any value to her.
Novalis and Nomen Nescio, to address the point about the suitability of the internet as a medium for this kind of exclusive space. ‘The internet’ is a big place. People have made tools for doing all kinds of different things. My blog is hosted by LiveJournal; I’m aware this will cause true geeks to despise me, but whatever. LiveJournal is actually very well set up for exactly this kind of narrowcasting you’re calling impossible. I’m a member of a women-only community there, and it works very well both technically and socially.
This is not an advert for LiveJournal; it’s just to point out that the technology exists or can be created to handle a lot of different modes of online interaction. And you can pick the ones that you prefer without undermining the whole structure. Live and let live.
I don’t think a “woman’s night out” is a bad thing at all. In my experience, men often have “men’s night out” without making that explicit. They unconsciously assume that right without question. Also, there are plenty of places that are unwelcoming enviroments for women–like strip bars, Hooters, etc.
What are you men losing by being excluded? Your sense of pride? An ego deflation?
You sound like small children stamping your feet and crying “But it’s not fair!”. What gives? Do you really believe that women are on an equal playing field with you? Socially? Politically? Economically? Women in public space have a hard enough time conversing as they wish: too many men are more than willing to interrupt two women talking, or to shout over them, or to make the conversation all about them (like what has happened here). Few liberal or left wing newspapers or media outlets allow more than one or two female writers an outlet (think The Nation); and open and non-censured public debate by women is as good as non-existant.
Are you equally as vigilant in maligning Black-only space? or Hispanic-only? Do you question the practices of Alcoholics Anonymous that actively screens and excludes non-alcoholics? Are you just hung up on sex? and the fact that your’s doesn’t get to “do” something the other does? Wow.
whoa. bean, you’d actually prefer a closed, member-only forum?
if it wouldn’t be too much of an irrelevant sidetrack, may i ask why? because that mindset is the exact polar opposite of my own, and i’m interested in what would make you feel that way.
myself, i consciously avoid such fora because of a fear of cliquishness and infighting. i feel that places which allow entrance only to people deemed “appropriate” run a high risk of degenerating into petty quibbling about who and what is “appropriate enough”, detracting from what’s supposedly the main point. i’ve seen this happen online, and i still have the scars, too.
individ-ewe-al, only nomen nescio made a technological argument. I didn’t, and I disagree that exclusivity is somehow against the nature of the Internet. Heck, the net’s killer app is private email! NN is right that what Heart is doing is a tough thing to do technically (even with livejournal). You can’t just press a button (or do some programming) on LJ.com and have a woman-only community (which admits all women). You have to individually choose whether to admit each person. And this doesn’t actually work any better than just asking, because you can’t verify the gender of an LJ user any more than you can of anyone else. Sure, LJ has an option to put in your gender, but (a) you can lie and (b) some people avoid this for either political reasons or because they don’t want to be harrassed. So, you either end up admitting only those whose gender you can verify either by attestations from trusted people (and thus under-admitting), or trusting everyone (and thus over-admitting).
Q Grrl, if pointing out unfairness is acting like a small child, then the world needs fewer small children.
Please don’t think I’m only taking this view because I’m a man — emma isn’t, and she agrees with me. I think I’m pretty even-handed and consistent about my beliefs. Above, I pointed out a case where I objected to a Jews-only activity. I likewise object to other sorts and cases of discrimination (see above). AA is, I’ll agree, an interesting case, since alcoholism is a permanent property of a person which relates strongly to behavior. I think it’s closest to the case of a discussion group that requires that members profess certain beliefs, but I reserve the right to change my mind on this.
It’s hard to say that I’ve somehow hijacked an existing discussion, since I was the first poster on this thread. And if other people want to talk about other things, well, it’s a message board — there’s no serious space limitation. If Ampersand worries about this particular discussion growing too large, he can split it off (as I think he’s done before). Or, if he’s bored by it, he can cut it off.
It may be that there is pervasive discrimination against women in the printed media. But I don’t think this extends to message boards. Certainly, in the weblog space, there are more women than men. And, unlike in meatspace, it’s easy to deal with a poster who shouts over someone or is persistently off-topic. You’re objecting to certain behaviors of some men, and proposing to ban all men for it.
On the other hand, I think Q Grrl is on the right track in the last two sentences of her second paragraph, because she’s pointing out a way in which this sort of discrimination is different from cases we would all like to condemn. Some of the posters above didn’t do that, and attempted to justify it on its own terms. If you really want to do this, you should be explicit about what you’re doing, and defend Augusta too.
emma, your case may be a little different, since you presumably don’t invite all women to your night out, but rather just your friends. Still, you might consider talking to your friends about it next time you’re there, and seeing what they think.
Bean, what would you say about someone who applied the same standards in the case of race?
I should again note that I don’t mind an invite-only discussion board (so long as invitations are issued on a basis other than membership in a certain inherent class such as race or sex). I’m also not opposed to a message board only for people who profess a certain ideology. If Heart’s board were only for supporters of feminism, that would be OK. As you point out, it makes discussion easier. I think it’s important that there are boards where every polite person is allowed, but I don’t think it’s important that any particular board be that. The only issue I have is when the distinction is based on something which most people can’t change.
Did you really need to lay down the gauntlet to trolls and male chauvinists not to post on Heart’s website, Ampersand? It’s not unlike telling toddlers not to stick beans up their noses, probably something best left unsaid. I’m even less impressed by you then making yourself look good by promising to ban them if they take you up on your suggestion. Why do you think Heart needs you as her protector?
This seems like a typical piece of male privilege disguised as “helping” a woman.
Wow. That’s not how I saw it at all. To each her own, I guess.
he does need to announce it, if he didn’t it’s possible it just might not get noticed and someone would violate the rule. and it’s incredibly rude for amp to link to a forum without making an important rule clear (I’d expect something similar if amp hit a strict no-swearing forum. “no swearing here, so if you post, tone it down, people”)
but as I and a few others said, the threat thing was over the top, and amp admitted it and aplogized.
he also explained the reason he got so aggressive on it is actually related to a prior interaction with heart at the Ms. forums. and how he feels women’s only space is nessicary.
If amp were a woman, no one would call it macho posturing, just an overreaction.
and that’s really what is was, amp overreacting in anticipation of something that COULD go wrong.
which is ok. everyone gets to freak out every once in a while, especially when they realize they freaked out and aplogize to anyone who didn’t deserve it.
Bean your post (number 43.) was right on. What so many men seem to not get is that they are not “educating” us – we’ve heard their arguments a zillion times and yet most of them barely have the slightest knowledge about feminism or women’s issues. I would recommend that those men first get a clue by educating themselves about women’s issues before they start talking about the lack of a “diverse” perspective on women-only boards. Those men are the one’s often sorely lacking the diverse perspective ie. clueless about sexism that is rampant in our culture. And obviously clueless as to WHY there would be a need for a woman-only space.
These men should take a look at the lack of diversity in govt, the media, etc. and ask themselves why they aren’t up at arms about THAT instead of a women-only private discussion board. Why aren’t they getting all incensed about how there is lack of representation of women in our government? After all that institution has much more effect on making decisions that impact a group of people like women (by denying access to emergency contraception and abortion, etc.) yet doesn’t even have an adequate representation of women to be involved with the decision-making that impacts women. Get incensed over that! How is a man being barred from a private discussion board where where women talk about one another’s lives negatively impacting your life. Get over yourself!
It is so condescending to talk about women-only space as if the women there are all uninformed carbon copies who need men to bring a diverse perspective and tell them what’s what. (A diverse perspective like let’s see, telling us that we’re all feminazis or man-haters? How enlightening. As if that never happens in general daily discussions let alone feminist bulletin boards. ) Puh-leez! If that isn’t a typical example of privilege, as is all the “this is discrimination ” against men nonsense posted on here, I don’t know what is.
Even the language used to describe Heart and her board is condescending:
“i’m convinced that anyone who’d behave in such a manner can’t really be all that bright”
Fuck you, noone asked you for your opinion about Heart’s intelligence. But it wasn’t difficult for you to make the leap into implying she’s unintelligent, what next maybe ” stupid c*nt”, maybe “feminazi”?
“because trying to say the right thing in the wrong place is just as much a mistake as saying the wrong thing in the right place. ”
And you obviously know what the right and wrong places are for women to say things. Of course you do. Yeah we really need men like this posting to women-only space. Like a hole in the head.
>>Did you really need to lay down the gauntlet to trolls and male chauvinists not to post on Heart’s website, Ampersand? It’s not unlike telling toddlers not to stick beans up their noses, probably something best left unsaid. I’m even less impressed by you then making yourself look good by promising to ban them if they take you up on your suggestion. Why do you think Heart needs you as her protector?
This seems like a typical piece of male privilege disguised as “helping”? a woman.>>
But toddlers do need to be told not to stick things up their noses. Usually more than once.
You know, (um, I hope this doesn’t violate the women-only boundary, but since Heart did invite everyone here to go and _look_) there’s a thread on the Gentlespirit message boards wherein one charter member attacks Amp for failing to take on male privilege and entitlement. The argument is that he can’t really call himself a feminist until he owns up to the responsibility that men bear for how bad women have it, rather than–as the poster believes he does–merely pointing out how bad women have it.
Amp is making it clear that he will not condone misogynist attacks on Heart, and doing his part to stop them. He doesn’t think she _needs_ his help, but of course she can use it, and of course he should offer it. As he pointed out himself, failing to say anything about the very real possibility of a troll-storm brought about by her trackback to his site could have been construed either as ignorance of the harassment women deal with online or as a lack of concern for it. His silence would have helped to perpetuate a frequently hostile environment.
When I see a man harassing a woman on the street, I say something. Not because I don’t believe she can take care of herself, or out of some misguided sense of chivalry, but because my silence is a big part of what allows that asshole to keep insulting her. And because until I speak up, I’m as much a potential threat as her harasser is an actual one.
My male privilege–and the greater respect I get from men for being male–applies whatever action I take, or fail to take. If I don’t attack trolls, online and IRL, they take my silence not only as complicity but as support. Neither I nor Amp can just stay out of it; misogynist men feel as entitled to our approval and support as they do to everything else, and they default us to their side.
I also speak up because I know exactly what a catcall feels like. Not that Amp knows what misogyny feels like, but he has been troll-bombed. I’m sure some of his vigilance is a result of his own experience.
feel better now, Chat? or would you like to insult me some more while you’re at it?
i made a guess at Heart’s intelligence because i saw it claimed she’s trying to do a thing which i don’t think is doable – certainly not easily doable – and which i couldn’t think of any reason anybody would want to do it. (Bean changed my mind on the latter point, though.)
i backed up this estimation with a point i still stand by – that anyone who wants to speak in public is well advised to not only consider their audience, but also their medium of communication. i’m convinced the latter has deep influence on what can be said, and how; WWW bulletin boards are not like Usenet groups are not like mailing lists, and the lot of them are unlike letters to the editor. you can’t treat them alike. trying to do that is a tactical mistake, and i still think Heart is likely making a mistake through attempting to limit a WWW bulletin board in ways that are not easily manageable, if they’re even manageable at all.
it’s her mistake to make, though. i’m not trying to stop her from making it, any more than she’s trying to stop me from stating my opinion of her tactics.
i’m not even trying to stop you from calling me names. hey, if you’ve got some steam to blow off, i’m pretty nearly insult-proof; go right ahead.
Eh. I’ve been doing the undoable thing for over three years now, and it hasn’t even been difficult really. We’ve had three or four violations of the woman-only policy over the years. Once a guy from the old Ms boards registered and posted; he was and is a good guy and he just didn’t realize the boards were woman-only (it was Lorenzo, for those familiar with the Ms boards community). When he realized he’d screwed up, he was apologetic and that was the last we heard from him. Once a guy from the patriarch movement posted a bunch of stuff, just completely oblivious to the “woman-only” notice on every thread. When he was asked to stop he posted one more time and that was it. Once another guy from the patriarch movement posted a kind of open apology to all the women there who had been hurt by the Christian church and by men in general. He meant well, actually, but, of course, he also was asked to leave and he did. And once a guy posted meaning to “gender-f***”. I didn’t ask him to leave actually, he just did, after one or two posts which didn’t make much splash.
The discussions on the Margins are, in general, serious. and the women there are very much committed to the work. A lot of us are survivors of severe battering or other serious domestic violence, rape, and/or incest, or of spiritual abuse in woman-hating cult groups. There are quite a few women on the Margins who are lesbian separatists, politically committed to living woman-only lives as feminist strategy. But there’s quite a lot of diversity there, as well, I have to say, we’ve got women who post who still attend conservative Christian churches, we’ve got academics and lawyers and therapists and sex educators, writers and publishers and heads of feminist organizations of all kinds. Virtually all of the women who regularly post to the Margins are deep thinkers and expressive and thoughtful writers, that we have in common for sure. My theory has been that men and trolls have so far not troubled us much because it’s hard to miss the reality of what we all have suffered in our lives as women and how committed we are to the work of revolution. We aren’t much fun to be around; it wouldn’t be very satisfying to harrass us, maybe. I don’t know.
I take it a day at a time and count it an incredible privilege to serve women in this way, to provide safe, healing, and encouraging space for them, a place to work out the difficulties of their pasts and present, as well as to theorize and strategize the work of feminist revolution. The boards are public not only so women can easily find them and post to them and read them, but also to encourage women in battering situations, who are leaving heterosexual marriages and coming out as lesbians, or who are leaving abusive cult groups, who might not feel free to post but who are helped by what they read and by connecting with women there (through e-mailing us) who might be able to help them more specifically. The boards also educate and inform those with misguided and ignorant ideas, especially about what it is to be a radical feminist and/or a lesbian separatist. Whoever reads there for any amount of time will have to begin to let go of whatever stereotypes, prejudices and anti-woman, anti-feminist propaganda he or she may have absorbed, because every last one of us defies the stereotypes and the ubiquitous anti-radical-feminist/lesbian separatist spin on the internet and everywhere, really. And people see our feminist process in there, and that, too is educational, a refutation of what is said about us by those who oppose our work and values.
Having said all that, I am going to be upgrading the boards soon, long overdue, and I will be creating some private forums. Most women there seem to want them. I’ll still have the public, woman-only forums though. Thanks to all who have spoken supportively here, that was nice. :)
Cheryl Lindsey Seelhoff (Heart)
The Margins
http://www.gentlespirit.com/Margins
I feel like I want to say one more thing. One member of our Margins community is a woman who makes her living doing what most would describe as “sex work,” a term I do not like, but it will work for now. She hasn’t been posting much lately for reasons I can understand. But I have never condemned her for what she does, I understand her reasons and her thinking. And ya know, she’s become a good friend and is coming out to spend a few days with me soon, though she lives across the country. I once sat there reading my boards with a big smile on my face, because this woman and another friend, who still identifies as a conservative Christian, were having a *great* conversation about a mutual interest they have. They were getting along just fine. That’s what can happen when women are in woman only space– women begin to be healed and to accept one another in ways the presence of men complicates.
I am saying this to say that my issue is not,and never will be, with prostituted women. My issue is with those who prostitute women, individually or institutionally and who support that practice; hence my contributions here, to the prostitution in Germany thread.
Heart
“But toddlers do need to be told not to stick things up their noses. Usually more than once.”
Only if they’ve done it already, otherwise you’re just giving them new ideas for mischief, that was my point.
“Amp is making it clear that he will not condone misogynist attacks on Heart, and doing his part to stop them. He doesn’t think she _needs_ his help, but of course she can use it, and of course he should offer it. As he pointed out himself, failing to say anything about the very real possibility of a troll-storm brought about by her trackback to his site could have been construed either as ignorance of the harassment women deal with online or as a lack of concern for it. His silence would have helped to perpetuate a frequently hostile environment.”
Except the way he did it looked like male posturing and I wasn’t the only one to notice it.
“When I see a man harassing a woman on the street, I say something. Not because I don’t believe she can take care of herself, or out of some misguided sense of chivalry, but because my silence is a big part of what allows that asshole to keep insulting her. And because until I speak up, I’m as much a potential threat as her harasser is an actual one.”
Next time, ask the woman directly if she needs your help, assuming that’s not what you do already.
littleviolet, if Amp hadn’t made it clear that it was a woman-only board, people would have posted, including men. And Heart, I perused the boards and didn’t see the notices that it was a woman-only space.
littleviolet said: This seems like a typical piece of male privilege disguised as “helping”? a woman.
Oh, come on, this is unfair and no better than the folks who would paint Heart as a manhater or stupid for wanting women-only space. You may disagree with Amp’s putting out the notice and the warning there, or even linking to the site. However, Amp has done nothing to warrant this kind of attack. A perusal of his posts will reveal that he doesn’t feel he’s anyone’s protector, or that he revels in male privilege. He’s aware of it, he works on it, and he hardly expects a freaking medal for it. He engages with people who disagree with him–even those who do so via a personal attack–with civility.
He didn’t deserve that.
sheelzebub, at the top of every single forum on the boards, just after the name of the forum, it says “Woman Only Space.” So it is, “Feminism in General–Woman Only Space,” “The Chararchy–Woman Only Space”, “Sex, Politics and Religion–Woman Only Space”, “Odd & Sundry–Woman Only Space.” If you’ll take another look, I think you’ll see.
Heart
“When I see a man harassing a woman on the street, I say something. Not because I don’t believe she can take care of herself, or out of some misguided sense of chivalry, but because my silence is a big part of what allows that asshole to keep insulting her. And because until I speak up, I’m as much a potential threat as her harasser is an actual one.”?
Next time, ask the woman directly if she needs your help, assuming that’s not what you do already.
Actually, quite a lot of these actions are more to let harrassers know that people will call them on their actions. And frankly, I wish more men would do that. Not because I need help and can’t handle myself, but because if more people–men and women–spoke up about someone’s harrassing behavior while it was going on–it might not be so easy to get away with it.
Certainly, I would have appreciated it if someone said something when I got hassled by a drunken yuppie guy on a crowded commuter train. An entitled asshole who decided I was an uptight bitch for not falling at his feet when he tried to hit on me, and got aggressive. I wouldn’t have been at all insulted or felt patronized if anyone backed me up without checking with me first to see if it was okay with me.
You know what wasn’t okay with me? People sitting with their thumbs up their asses, doing nothing, or laughing at this wanker’s antics. That did not sit well with me, and that bespoke more of male privilege than someone getting my back.
I’d have no problem at all with a woman defending me or confronting someone who was harassing me in public, I’d love it, and under some circumstances, I appreciate this online, as well. But I don’t really want men defending me (unless I’m actually being assaulted in real life.) For one thing, that’s how fights start; a man who will harass a woman in public is a man who will get in a fight in public, most of the time. There are many instances in my past, going back to high school days, when a fight between men erupted in just this way, both of them, what defending my honor or whatever, screw that.
I appreciate Amp’s concerns– he doesn’t want to be responsible for my boards getting all messed up or for being blamed for it because a link was posted here. So out of the goodness of my heart, :P, I’ll give him a pass this time. But in general, I don’t think it’s a good idea for men to defend women, online or in real life. I think women can defend women when it’s appropriate, including where there is a physical threat.
Heart
I’m with Shelzebub on this one.
Jeez, I guess I’m a little surprised that this is even an argument people are having. If I see someone bullying someone else or if I see a person getting hassled by some drunken asshole on BART or whatnot, I’d like to think that I would try to intervene, regardless of the gender of the harasser or harassee. I’ve always felt like the traditionally male emotional reaction that “I DON’T NEED YOUR HELP! I CAN TAKE CARE OF MYSELF!” is macho bullshit and just another excuse for social apathy.
I dunno, I guess for me it all comes down to “We’re all in this together.” It’s in my interest to make it clear to abusive drunken guys on BART that they can’t expect all of us to turn a blind eye. I’ve been hassled in public myself, and I would have appreciated it if other people, men or women, would have intervened.
Hmm. How about “Just because I might turn out to be a martial artist fully capable of beating up a mugger is no reason for bystanders to let the mugger mug me.” Two reasons: First, maybe I’m not a Kung-Fu master. Second, whether I’m a Kung-Fu master or not, muggers shouldn’t believe that their only barrier to mugging is the personal skill of their mark. We need to create a society where it’s crystal clear that you Just Don’t Do That. Apply this to sexual harassment, racism, etc.
I believe that there are more good people than bad people in the world, and I believe that there is strength in numbers.
—Myca
Years ago, when I was in college, “identity politics” was just past the peak of its influence. It was normal practice to exclude whites from discussions of racism, men from discussions of sexism, and so on. That was a problem — it meant that members of “privileged” groups who were sympathetic and interested in opposing oppression were often barred from the sort of discussions that would help them further develop their understanding and participate in concrete actions.
But as far as I can tell, this is no longer a problem. There are plenty of spaces, on the Internet and elsewhere, where sexism and feminism are discussed and men are welcomed in the discussion.
I do see the need for spaces for members of an oppressed group to discuss an issue in privacy from non-members, but others have already written on that point.
In general, there are good reasons to have some members-only discussions, as opposed to open discussions, in any field. Sometimes, chess players want to talk chess without stopping every five minutes to explain the difference between a bishop and a rook.
I’m sure that the men that many of you are talking about exist, but they’re not me, and it’s not fair to claim that they are.
I don’t think Heart’s board has a problem due to lack of diversity of perspective. What nonsense! There’s no reason that every view needs to be represented in every message board. That would be a vast waste of electrons. Especially since most views are repellent and vile.
Further, I’m not claiming that the major problem of the world is discrimination against men on message boards. Would that it were! I’m perfectly happy to talk about the rest of the world’s problems too (and I do!). That’s one reason I read Alas — I learn about issues I might not otherwise be aware of.
But I believe in having a clean house. So, when I see a situation where parts of a movement I care about aren’t living up to the ideals I see as central to the movement, I speak up.
I think separatism is directly harmful because it refuses to treat people as individuals. Instead, it judges them based on one characteristic, and that judgement cannot be challenged or changed in any way.
As I’ve noted, there are direct effects on me beyond merely being denied admittance to this particular form.
Separatism also re-enforces the idea that women cannot be safe in the presence of men. This is not true, and is not an idea that I think we want to encourage. It’s true that women are not safe in a world dominated by men (hence the feminist movement). But our world will always have both men and women, and I want to build a future in which everyone can live together in peace and harmony. Separatism implicitly rejects the idea of peace, and is thus harmful.
Further, separatism alienates potential allies (both male and female, as the comments above show). So, it directly harms the feminist movement.
Again, I do not single out Heart here — Ampersand’s posting of a link to her was the first I heard of her. This is far from the biggest problem in the world. But just as the police do not drop shoplifting cases to work exclusively on murder cases, I don’t think everyone in the world needs to work on the largest issues all the time. I saw an issue, and I pointed it out. To accuse me, as some have done, of inconsistency or selectivism is without basis — you don’t know my history.
“I think separatism is directly harmful because it refuses to treat people as individuals. Instead, it judges them based on one characteristic, and that judgement cannot be challenged or changed in any way. ”
This is a classic male reversal. Sexism, not separatism, is the systematic judging of people based on “one characteristic.” Separatism is not an act of judgement. It is an act of claiming space and voice.
Novalis, there is a world of difference between having a woman-only space and being a separatist. Although Heart’s board has a discussion about separatisim, I am not under the impression that the board is separatist, or that everyone on the board is separatist.
I do not live my life as a separatist (I’ve read a fair amount of work on the subject, and it’s much more compliated than your take on it) but I still do value woman-only space, especially for feminist discussion. The first and most major reason is that I can get into and learn from discussions about aspects of feminism that your typical anti-feminist won’t get; there is no defending the very basic tenents of the philosophy and no dealing with trolls who insist on breaking Goodwin’s Law.
As for separatist movements alienating potential allies, speak for yourself. Just because there are Black separatists doesn’t mean I don’t support civil rights and racial equality. I’m not going to get in a snit and demand that they respect my fee-fees when no one has respected theirs, or cared about what they think–ironically, until they claim some space for themselves.
Separatism also re-enforces the idea that women cannot be safe in the presence of men. This is not true, and is not an idea that I think we want to encourage.
You know, I’m not Heart’s biggest fan in the world, but I understand exactly –from her description of the women who gravitate toward her space– why there are women who indeed cannot be, or feel, safe in the presence of men;especially those who are complete strangers. Why don’t you understand it, novalis ?
Q Grrl, please don’t judge me based on my gender. To say that my arguments are “male” doesn’t say anything about them. Either they are right, or they are wrong, or this is simply an area on which reasonable people can differ. Further, there are female feminists who agree with me (emma, above). I think I’ve provided a lot of reasons to accept my views, and I haven’t attacked anyone. I would appreciate the same courtesy from you. I’m probably about done with this thread, because I’ve said my piece, and I don’t think further back-and-forth will be worthwhile.
Sheelzebub, you’re right that separatism is probably not the word I was looking for. I mean any practice that excludeds people based on sex or gender.
It must be possible for women to have a voice in the presence of men — that seems to me to be the whole point. I’m not saying that every board must be about women confronting sexist or antifeminist men — on the contrary, I think conversations go a lot better when people with repellent views aren’t there. But I do think that it’s harmful to exclude men, for the reasons I describe. Sex is simply a bad proxy for viewpoint.
“Years ago, when I was in college, “identity politics”? was just past the peak of its influence. It was normal practice to exclude whites from discussions of racism, men from discussions of sexism, and so on. That was a problem ““ it meant that members of “privileged”? groups who were sympathetic and interested in opposing oppression were often barred from the sort of discussions that would help them further develop their understanding and participate in concrete actions.”
Why is this a problem, again? There’s just discussions, we aren’t all going to be privy to, but we seem to think we should be? If the “privilaged” people’s attitude is that we’re/they’re missing out on an educational experience for themselves, then it’s probably not a bad thing we/they were excluded.
The above is one reason why those separate discussion areas are often not only wanted, but needed.
I’m perplexed at the potshots at Heart or other people with separate space for women, by men here. No, wait scratch that, I’m really not. I’ve just heard this argument that it’s sexist or unequal too many times before.
Radfem, I specifically said that I do support separate spaces for members of an oppressed group to discuss their issues, without having to deal with non-members of that group.
I was saying that at one time, it was normal practice to exclude non-members of an oppressed group from all discussions of that of oppression, and that had been a problem, BUT IT ISN’T A PROBLEM ANY MORE. So complaining about Heart’s Website is not justified.
I just disagree in that it was a problem even back then, as well and that the “problem” wasn’t really a problem at all except for those who felt that something entitled them to be privy to those discussions in order to educate themselves, when that probably wasn’t the focus of those discussions. Maybe they didn’t want to be sidetracked into educating others which wasn’t their responsibility anyway.
I still think some of those same dynamics play out today.
I agree with other points, just wanted to address that one. I agree about Hearrt’s Web site and think complaining about it is just stupid. Calling it sexist to exclude men shows a lack of understanding of the dynamics of our society or either a refusal to see them. Cries of reverse sexism like these, whether from conservative men or liberal men, just gives me a rash, anyway that no degree of calamine lotion can cure.
Actually, at the time — late 80s, early 90s — the theory that I’d hear from most activists was that it was *impossible* to organize a movement against sexism that included men, or a movement against racism that included whites. This made political organizing extremely difficult, as activists would refuse to coordinate their efforts with each other *as a matter of principle*.
This was a problem in a narrow social milieu, left activists on college campuses in that period. But it was a very real problem. Political activism was horribly fragmented, making effective action extremely difficult.
I was told, frequently, that as a white male, if I tried to involve myself in any way in movements against sexism or racism, I would actually be harming that movement. So what could I do? Don’t be racist or sexist. And maybe get involved in environmentalism — that should be okay. At the time, many of the people I knew in environmentalist groups — almost all white — would say that they were in that group because it was the only social justice issue they could find that their participation in wouldn’t be harmful.
This wasn’t just a problem for white males, either. Many people ran into frustrations with different identity-based groups refusing to work with each other, and people complaining that they fit in multiple categories, and were frustrated at not being able to act upon the connections they perceived.
This began to shift in the mid-90s, when different groups started to soften their stance on separatism, and look for ways to find connections between issues — environmental issues and racism, for instance.
The fragmentation was a very real problem. I’ve discussed it with activists who were in various identity politics groups at the time, and they usually agree that it was taken too far, in a period of profound political demoralization.
I guess the only good that came of this discussion is that more women got to find Heart’s margins. Q-grrl you are wonderful. And seperatism is much more complicated. It’s not all about exluding men, which makes it all about men again. It’s a woman centered way of life. It’s an expression of my love and dedication to women that makes me follow my seperatist path. I know that sounds cornballish (I wish I could express it better) but that’s how I feel.
“I still do value woman-only space, especially for feminist discussion. The first and most major reason is that I can get into and learn from discussions about aspects of feminism that your typical anti-feminist won’t get.”
But this is exactly where I think that the sexism comes in: This equates men with antifeminism, and women with profeminism. I would rather discuss feminism with novalis, ampersand, and foolish owl than with Ann Coulter or Phyllis Schafly!
It is not, I assure you, that I begrudge women a sense of freedom or safety in a space of their own. It is not that I am a man that can’t understand the misogyny that pervades society: two charges that have been thrown at novalis. The reason that I, a very active and passionate feminist, would not participate in a women’s only forum–whether or not in real life or on the internet– is that my feminism is antithetical to assumptions of feminist/sexist attitudes based on gender. I feel that it is wrong to make a policy (i.e. women-only posting) based on the assumption that men will be disrespectful or unknowledgeable about feminism and women will not. Assumptions underlie much of our society’s sexism.
By the way, I spoke to both male and female feminists that I respect and trust about the “women’s night out.” There was no consensus on the matter, except for the being glad that this formerly unexplored area of gender relations was now being explored. : )
FoolishOwl, it’s true what you say about progressive and leftist movements in the 80s and 90s, but to understand what you are talking about, I think we have to go back a little further. In the late 60s, early 70s, men and women did work together in the anti-war, Civil Rights, leftist-progressive movements of the times, of all kinds. And in those movements, women were relentlessly exploited and objectified. You might recall Stokely Carmichael’s famous statement that the “position of women in the [Civil Rights] movement is prone.” You can find Marge Piercy’s “Grand Coolie Damn” about sexism on the left in the 60s and 70s online, if you do a google search. Here is Barbara Deming’s, “To Fear Jane Alpert is to Fear Ourselves,” where Deming describes the abuse a member of the Weathermen suffered at the hands of her womanizing boyfriend, imprisoned in Attica for leftist terrorism, basically. http://homepage.mac.com/dmccabe/janealpert.html Another good and informative read is Robin Morgan’s, “Goodbye to All That,” where she describes the horrendous misogyny on part of the leftist men she and other feminist women had worked alongside. I don’t know if this essay is online, but it may be.
It’s true that feminists in the 80s and 90s rejected men’s participation, iow, but there were very, very good reasons for that. You can hardly have a Revolution if your male comrades view you as servants, to make the coffee, keep the compound clean, and be available to them as bed partners.
And yeah, Q grrl, you rock. And I miss you.
Heart
And thanks for all the good words, alsis, radfem (always good, I miss you, as well), Morgan, kinda like old times. Sniff.
Heart
Emma: I feel that it is wrong to make a policy (i.e. women-only posting) based on the assumption that men will be disrespectful or unknowledgeable about feminism and women will not. Assumptions underlie much of our society’s sexism.
That’s not the basis for the policy, though. The basis for the policy is that the People of Women have a right to one another AS a people– to find healing, encouragement, and comfort which can only be provided from our own kind– women.
And you know, it doesn’t really matter that individual men may be knowledgeable about feminism or respectful, though I’m glad they do and I think there are good men in the world. What matters to those of us who provide or seek out woman only space is gendered power, how it works in the world, how it makes some privileged and some disenfranchised and the way that informs and affects the relationships between women. What matters to us is who does what to whom: who rapes whom. Who batters whom. Who incests whom. Who owns land in the world and who doesn’t. Who runs corporations and governments and religious institutions and who doesn’t. Who has written himself into history and written women out of it. There are those among us who love and share our lives with men, but we nevertheless find the need for woman-only space, meaning space for those who understand what it is to be marginalized and disenfranchised in this world with biology used as an excuse.
Heart
alsis38, I reject the idea that men are inherently unsafe because it denies our individuality.
Sheelzebub, can you point me to some introductory separatist resources? I’m quite curious. Of course, web resources are preferable.
Heart, when you say “those who understand what it is to be marginalized and disenfranchised in this world with biology used as an excuse”, do you invite fat men to your discussion group? Men with disabilities? Also, do you reject the idea that one can have understanding without direct experience? If so, do you spend a lot of time touching hot stoves?
Here is a link to an essay in which Jane Alpert describes her treatment at the hands of her partner, Sam Melville, of the Weathermen.
http://scriptorium.lib.duke.edu/wlm/mother/
Heart
Novalis, I’ll refer you to a portion of my earlier post:
What matters to us is who does what to whom: who rapes whom. Who batters whom. Who incests whom. Who owns land in the world and who doesn’t. Who runs corporations and governments and religious institutions and who doesn’t. Who has written himself into history and written women out of it. There are those among us who love and share our lives with men, but we nevertheless find the need for woman-only space, meaning space for those who understand what it is to be marginalized and disenfranchised in this world with biology used as an excuse.
And I might add, from the other thread, what matters to us is who prostitutes whom. Who owns whom as chattel. Who sells whom into sexual slavery. Who sells whom into marraige.
Men have their issues, it is true. I was married twice to black men, and I understand the issues marginalized men face. But place a man with a similarly situated woman side by side, and the woman loses EVERY time. And it’s that reality in the earth that I have given my life to challenging.
Heart
I don’t think that being a disabled man is the same as being a woman. But I absolutely think that disabled people have experiences that the rest of us don’t, and I respect that some of them might want separate space in which to discuss and work through those experiences. I can’t imagine being offended by that.
I honestly just don’t get it. Separate space isn’t my thing, but I don’t understand why people seem so offended by it.
Sally, a separate space necessarily excludes people based on things outside their control. When someone tells me that I am a first and foremost a member of some group, rather than an individual, that bothers me. When someone tells me that because I am member of some group which I have no choice but to belong to, I can’t do certain things, that offends me. But this isn’t particularly personal for me.
If you can explain your confusion in a bit more detail, I hope I can respond to your specific concerns.
alsis38, I reject the idea that men are inherently unsafe because it denies our individuality.
Well, as I said, novalis, Heart feels that the women who make up her internet circle don’t agree that they have to make you part of it, just so you can feel that your individuality is respected. They have other priorities that don’t have anything to do with you.
You carry on about “experience” and make snide remarks about hot stoves, yet you fail to acknowledge that the women who prefer female-only spaces are indeed employing their own experiences in choosing such spaces. Heart explained that the women on her boards have had bad experiences, and sometimes severe abuse, in their dealings with men. Their experience has told them that in that space, at this particular time, they will be more likely to heal and grow if they are away from people –men– who either recreate the dynamics that caused them pain in the first place or make them feel they must behave in a deferential fashion– even if an *individual* male doesn’t mean them any harm. (And you can, in fact, cause other people harm by blundering, even if you don’t intend to do so.)
The fact that you don’t approve of the conclusions they’ve drawn from their experiences isn’t their problem.
And it sure *does* sound like you’re taking the whole thing personally, considering that you just keep talking over other people’s responses, and repeatedly mentioning your “individuality,” as if that must be the primary concern of everyone you might meet.
From what little I’ve gleaned of radical feminism over the years, one of its basic tenets is that there is a “class woman” and “class man.” Thus the group is set up with that idea in mind. Your individual traits are not as important as the traits you bring to the table as part of “class man.” You may not like that, but it ain’t your game and you don’t get to make the rules.
If you don’t approve, start a public co-ed group that discusses feminism. If you read something at the Margins that intrigues you, post a polite invite on your own boards inviting anyone interested to come and discuss it in your co-ed space. Maybe someone will. Maybe they won’t. Roll the dice. Expect that sometimes you will get your feelings hurt, and that there might, just might, be more important things on women’s minds than your feelings. That’s how life is.
Heart, the Stokely Carmichael quote is (painfully) familiar. Thanks for the other references, I’ll be sure to read them. Practical knowledge of what past activists had to deal with is invaluable.
emma:
“I feel that it is wrong to make a policy (i.e. women-only posting) based on the assumption that men will be disrespectful or unknowledgeable about feminism and women will not. Assumptions underlie much of our society’s sexism. ”
Apart from what Heart said, there’s another reason for making some spaces women-only (although, really, it all comes down to the same basic thing: it’s not about excluding the men or about what the men might do – it’s about what the women can do). Men who want to be part of a feminist discussion or activist group will most probably fall into one of two categories: (a) anti-feminist assholes; or (b) intelligent pro-feminist reasonably nice guys. There are obvious reasons for wanting to exclude (a) so I won’t waste time on them (and don’t even bother to tell us we should be educating them: there are none so dumb as those who will not learn).
The reasons for excluding (b) are less obvious. After all, come on, they’re *nice* guys: they’ve probably read about feminism, they get righteously outraged at the plight of women in Afghanistan, and maybe even at the plight of women closer to home; sometimes they’ve been personally affected by sexism directed at women close to them, so this is something more than theory to them. They want to do something about it, and they have a lot to say.
They have a lot to say. That’s the problem right there. Because every time these nice guys are talking, there might be one or two or six women in the group who find it difficult to speak up when men are present (or even to speak up at all) and have spoken first; who are impressed by what the guys have said and by the way they’ve said it (because after all, these are smart, well-spoken nice guys making fine intelligent points about important things), and feel intimidated and unable to match the intelligence and eloquence.
I have nothing against shared spaces, really: all of the web communities I belong to are shared. And I know there *are* men who are sincerely interested in these issues, and that men and women can sometimes work together on solutions to the problems. But sometimes it’s necessary to be in a group that’s only women; and even if it’s a matter of preference rather than necessity, the women concerned don’t have to justify their preference to anybody. The women who disagree with that, don’t have to join; the men who disagree can join one of the many shared spaces – look, there’s one RIGHT HERE.
Novalis: your insistance in claiming that men are not harmful or shouldn’t be judged by their gender flies in the face of most women’s experiences. It also points to your lack of understanding of feminist theory. Feminism isn’t just about getting the sexes to get along and feel good about each other. When I use the term “male reversal” it represents groundbreaking feminist theory from the 70’s. Your read of it that it was a personal slur shows just how much you *don’t* understand about feminism. Personally, I don’t have the time to spoon feed any man. If you want to argue about what feels good, what is “fair”, and what is “equal” then don’t expect feminists to back you up. Your argument never leaves the paradigm of patriarchal definitions for the terms “good”, “fair” or “equal”. Feminism isn’t about reforming systems and paradigms that are pre-existing. And because it isn’t about reform, it often and necessarily needs space outside of the dominant paradigm. I find your claims to being insulted entirely offensive: one of the oldest tricks in the bag to keep women from acting, dreaming, scheming, talking together, is to make them take responsibility for men’s feelings, emotions, and mistakes. Once women are drained of their own emotions, etc., then men can rest safe in knowing that political action and solidarity are pretty much out the window. Have you never read Virginia Woolf’s “A Room of One’s Own”?
It’s not for you, as a man, to tell me how to run or define my feminist politics. It never has been and I doubt, in my lifetime, that it ever will be. For you to insist, over and over again, that you do have this right, shows exactly why you shouldn’t.
And before you claim, yet again, that I am unfair, spend some time thinking about women-only space and the intense violation of the privacy of the woman in the Kobe Bryant case. Why was it so socially condoned to violate her space and not his?
Q – how exactly are you going to determine what is fair, or what equality means, if you’re not willing to argue about the points?
frankly, i’m hoping that i’ve badly misread what you were saying in post #85. because the way i’m reading it right now, it almost seems to me like you expect the concepts of “fairness”, “equality”, and so on, to be some sort of laws of nature that can be just plain discovered – or revealed – without discussion, debate, or argument. please tell me that’s not how you see these things.
please tell me, at very least, that when you seem to be speaking for all of feminism – when you make sweeping statements about what feminism is or is not all about – that you either don’t really mean that, that you don’t really speak for feminism as a whole, or else that your generalizations aren’t correct. because if that were really what feminism truly is like, in its entirety, then i wouldn’t want to be a feminist.
Great posts in here, whoa.
I just think the following bears a read. It is as eloquent an apologetic for feminist separatism/lesbian separatism/radical feminism as can be found. It was written after the murder of 42 prisoners during a riot at Attica Prison, which event divided feminist women against one another: those loyal to the men in Attica and those whose loyalties were to women. Jane Alpert was in the crosshairs of this conflict for reasons she describes below:
“Believe me, I understand your side of it. I’ve been on that side… I’ve practically drowned on that side. Over a year ago I wrote an introduction to a book of the prison letters of Sam Melville, a man I loved and lived with who was killed in the Attica uprising of September 1971. I was already a feminist when I wrote that introduction and had theoretically rejected the politics that Melville had taught me and that he had lived and died for. Yet I had never found the courage or the words to tell him that while he lived, and especially while influenced by the powerful feelings that his murder aroused in me, I was incapable of writing the truth of his male supremacy…that underside of men’s lives that only women know…in my eulogistic essay on his life. Since this is the last time I will ever write about him, I would like to tell some of that truth here.
“I was very much pressured, against my own sense of tactics and timing, into playing the role I did in the group of radical bombers Melville half-led, half-dragged along with him. The pressure was of the kind peculiar and common to male-female relationships: he constantly threatened to leave me if I backed out. What he valued in me, besides having a dependable sexual partner and housekeeper, was what he took to be my “independence” and “self-sufficiency”…as he often told me. This made me useful to him as an ally, and further assured him that I had the quality he prized above all others in women: the capacity to love him devotedly, yet get along without him uncomplainingly whenever he chose to leave. The last letter I received from him exhorted me against writing narrow-mindedly of loving and needing him, instead of writing about great social truths (the ones he was concerned with, that is). “To speak of love, especially love between one desperate man and woman, limits our vision and ties us to the past.” Yet the same letter ends on an explicitly sexual note: “Yes, sweet bitch, I love you. And if they ever let me out and the wind is right, I’ll find you.” This was typical; he would never “degrade” himself by admitting love for a woman in any fashion not immediately tied to his sexual pleasure.
“A few months before we were arrested, Sam began a secret affair with a woman friend of ours whom I hadn’t seen in some time. In order to keep us from comparing notes on his behavior, he told her he was no longer living with me. He also at least hinted to her that the sabotage of military and corporate buildings around the city was the work of himself and friends. I discovered his betrayal only by the coincidence of having acquaintances in common with the other woman, acquaintances to whom she had repeated Sam’s hints. To this day I don’t know how many other dangerous, possibly fatal, violations of security his masculinist need to boast led him to commit.
“Some will say Melville’s sexism was extreme just as his politics were extreme. Yet I have seen his behavior duplicated in the most bourgeois households by males of all political persuasions, economic backgrounds, ages, and skin colors. I never knew Sam to cook a meal for himself; he once wrote WASH ME in black Magic Marker on the side of the refrigerator as a cute reminder of my responsibilities; he threatened to leave me, and meant it, if I took up smoking cigarettes after having given them up to please him; he wouldn’t allow our lease, our telephone, our utilities bill, our bank account, or anything else we shared to be in his name on the ostensible grounds that he was delinquent with his income tax and didn’t want to be found through public records. The real reason, it turned out, was that he didn’t want his wife to find him and demand the child support he owed her and hadn’t paid in years.
“He was sexually impotent unless he could fantasize the woman he was with as a prostitute and she went along with his fantasy.
“At one point Sam joined a political group headed by Rap Brown. This group’s attitude toward women was bigotry itself: they didn’t include any and they didn’t intend to. According to Brown himself, as quoted by Melville, women would be “a distraction from serious business.” When I confronted Sam on this, he seemed slightly embarrassed but wouldn’t even commit himself to discussing male supremacy with his new idol, Rap Brown. Recalling this, I’m reminded ironically of the division of all-black bomber pilots stationed out of Texas during World War II who, despite phenomenal sacrifices and heroism, were forbidden the supposed privilege of being integrated with white battalions. How strange it is that not only the man I lived with but one of the most brilliant and sophisticated black militants of the 1960s should turn out to have the same kind of crass ignorance about women.
“And so, my sisters in Weatherman, you fast and organize and demonstrate for Attica. Don’t send me news clippings about it, don’t tell me how much those deaths moved you.
“I will mourn the loss of 42 male supremacists no longer.”
http://scriptorium.lib.duke.edu/wlm/mother/
Heart
Norman Nescio: because the way i’m reading it right now, it almost seems to me like you expect the concepts of “fairness”, “equality”, and so on, to be some sort of laws of nature that can be just plain discovered – or revealed – without discussion, debate, or argument. please tell me that’s not how you see these things.
I’m not Q grrl but I can respond to this. Until the movement for women’s liberation began, “fairness” and “equality” turned on what men understood to be fair and equal. So for example, we have a Constitution which promised equality to white, heterosexual, male property-owners, in that whatever was fair and equal as to them was, heck, fair and equal, ya know, never mind all of the many who were excluded. The feminist movement, Civil Rights movement, gay rights movements have determined to force change, so that white, heterosexual men are no longer viewed as the arbiters of what is fair and equal.
Feminism means to create a woman-centered understanding of what “fairness” and “equality” are and mean, a standard which writes women and our reality, needs, desires, goals, back into the instutions, laws, history, we’ve been written out of.
Heart
Nomen: I’m not going to do your homework for you. If you are not familiar with feminist theory, then I really can’t “argue” with you can I? If you don’t understand the basic framework of feminist theory, then of course you can throw out the strawman that I’m “speaking for all feminists”. Would you make the same silly claim if a student of Marx was discussing Marxism… no, you’d probably bone up on your reading of Marx and then argue point by point. But, until you have read feminist theory, you don’t even know what the points are, do you? Until *you* can separate ideas of fairness and equality out of the patriarchal paradigm from which they arose and which are firmly in control of their meaning, it does not behoove me to try to “argue” on your level. That is reformism.
Think of this: Arizona is just now being challenged on its marital rape law. Marital. Rape. So, in Arizona, if you are a husband, you get special dispensation when found guilty of rape. Even though you did rape. Even though you violated a woman. Because you are a married man, you get off lighter.
So Nomen, do you really want to talk about fairness? Do you really want me to swallow, once again, men’s values in the name of fairness and equity?
You’re sitting here telling me that I have my feminism wrong — or that, heaven forbid, I speak for all feminists (the irony being that you, a man, is trying to tell *me* what I should or shouldn’t say, so the issue isn’t that I’m speaking for all feminists, its just that I am a woman speaking). If you were truly on the side of feminism, you’d be doing something *amongst* your brethren to change rape laws and our rape society. Instead you’d rather attack a woman’s view of feminism. Telling.
ok, so you’re just not willing to argue with people who don’t have a thorough background on the subject. perhaps you’re fed up with having to teach people the basics when you want to dissect some more advanced issue. that’s fine, i have no problem with that. but that’s not what you said, at least not clearly enough for me to get that point – or clearly enough for you to get that point across.
maybe i didn’t get the point because i haven’t studied feminist theory, or maybe just because i’m a complete idiot. or then again, maybe it was because you didn’t make the point clearly enough.
nor did i tell you that you have your feminism wrong – or, if i did, that wasn’t what i meant to say. i was getting an image of what your feminism is like that didn’t seem reasonable or sensible to me, and i wanted to find out if this image was actually a fair representation of the reality, of what feminism really is to you, because that image distressed me. it turns out not to have been a good representation of your politics after all, for which i’m glad.
nor did i try to tell you what you should or shouldn’t say. i was trying to figure out if you’d actually meant to say what you seemed, to me, to have said. it seems you didn’t; whether because i misread or because you miswrote i do not know. the fact that you’re a woman speaking is not the issue at all; the fact that you seemed to be saying unreasonable and senseless things was – until you corrected my misconception.
what you wanted to say appears to be no more than fair and reasonable, but there seems to be a communications problem between us. i’ll leave it to others to decide where it lies, or why it’s there.
one last thing – please don’t tell me what i would or would not “rather” do, or what i actually am doing, unless you can actually show that this is so. maybe i am a hypocrite, but calling me one without showing just how i am one is little more than name-calling. you may have a perfect right to be angry, for all i know – but if you feel you have a right to be angry with me, please tell me what it is. i’m ignorant and stupid and do not know.
Well Nomen, that’s fine and good. I didn’t call you a hypocrite, not sure where you pulled that one out of. So far, you are the one that hasn’t argued my points. You are arguing my style. Again, this is telling.
You wrote:
“please tell me, at very least, that when you seem to be speaking for all of feminism – when you make sweeping statements about what feminism is or is not all about – that you either don’t really mean that”
Linguistically, this isn’t a question. It is a demand — heavy on a dominant belief system.
Yes, I believe what I believe. Regardless of how men interpret my belief system. That’s the beauty of feminism.
And I want to add:
No man out there should find feminism to be reasonable or sensible. Not in the least. It should challenge you and make you angry. If it doesn’t, then it is not feminism.
i’ll concede a point, Q: i don’t think we’re speaking the same language. maybe that’s because of some difference in philosophy or worldview, but it’s becoming clear that we’re talking at cross purposes.
nor am i seeing much incentive to learn your language. in fact, you seem to be telling me you’re not interested in speaking to me until i do learn it, and your style is such that it’s tricky for me to not be insulted; it’s like you’re accusing me of having the wrong viewpoint, then refusing to show me what the “right” one is, or to explain why that one is any more “right” than whichever viewpoint it is i’ve got.
at present, i don’t think you’re actually being aggressive towards me without having any good reason for aggression. more likely we’re just incapable of communicating properly, because of a drastic difference in vocabulary. that’s not too bad – i don’t really need to speak to you, after all.
but i’ll have to say, if this is the sort of gauntlet a guy has to run through to be on your side of the feminist issue, i really do not think i want to be your ally. it doesn’t seem to be worth the effort.
if this is the sort of gauntlet a guy has to run through to be on your side of the feminist issue, i really do not think i want to be your ally. it doesn’t seem to be worth the effort.
It’s tough, isn’t it, to give up male privilege. And that’s why so many men never do.
Heart
I’ve been enjoying this thread a lot. I don’t understand why people are having so many problems with a women only discussion group. My experience shows that any X-people only group is not, in and of itself, a bad thing. Some exclusive groups are bad, in my opinion, because they are structured to keep something desirable out of the hands of the “other”. A women only discussion group doesn’t seem to fit that description – unless you view the company/attention of women as a commodity. I don’t think that you can really discuss women only discussion groups and feminist or lesbian seperatism as identical (or even similar) concepts.
Heart,
I’m not sure I see that as an apologetic for seperatism. It looks like the writing of somebody who has left an abusive situation and been hugely affected by the trauma of it. Somebody who views everyone in the class of their abuser as an abuser. Or maybe that is the foundation of seperatism? How does one differentiate between the various kinds of seperatists that exist (ethnic, racial, gender, orientation, etc.) in terms of which is good and which is bad if past trauma is the impetus for seperatism? I really have no understanding of the purpose of seperatism as defined by immutable class (as opposed to seperatism as defined by action/behaviour).
probably. but i really wouldn’t know, because i’m not sure i could understand Q if she tried to tell me what she considers to be male privilege. i strongly suspect her vocabulary and underlying assumptions are so different from mine that we’d just end up speaking at cross purposes again if we tried to discuss the subject.
i’d like to find out, but if learning her language means being (even unintentionally) insulted for who knows how long, apparently simply because of my gender, then what’s my incentive to bother?
Hey, Jake Squid, I don’t have a lot of time right now, but just briefly, I don’t think what Jane Alpert described there was severe trauma, or unusual for that matter. I think that most het women go through or have gone through some version and degree of what she described there — and most don’t think twice about it because the behaviors she describes are so accepted under male supremacy. Because they have seen this kind of thing all of their life, it’s what they know. And for other reasons.
The other thing to think about is, the behavior Alpert describes there and worse behaviors and less brutal behaviors serve to shore up male supremacy in a million ways, visible and invisible. The behaviors of the really bad guys make other men’s behaviors seem good by comparison, whether they are or not, meaning in the end, all men benefit by the way the behaviors of the really bad guys work to keep women subjugated.
Women who refuse to participate in this system, who stop giving their energy, time, substance to men, open a door for other women who want to follow them out of a system in which women are hurt in all sorts of ways, again, visible and less visible.
Wish I had more time, but I just don’t right now.
Heart
Please. Another reversal. Blame the feminist for the man not willing to do the work.
Clue for you Nomen: you wouldn’t make a good ally. You’re too ready to make it seem like I have poor communication styles when you haven’t read feminist theory in the first place. Had you, you might understand better why I’m speaking as I am.
If you want to talk about fairness and equality, can you envision either of these existing outside of the patriarchal paradigm that currently defines and supports them? If this question is “clear” enough, take a stab at answering it. Keep in mind instances like the Arizona marital rape laws, the Kobe Bryant case, and for a bone chilling reality check, the systematic use of rape by the military in the Congo.
What women see when they line up reality with patriarchal concepts of fairness and equality is a huge gap, yet a gap that is ignored in the legal and judicial fields. Women’s lives and the atrocities they suffer are circumscribed by what if fair and equal in the lives of those with male bodies: i.e., those bodies upon which systematic rape is neither practiced nor condoned. Before we can even entertain notions of fairness, the status quo upon which judicial or legislative decisions are made is *not* in fact the status quo: rather it is the norm for those who are male bodied who tend to perform their version of status quo, and maintain its primacy, through the use, objectification, and silencing of those who are female bodied.
*If* one only looks at private or restricted space in terms of the patriarchal or male defined status quo, then *of course* it looks unfair. It looks like sexism.
But it can’t be sexism. Sexism is the systematic practice of oppresing women. It loses relevance as soon as you say that men can be oppresed through sexism too. It also requires cultural blinders larger than the state of Texas to be able to **not see** the social and personal necessity of women-only space.
Nomen: “i’d like to find out, but if learning her language means being (even unintentionally) insulted for who knows how long, apparently simply because of my gender, then what’s my incentive to bother? ”
Again with the reversal. I am not doing anything “simply” because of your gender. It isn’t about you and your personal relationship with your gender. It is about you being a member of a class of people who systematically oppress the class of people that I inhabit. There is nothing simple about the paradigm that you have been raised in as a male in this society. There is nothing simple in my blatent critique of and rage with the paradigm that you (obviously?) seem to enjoy (because you aren’t willing to move out of your comfort zones). I find Marx’s language difficult, as with Judith Butler. It doens’t keep me from reading them and stretching to find answers and commonalities. I think your claims to my poor communication skills is a red herring to your apparent disdain for learning what feminism is.
As I said before: if you aren’t insulted by feminism, something is wrong. It should insult you. It should shake you up. It should make you very very angry.
Q, you don’t even know which society i was raised in. at least, to the best of my recollection, i’ve never told you.
i do not know what you mean by “reversal”, by the way. i don’t expect you to tell me; i’m just saying that you’re unlikely to change my mind on anything by using the term, since i don’t understand it.
if it’s about me being a member of a class which i cannot help but be a member of, then it might as well be about my gender, quite regardless of what this class (which class?) may have done to anyone else individually or collectively. i don’t know where you get the notion that i’m enjoying any of this, partly because by now, i’m so confused by your language that i can’t tell what it is you think i’m enjoying.
finally, i’m upset by a great many things. however, i do not believe my anger at them is any good as a justification for their existence. the mere fact that something may be outside my comfort zones does not serve to make that something right – and besides, if making me uncomfortable is all you’re really trying to do here, there are easier ways you could choose to do it by.
“male reversal” is a term coined by Mary Daly (in the 70’s).
There are few societies in this world that aren’t patriarchal, so I think it is justifiably safe to say that you were raised in a patriarchal society, and with that, I am knowledgable.
As to your final paragraph: again, it’s not about *you*. I am not out to make you uncomfortable. What I am saying is that you are a male in a patriarchal society and as such your comfort (social, political, and economic) is based on a system of oppression: sexism. I am the one that suffers from that; you are the one that benefits. So, following the least bit of the logic trail… feminism *should* make you uncomfortable.
Thanks for the quick explanation, Heart. I’m sorry that you don’t have time for a more in-depth discussion on this. If anybody else would like to pick up on this, I’d be happy to talk about this more.
I think that I’m hearing that most het women are abused by their partners. Maybe you think that “abuse” is the wrong word, but what I see in Alpert’s excerpt is mental & emotional abuse.
My question is, how does seperatism help to stop this? (Assuming that one wishes to have both women and men co-exist in our society) Why is seperatism anything more than the modern equivalent of entering a convent as a way to keep men from ever hurting one again?
Perhaps somebody can recommend some reading material on the subject or at least a starting point. I have no idea where to begin on this.
Thanks.
“please tell me, at very least, that when you seem to be speaking for all of feminism – when you make sweeping statements about what feminism is or is not all about – that you either don’t really mean that, that you don’t really speak for feminism as a whole, or else that your generalizations aren’t correct. because if that were really what feminism truly is like, in its entirety, then i wouldn’t want to be a feminist. ”
Okay, we don’t follow your rules for us, you won’t play anymore. Fine. Whatever. See ya. Or not.
Heart, it’s good to see you too, and alsis, Q Grrrl too. You are much better at this than I am. You’ve put up posts that have made this exchange very interesting and very much worth following and held your cool. Thank you very much for that.
Nomen, you need to go back and reread everything here again…maybe start with what Q Grrl said (very) briefly about feminism and discomfort(even though that’s near the end) . Read that post twice, once now, then again after reading through the posts again. Then think about what to say next. Maybe then, you’ll shed some privilage you have that you weren’t aware of?
Jake: “My question is, how does seperatism help to stop this? (Assuming that one wishes to have both women and men co-exist in our society) Why is seperatism anything more than the modern equivalent of entering a convent as a way to keep men from ever hurting one again?”
If it’s a given that men aren’t going to be the ones creating a true co-existance (b/c they have too much at stake to give up sexism, for example), then why not separate from them?
As it is, separatism does not end the abuse or lead to a certain level of co-existance. What it does is to give women the space, time, and resources, to create their own lived realities, rather than an imposed reality of male objectification. It is, in essence, the truest form of “thinking outside the box.” Will it change how men behave towards women? No, but that’s men’s work in the first place.
I also don’t think that it is the modern equivalent of the convent, as convents are male defined/patriarchally defined, dependent upon a patriarchal and male god. Therefore, rules, restrictions, and beliefs about proper female conduct, religion, and faith are all still predicated on patriarchal paradigms. A convent simply removes a woman from the secular world. Separatism hopes to create a world of women, by women, and for women.