Antifeminists tend to be very hung up on blame. According to antifeminists, feminists blame men for all their problems, and feminist men are masochists who enjoy guilt.
My personal experience of feminism ain’t at all like that. I’ve met a handful of feminists who blame men for everything; but the vast majority of feminists I’ve met don’t waste their time with that. Which makes perfect sense. Blaming men would be unproductive for feminism, for several reasons:
- It makes some women and many men who might otherwise be indifferent to feminism – or even willing to listen to feminism – defensive and angry. In this way, blame creates enemies and reduces potential converts.
- It wastes time by paralyzing many pro-feminist men in a useless mire of defensiveness and guilt (trust me, there’s nothing as boring as an hour spent with a guilt-ridden feminist man).
- It blurs the distinction between the Alan Johnsons and the Jerry Fawells of the world (not to mention between the Anita Bryants and the Susan Faludis), by assigning people blame according to their genitalia rather than their actions.
- It deflects attention from the real powers-that-be. If we’re going to blame anyone, I think it makes the most sense to blame the real rulers – CEOs, high political mucky-mucks, Network executives. People who have real power to change society. Remember, although the vast majority of society’s ruling class are male, the vast majority of men aren’t in the ruling class.
That isn’t to say that men shouldn’t be blamed for the ways in which they personally perpetuate male dominance (by not treating daughters and sons equally, by abusing wives/lovers, by holding a female coworker to unfairly high standards, by refusing to do a fair share of housework, by telling sexist jokes, etc…). And it’s true that men do these things far more than women do. Still, some individual women do some of the same things, and some individual men do none of them. Any blame cast should be a matter of individual’s actions and not their genitalia.
If we do make blame a matter of genitalia rather than individual action, that significantly reduces the motivation for individual men to reform or change their actions. If they’re equally at fault no matter what they do, what’s the point?
Judging individuals based on their genitalia, rather than their actions, is not just wrong; it’s antifeminist. It would be like beating people up for pacifism.
I don’t feel guilty for being male. What would be the point? My guilt wouldn’t improve anything. Although I’ve benefited from being male in a male-dominated society, that’s not my fault. The system was in place a hundred generations before my birth; how could I be to blame?
So if we don’t have blame, what’s left? I would say, responsibility.
Although not all men perpetuate sexism, virtually all men benefit from sexism. Virtually all men have in some way gotten gains that we don’t deserve, at the expense of women. And that means that even though we’re not to blame, all men have a special responsibility to support feminism and fight sexism – because we owe women for our unjust gains.
(Ditto, by the way, for White people and anti-racism).
Blame is silly and counterproductive: it gets hung up asking “who made this mess?” Responsibility is productive: it says, “time to clean up this mess.”.
Pingback: Creative Destruction
“Blame is silly and counterproductive: it gets hung up asking “who made this mess?”? Responsibility is productive: it says, “time to clean up this mess.”?
Actually, maybe it’s just me but I’ve found that most “messes” are difficult to clean up without knowing or addressing who made them and through that and other actions, holding them accountable. Racism, sexism, homophobia, aren’t like glasses of milk spilled on the floor. Milk can be cleaned up by any party including felines, and your floor will be pristine as if the milk weren’t there. Life is much more difficult.
The people who most often call blame silly and counterproductive, are people who really don’t want any fingers of blame or even scrutiny, pointed in THEIR direction. It’s a means of diversion by a member of a privilaged class to foist off any ounce of discomfort they might feel at potentially being the target of someone’s blame…It’s also a tactic perfected by politicians but used by many other people as well.
Otherwise, what that pokerspamster dude said….
I had a brilliant comment. You just erased it….
Anywho, I’ll try again…
“Blame is silly and counterproductive: it gets hung up asking “who made this mess?”? Responsibility is productive: it says, “time to clean up this mess.”?
In real life, “messes” like sexism, racism, etc. are not comparable to someone spilling milk on the floor. And I’ve found through experience, that the people who say blame is counterproductive, are usually members of a privilaged class exercising their “right” to divert any pointed fingers away from themselves and to dispel any discomfort they feel if those who don’t share their privilage scrutinize them.
Politicians love to use this diversionary tactic, as well.
Funny, that’s the same approach Nick Kristof took over at the NY Times when talking about sex slavery. He was real willing to “buy” two women who were enslaved in order to set them “free”. But he wasn’t at all willing to talk about, oh, I don’t know, male sex tourists — for whom those women were enslaved. I mean let’s not *blame* the johns, let’s do something “real” like “buying” women to set them free! Predictably, one of them is back in the sex industry. Because, guess what? The demand didn’t go away. But Kristof transparently didn’t want to talk about — “blame” — sex tourists, i.e. men buying a plane ticket so they can go to another country to prostitute women. Because he was too busy blaming *feminists* for not doing better at stopping sex slavery.
Yeah, let’s not blame men. They’re not responsible. After all, privilege — you can’t *help* that. The best you can ever do is feel guilty. And who wants to do that?
You know what? Maybe if more of you men *honestly and truly DID* feel guilty for the way men treat women and the way you tolerate it and fail to stop it — maybe then you could rise above this asinine navel-gazing about how you’re not to blame for your privilege, whine whine whine.
Men are johns. Men are pimps. Men are rapists. Men are batterers. And other men — YOU men — let them get away with it. But, hey, don’t feel guilty, we wouldn’t want you to ever feel bad about your complicity with and participation in the system that’s hurting us and killing us.
I mean, we wouldn’t want you to, for example, pass up an opportunity for self promotion on Air America because the way you were picked had everything to do with male privilege and power, and your participation without comment had everything to do with your own complicity with and participation in male power and privilege to the detriment of women. Please. Don’t feel bad. Don’t feel guilty. Don’t feel responsible. It’s all just such wasted emotion, anyway.
Men are johns. Men are pimps. Men are rapists. Men are batterers. And other men ““ YOU men ““ let them get away with it.
Some of us try to stop them.
I mean let’s not *blame* the johns, let’s do something “real”? like “buying”? women to set them free! Predictably, one of them is back in the sex industry. Because, guess what? The demand didn’t go away.
If the demand went away, wouldn’t that leave her with a drug addiction? Wouldn’t it leave women starving? From the johns’ perspective, this seems better than women dying of AIDS, but wouldn’t a long-term solution include a third alternative? Wouldn’t it, in general, give women the freedom to tell “demand” to go fuck itself?
Incidentally, have you seen this?
“If the demand went away, wouldn’t that leave her with a drug addiction? Wouldn’t it leave women starving? From the johns’ perspective, this seems better than women dying of AIDS, but wouldn’t a long-term solution include a third alternative?”
The drugs & starvation elements are being used here as red herrings. Yes, they are the reasons for which many women are forced into the sex industry, but they also exist apart from that industry. Also, am I really reading you wrong, or are you actually suggesting that the johns are providing some sort of charity relief service by buying sex from destitute women? It sounds to me like you’re saying, “Awww, take away sex slavery and these women have nothing else!” Why would you assume any feminist would want to get women out of slavery without providing a better environment for them to go to?
Men are johns. Men are pimps. Men are rapists. Men are batterers. And other men ““ YOU men ““ let them get away with it. But, hey, don’t feel guilty, we wouldn’t want you to ever feel bad about your complicity with and participation in the system that’s hurting us and killing us.
I refuse to take responsibility for something I’ve never participated in, been complicit in, condoned, or even accepted silently.
Yes, blame sex tourists, I do. But I’m not one of them, and your classifying me as such is offensive as the majority of the stuff you’ll find on a Mens Rights board.
After all, privilege ““ you can’t *help* that.
Actually what Amp said is that we should *help* it.
Andrew:
Well, “participated in” is a odd phrase. I think we’re all “participating in” patriarchy just by living in one. Men are, by and large, benefiting from their participation – whether they mean to or not, whether they want to or not.
I’d say that does mean we should “take responsibility” for trying to change things.
Radfem:
You’ve got me. I am uncomfortable being blamed for sex tourism when I’m not a sex tourist.
Is that wrong? Why?.
I’m not saying that men shouldn’t take an uncomfortable look at how they benefit from patriarchy, and how the presence of rape gives us an advantage relative to women. It’s obvious to me that men should. It’s obvious to me that men need to take responsibility for trying to make things better.
But it’s not my fault. I am not a causal agent who makes sex tourism happen. Why would it benefit feminism, or women, if I lied and said “it is my fault that sex tourism happens?”
I’m not entirely seeing the point in all this. Even if some men put their feet down and fight this, it’s still going to go all. Individual men are not all-powerful and individual women are often all too happy to be complicit with the system if they have a benefit in it. Looking at it as a system rather than a conspiracy isn’t the easy way out–it’s the truth. Do men and women have different reasons for cooperating with the system? Of course, and that’s something that men need to acknowledge.
I mean, when will it be enough? If a man joins with feminists and helps fight the system, does he get to be told he’s “taking responsibility” even when the problems don’t go away? Isn’t it just another form of male privilege to say that only men can fix what’s broken? That’s pretty insulting to me and to other women who have taken on an ugly patriarchy and won victories for ourselves or for other women.
Paige:
You say that’s similar to the approach I advocate here, but in fact it’s just the opposite of what I advocate. My post specifically disavowed the idea “that men shouldn’t be blamed for the ways in which they personally perpetuate male dominance ”
I’m all for blaming male sex tourists, not to mention throwing them in prison.
I’m against judging people by what’s between their legs.
These two positions do not contradict each other.
Actually, I said that men are responsible; in my opinion, men must take responsibility for opposing sexism and male dominance. However, I don’t think that requires assigning collective guilt to all men for sex tourism. I’d rather blame the pimps and johns.
Some men are johns, pimps, rapists, and batterers. Not all men are. To assign collective guilt to all men for the actions of some is unfair.
The truth is, I don’t have the personal power to make all the johns, pimps, rapists and batterers stop. If I did, I would. But I don’t. All I can do is try to do what’s within my tiny power to try and make this a world in which johning, pimping, raping and battering are less acceptable.
Regarding the radio show:
I made my choice. I did my best. Could I have done better? In theory, yes. But I don’t believe going on a feminist woman’s show to talk about how the wage gap is real and women deserve to be paid more is such a terrible sin.
In the end, I don’t think you care what I did; I think that no matter what I had done, you would have found a way to twist it against me. That’s the way your politics – the politics of denunciation – work.
The problem with the politics of denunciation is that it doesn’t get anything done in the real world, apart from setting feminists against each other. All the tedious nit-picking, the searching for rhetorical ammunition, the quest to prove that you’re more feminist than thou – that’s the real waste of time. It’s not about fighting sexism and gender injustice; it’s just about fighting.
You know, what really bugs me is men who go, “Well, I didn’t do this that or the other. I’m therefore not responsible.” Amp actually speaks out about stuff, but my experience over and over again has been with men who just want to bash feminists and deny that they themselves have any responsibility at all.
Men don’t listen to women. Period. When women talk about their lives and their experiences, it’s dismissed. It’s only male experts who matter—or women who kiss those mens’ asses. So, yes, it is men’s job to stand up to sexist men and tell them—rudely and unpleasantly, that they’re out of line. It’s been so rare in my life than I can count the episodes on the fingers one one hand.
I always think about latrines when I think about this. Bear with me. In Baghdad, the latrines are awful, and it was all because of one thing: men were shaking off, not wiping, and leaving puddles everywhere. It was disgusting. There were women-only latrines for a while, then someone went around and ripped down all the signs. They were never replaced, which is very typical of band-aid approaches to sexism, too: make a lame, half-hearted response, then never follow up, ever again.
So say you have two hundred guys using one latrine and maybe twenty women. Amongst those guys are some decent guys, and they wipe. But the first guy who doesn’t clean up after himself, who pisses on the floor, just makes a mess that no other guy wants to clean up—or has to, for that matter. Sometimes they piss all over the seat, too. Even the decent guys refuse to dirty their hands with cleaning that up—it doesn’t affect them, after all. But women have no choice, really. They have to wipe up after these guys. The so-called nice guys leave the clean up for the women, who are genuinely affected by it.
No nice guy, however nice, will clean up after those other guys. But they sure as hell want the credit, while women have to wipe up after these guys. All the women have to show for it is words.
“Some men are johns, pimps, rapists, and batterers. Not all men are. To assign collective guilt to all men for the actions of some is unfair.”
If you aren’t challenging it you are complicit. You benefit from women’s subjection. You didn’t challenge Omar’s nonsense about how removing the demand for prostitution would leave women drug-addicted and destitute. You’re too busy arguing about how *you* arent’ to blame.
“I made my choice. I did my best. Could I have done better? In theory, yes. But I don’t believe going on a feminist woman’s show to talk about how the wage gap is real and women deserve to be paid more is such a terrible sin.”
Actually in practice you could have done better. You could have refused the spot and recommended the name of women feminists instead. You could have gone on the programme and talked about male privilege. Why are you ignoring that your male privilege helped you get that spot?
“In the end, I don’t think you care what I did; I think that no matter what I had done, you would have found a way to twist it against me. That’s the way your politics – the politics of denunciation – work.
The problem with the politics of denunciation is that it doesn’t get anything done in the real world, apart from setting feminists against each other. All the tedious nit-picking, the searching for rhetorical ammunition, the quest to prove that you’re more feminist than thou – that’s the real waste of time. It’s not about fighting sexism and gender injustice; it’s just about fighting.”
Not true. Women have given you specific examples of how you could have dealt with the situation in a more feminist way. If you choose to ignore it it’s up to you but it doesn’t make your actions feminist.
As for this “politics of denunciation” rubbish, is that what you really believe? That it isn’t possible to make a feminist criticism of your actions? That people are really just being big meanies when they do this? How often do you take your male privilege out and examine it Ampersand?
This *don’t blame me for sexism* is what I normally hear from misgoynists, not what I’d expect to hear from a pro-feminist man.
Well, Amanda, if you ever have someone tell you that you’re part of the problem, and that you’re the one proping up the patriarchy, You are fully allowed to similarly tell them you’re doing your part to get rid of the patriarchy, or taking responsibility, or whatever language you want to use for it.
Everyone who is acting against sex tourism and whatnot is “taking responsibility.” Taking responsibility is only an issue in any situation when you’ve been accused of being irresponisble.
the recent discussion in various threads on male privalege and related concepts has gotten me wondering: what alternative to a position like Amp’s would meet with approval?
Since “men are johns, men are pimps, men are rapists” is it preferred men join with identity politics and side with the position that gives them the most power and advantage?
Should Amp stop drawing on Girlamatic and limit himself and his leftist politics to economic issues, ignoring gender?
is all ANYONE is saying really amount to telling Robert to shove it? the criticisms against Amp seem to be rather sudden. if people did have this opinion before Amp failed to tell Robert to shut up in the recent links thread, I don’t recall seeing them voiced. (may have been. I just don’t recall them)
would telling Robert to shove it be an appropriate auto de fe? Would it prove him a friend to all women?
I’m not just being facecious. This touches upon the actual blogpost. blaming someone who is actually innocent of the crimes of their group is only going to alienate them from wanting to make actual change.
And I do challenge it, very frequently. That doesn’t mean that I respond to every single comment I disagree with – especially not ones that have already ably been responded to.
If I had refused the spot, you would now be accusing me of suggesting that publicly speaking out against male privilege is only something women have to do, not something men have to do.
I recommended lots of women feminist bloggers to the producer, by the way.
And I did. (Do you really think the wage gap isn’t about male privilege?)
I’m sure that you turn down every single opportunity in your life that could possibly have to do with your being white, or being educated, or being American, or whatever privileges it is you have. Right? (Or are you saying that you have no privileges at all?)
And I’m sure that you’d be just as quick to criticize any allies of yours who are white, or American, or middle-class, if they ever accept anything good that comes their way, since you consistantly argue that no one with privilege should ever accept fun opportunities they get. Right?
Of course you don’t, and of course you wouldn’t. Part of the politics of personal denunciation is that your standards aren’t applied at all consistantly, but only against those you wish to attack.
There is nothing I get in life that is not to some degree connected to white, straight, male, American privilege. On the other hand, it’s not like these things are just randomly handed out to white men; to some degree, what little I’ve accomplished has come about because I do have some talents and I’ve worked to develop them.
What can I do, given that I’m privileged? Well, I can go live as a hermit (and ignore whatever privileges I have that make such a choice possible), turning down every opportunity for having fun or being honored, however meaningless and slight. Or I can try and live my life in a way so that the privileges I do have, are used to try and argue against privilege.
I’m not required to renounce ever accepting anything good that comes my way, in order to fight patriarchy.
Of course I don’t believe that stuff. Which is why I didn’t say that stuff, or anything like it. Please respond to what I write, not to fiction you make up.
I’m not saying that it’s impossible to make a feminist criticism of me; I’m saying that the particular criticism of me that Paige, and now you, have made is without merit and doesn’t really have much to do with feminism. It’s just about using feminsm as an excuse to declare other people sinners.
I think that a better politics concentrates less on making sure that everyone is Pure enough, and more on trying to change the world.
You know this is getting to be a very unproductive discussion. You don’t appear to be willing to even contemplate that criticisms being made against you and your blog could possibly have any basis either in feminism or in the search for fairness. I’ve said my piece here. I was very suprised to find that you tolerated sexists and misogynists and feminists in this space but now I’ve read your “don’t blame men for sexism” and “patriarchy hurts men too” arguments it seems entirely consistent.
I understand the “not me” attitude. I’ve just been reading Bell Hooks’ “Ain’t I a Woman?” and her criticisms of white feminists and our racism make for very uncomfortable reading. My immediate response is “not me” but that’s the easy route to take. Maybe it helps that I’ve come up against so many men making the same argument against feminism that I know it’s an illegitimate defense mechanism. Nobody wants believe that they aren’t a good person but if you’re going to do the real work of divesting yourself of privilege and prejudice then you (and I) have to start thinking “yes, me as well”.
Should white people be blamed for racism? Yes.
Should men be blamed for sexism? Yes.
I’m against judging people by what’s between their legs.
Ah, yes, the “feminist” man who believes discussions of gender can proceed perfectly logically without considering gender.
Really, now, HOW many years has this line of yours been in reprise? I had thought that by now you might have progressed beyond the days where you thought it was fine for folks to assume you were speaking about feminism from the perspective of a woman…oh, the naivete!
To assign collective guilt to all men for the actions of some is unfair.
no matter what I had done, you would have found a way to twist it against me. That’s the way your politics – the politics of denunciation – work.
I wonder if you could possibly feel sorrier for yourself.
It’s not about fucking purity, Ampersand, and it sure isn’t about one goddamned incident where you failed to point out how much and how well women blog, and how very little that’s respected.
You use , for YOUR advancement, a social movement for the advancement of women, and women’s networks for the advancement of women. Perhaps this is human nature. Who gives a shit. But you make free with that personal use while spewing pseudofeminist claptrap (for example: this genitalia and not judging bull), and you do it while whining about women who hold men in general responsible for oppression, and you do it while giving men a(nother) platform to launch (polite) antifeminist arguments, and you do it without continually criticizing men as a class for the ways in which they practice dominance, and you most CERTAINLY do it without self-criticism for the ways in which YOU practice dominance.
That’s not true – there are some criticisms of me and my blog I take very seriously, and that I think are well-based. I do take the feminist criticism of “civility” seriously, and I’ve been trying to think of alternative approaches. I also take the feminist criticism of my failings as a moderator seriously.
That doesn’t mean that I take every personal attack disguised as a feminist critique – which is a fair description of Paige’s post – seriously. I don’t think being male and a feminist requires being a doormat.
You dodged my question, by the way. I didn’t ask if you blamed yourself, as a white person, for racism. (I don’t blame myself for all of racism – slavery wasn’ t my fault, for instance – but I admit that I am racist, that I benefit from racism, and that I have a special responsibility as a white person to be anti-racism. If you want to pretend that’s all the same as me saying “no, not me,” okay.)
I asked if you think you’re obliged to turn down any good thing that comes your way, since nothing you recieve in our racist culture will every be entirely unconnected to white privilege.
And – second question – if you ever get a public opportunity, offered you by a person of color, to speak out publicly against racism, will you feel obliged to turn it down?
Actually, the two things are very different. I think gender has to be considered; and at the same time, I think that casting judgements on people based solely on their sex is wrong. There’s no contradiction there.
I think I expressed myself badly. Srey Mom went back to the brothel because of problems in her life which the madam allegedly tries to stop, problems that nevertheless give the madam and johns power to control her. If the brothel did not exist, I still would not consider her free, because — even if those problems don’t let someone else control her, as seems probable — it would have taken events outside her control to prevent her from choosing slavery. If it matters what visitors from some other country want, if they get to determine what you do with your body, then something seems horribly wrong. A solution would involve punishing kidnappers — possibly their sex tourists as well, since they cooperate in kidnapping — but it would also involve giving women the freedom to tell all these people to go to hell, even if we can’t lock them all away.
I don’t know what to think about the accusations against Amp. Some of this involves matters I know little about, but the broad charges don’t fit my perception of Amp or his post.
casting judgements on people based solely on their sex is wrong.
That’s a kindergarten-level statement about something that feminists DO NOT practice, and NO feminist in this thread is doing. So if you’re not out to minimize socialized gender difference, why on earth would you bother pointing out something so inane?
“You dodged my question, by the way. I didn’t ask if you blamed yourself, as a white person, for racism. (I don’t blame myself for all of racism – slavery wasn’ t my fault, for instance – but I admit that I am racist, that I benefit from racism, and that I have a special responsibility as a white person to be anti-racism. If you want to pretend that’s all the same as me saying “no, not me,”? okay.)”
I didn’t really dodge your question. The Bell Hook’s thing is something that is on my mind at the moment even before this thread. And of course as white people we should accept the blame for racism, who else is going to take the rap, CEO’s? the President? I don’t think so. Anyway it isn’t all down to them.
“I asked if you think you’re obliged to turn down any good thing that comes your way, since nothing you recieve in our racist culture will every be entirely unconnected to white privilege.”
Any good thing no, but if opportunities come my way because of anti-racist work that might be better suited to someone from an ethnic minority I’d have to think long and hard about it. Why should I be taking up any more of my fair share of space than I already do as a white person?
“And – second question – if you ever get a public opportunity, offered you by a person of color, to speak out publicly against racism, will you feel obliged to turn it down?”
If I was being asked to speak as a spokesperson for black power for instance I’d probably ask that person if a member of that group wouldn’t be better suited to the task and if I had extensive contacts within that group I’d probably offer them up. White people speaking on behalf of black people doesn’t sit comfortably with me.
and you do it while whining about women who hold men in general responsible for oppression
I though Amp more or less wrote this post to answer antifeminists who whine about blame in feminism.
If men aren’t responsible for anything, “*I’,m* not a sex tourist! Don’t blame me!” on what basis are they supposed to take responsibility? And what are they supposed to take responsibility *for*? After, all, it’s not *your* fault!
You’re absolutely inconsistent, except as a gesture of noblesse oblige to those poor unfortunate classes. “Well, I’m not to blame for this. Nonetheless, because I feel some personal sense of responsibility for not living in a better world, I will reach out and help you.”
Fuck that. I don’t need your “help” if all it’s based on is noblesse oblige. And since you disavow all responsibility, i.e. “don’t blame me!”, there’s nothing else *for* it to be based on.
“It makes some women and many men who might otherwise be indifferent to feminism – or even willing to listen to feminism – defensive and angry. In this way, blame creates enemies and reduces potential converts. ”
As if men liking us has ever made them allies in the fight against sexism.
“It wastes time by paralyzing many pro-feminist men in a useless mire of defensiveness and guilt.”
What are you men? Fucking *children*? You can’t make a commitment to ending sexism without women taking care of your poor little emotional needs. “I’ll help you because my status as better-off than you demands it in a liberal society. But there is a price. You must never, ever, ever make me feel ‘guilty’ about my status. Even if my status is directly dependent on your oppression. And, if I should happen to feel guilty all on my own, you must lift me from the useless mire of my own creation.” Go someplace else to get your emotional needs of the opressor met. Feminism isn’t your little support club.
“It blurs the distinction between the Alan Johnsons and the Jerry Fawells of the world (not to mention between the Anita Bryants and the Susan Faludis), by assigning people blame according to their genitalia rather than their actions.”
Well if *POWER* weren’t distibuted by genitals, maybe “blame”, i.e. RESPONSIBILITY, wouldn’t have to be either. That’s always been the problem with you. You don’t really give a shit about power. It’s all about “attitudes”. And you seem to think that changing your “attitude is sufficient to answer *any* charges that you continue to benefit from, and continue to fail to work against, male privilege in any concrete form.
“It deflects attention from the real powers-that-be. If we’re going to blame anyone, I think it makes the most sense to blame the real rulers – CEOs, high political mucky-mucks, Network executives. People who have real power to change society. Remember, although the vast majority of society’s ruling class are male, the vast majority of men aren’t in the ruling class.”
Yet, in relation to *women* MEN ARE THE RULING CLASS. Ask a battered woman who was beaten by her husband, not Bill Gates. Who was ignored by her local policeman, not Dan Quayle. Who was counseled to stay in her marriage by her local priest, not the CEO of CBS.
But again, I ask. If men have no power to change anything — for *what* are they supposed to *be* “responsible” — in your words — and *how*? Oh, that’s right. Simply change their “attitudes” about women. How convenient for you. You get to do whatever you want — Air America for example — and when you’re called on your concrete use of male power to get what you want — lots of attention and free publicity for your blog and your career — you get to tell us “that’s okay. I *did* MY feminist work! I changed my attitude!” Power goes unaddressed and unchanged, but, hey! Amp changed his attitude. I get a warm fuzzy feeling just thinking about it.
” Still, some individual women do some of the same things, and some individual men do none of them. Any blame cast should be a matter of individual’s actions and not their genitalia. ”
Again, if POWER were distributed via actions, rather than genitals, you might have a point. Individual women abusing individual men is NOT equivalent to the structure of male power which virtually ensures that 1/3 of women will be battered in their intimate relationships. Nice false equivalence, though.
“If we do make blame a matter of genitalia rather than individual action, that significantly reduces the motivation for individual men to reform or change their actions. If they’re equally at fault no matter what they do, what’s the point?”
And if men aren’t responsible, i.e aren’t “to blame”, what motivation is there to change? Oh, that’s right. *Women* are supposed to provide the motivation to men to change. Women are, once again, supposed to do all your work for you while you leech off of us.
“Although I’ve benefited from being male in a male-dominated society, that’s not my fault. The system was in place a hundred generations before my birth; how could I be to blame?”
You aren’t? You selling women bloggers out on Air America isn’t your own actions? But, I know. It’s so much more feminist for men to sit around complaining about the heavy burden of the trust fund that daddy left them.
But the person who asked you – let’s say, an african-american radio host – isn’t asking you to speak for african-americans. You were recommended to the radio host by another african-american who has read your anti-racist writings. They find it interesting that a white person is anti-racist, but they don’t say that makes you a spokesperson for Blacks, and they haven’t invited you to do anything but represent your own anti-racist views.
The show has african-american guests frequently, but not exclusively; but for this one 20 minute segment they think you’d be good to fit in with a bit they’ve planned (let’s say the show’s theme is anti-racist cartoonists who know a lot about the history of the triangle trade, and you happen to fit that description). The african-american host of the show thinks that it’s good when white people speak out against racism, and tells you so.
In this case, your being on the show isn’t blotting out african-american voices – there is an african-american controlling the show, deciding when to turn your mic on or off, and she regularly has african-american guests in addition to herself.
Finally, imagine that you think it’s important that white people appear in public to state anti-racist views, but the media rarely shows white anti-racists.
I’m not saying that you’d come to the same decision I did. I assume you wouldn’t, from what you’ve said. But do you really think that your decision is the only possible reasonable decision, in that circumstance?
But, the personal is political, and despite the personal nature of your invitation and your viewpoint, there is a larger political arena which *must* be addressed. Some of us feel that you failed to do the latter. It’s not the end of the world, it happens to women all the time.
Posted by Amp:
Funnie, you’re banned. Please stop posting on my blog. Thanks.
I’m not saying that it’s the end of the world. Nor am I saying that reasonable people can’t disagree with me on this issue.
I am saying that – even if you look only at the opinions of women feminists – it’s clear that feminists of good faith can disagree on whether or not it’s a bad idea for a man to appear as a guest on a feminist’s radio show to argue that men are unfairly paid more than women. Given that reasonable disagreement exists among feminists, the over-the-top attacks on my sincerity and character and commitment to feminism, based on my appearing on the radio show, seem unsupportable.
“You’ve got me. I am uncomfortable being blamed for sex tourism when I’m not a sex tourist.
Is that wrong? Why?.
I’m not saying that men shouldn’t take an uncomfortable look at how they benefit from patriarchy, and how the presence of rape gives us an advantage relative to women. It’s obvious to me that men should. It’s obvious to me that men need to take responsibility for trying to make things better.
But it’s not my fault. I am not a causal agent who makes sex tourism happen. Why would it benefit feminism, or women, if I lied and said “it is my fault that sex tourism happens?”?
Uncomfortable? Wow, that must REALLY hurt. If that’s the worst it makes you feel, count yourself lucky. Well, okay, we’ll let you address your own lack of willingness to feel uncomfortable with sexism by men, a tippy toe at a time. At that rate, we’ll have pro-feminist men who are actually useful to femism and fighting sexism, by oh, 2080. It’s like the white ministers in the South who told MLK, jr and other civil rights activists to be patient, that change comes slooooowly. To be able to say that with a straight face, is privilage in action.
Being compared to the Men’s News Forum by Andrew is both funny, and old. I think it goes back to what Robert said on the other thread about feminists turning this whole thing into some kind of exercise at burning “nice” feminist men to the stake instead of going after the “real” enemy, which the identity of is of course defined by men.
“Funnie, you’re banned. Please stop posting on my blog. Thanks.”
Nice. Well, I guess that’s what you get for not being “civil”. Wow, no exercise of male power over uppity women, here.
“You dodged my question, by the way. I didn’t ask if you blamed yourself, as a white person, for racism. (I don’t blame myself for all of racism – slavery wasn’ t my fault, for instance – but I admit that I am racist, that I benefit from racism, and that I have a special responsibility as a white person to be anti-racism. If you want to pretend that’s all the same as me saying “no, not me,”? okay.)
I asked if you think you’re obliged to turn down any good thing that comes your way, since nothing you recieve in our racist culture will every be entirely unconnected to white privilege.
And – second question – if you ever get a public opportunity, offered you by a person of color, to speak out publicly against racism, will you feel obliged to turn it down? ”
Wow, racial politics gets played here too! LOL.
I hate it when people say slavery had nothing to do with them, or their ancestors. Hate it, hate it, hate it. EVERYONE IN THIS DAMN COUNTRY WHO’S WHITE HAS BENEFITTED FROM SLAVERY. No, you weren’t there, maybe your ancestors weren’t there but that labor built many of our cities and built this country, and who gets the perks for that? The white folks, who then typically turn around and deny it to everyone else.
Since the vast majority of my interactions each day are with people of color, mostly African-American, I’m uncomfortable most of the time because I have priviliage that they don’t. I didn’t ask for it, I didn’t create it, but I have it and that’s what matters, is that you HAVE IT, not how you got there.
Even as I am annoyed as a woman on these threads, I know that as a white women who went to college, I’m among the most priviliaged people in our country. I am second-class when in the company of white men. But hey, that’s a hell of a lot easier than most of the people I interact with, in terms of what they face and once I figured that out(which took a while), things changed. I get my head pulled out of my ass and my foot pulled out of my mouth on a regular basis, and that’s how you grow…through those experiences, not ass stoking exchanges where your comfort level becomes the most important thing, no matter how you deny it and call people crazy or out of touch or as bad as the “real” ENEMY.
It’s taught me not to turn down good offers but to look at them differently than I would have before, at all different angles. Is what is good for me, harmful to others? How does it impact others? It’s not the end of the universe if you just take a closer look at things, with different perspectives that you learn through your experiences with others, usually through hard-learned lessons. But that’s life, and everyone except those who have only known privilage seemed to figure that out pretty early. That’s why a lot of this conversation by men here has mostly just confused me.
I entirely agree, Radfem. I said much the same thing as what you just wrote, on the Ms boards, when the topic came up several years ago.
It’s obvious and (imo) undeniable that all white people benefited from slavery. However, I can accept that I benefit from slavery – and that I’m responsible for trying to oppose white privilege and the effects of slavery – without claiming that I am to blame for slavery.
“And – second question – if you ever get a public opportunity, offered you by a person of color, to speak out publicly against racism, will you feel obliged to turn it down?”?
If I was being asked to speak as a spokesperson for black power for instance I’d probably ask that person if a member of that group wouldn’t be better suited to the task and if I had extensive contacts within that group I’d probably offer them up. White people speaking on behalf of black people doesn’t sit comfortably with me.
But the person who asked you – let’s say, an african-american radio host – isn’t asking you to speak for african-americans. You were recommended to the radio host by another african-american who has read your anti-racist writings. They find it interesting that a white person is anti-racist, but they don’t say that makes you a spokesperson for Blacks, and they haven’t invited you to do anything but represent your own anti-racist views.
The show has african-american guests frequently, but not exclusively; but for this one 20 minute segment they think you’d be good to fit in with a bit they’ve planned (let’s say the show’s theme is anti-racist cartoonists who know a lot about the history of the triangle trade, and you happen to fit that description). The african-american host of the show thinks that it’s good when white people speak out against racism, and tells you so.
In this case, your being on the show isn’t blotting out african-american voices – there is an african-american controlling the show, deciding when to turn your mic on or off, and she regularly has african-american guests in addition to herself.
Finally, imagine that you think it’s important that white people appear in public to state anti-racist views, but the media rarely shows white anti-racists.
I’m not saying that you’d come to the same decision I did. I assume you wouldn’t, from what you’ve said. But do you really think that your decision is the only possible reasonable decision, in that circumstance?”
—————————————————-
Well, don’t worry, I don’t think you’re ever going to be asked to speak for “black power” even by larger society and its media b/c they pigeonhole most racial issues as being only of interest to those racial groups. If you were a white, too interested in black power, you’d be suspect, and disloyal to your own kind. It’s a bad hypothetical. Though it’s true that the media does pigeonhole whites, or polarizes racial issues more than they are already and they don’t include people of color in their own employee rosters. It sells more copies.
Interesting though, that men won’t hestitate to be a spokesperson for feminism and women….hmmmm…..
And it’s not easy being a Black radio host, Tavis Smiley for instance, ran into serious trouble on his show, which at the time was produced by whites, b/c he talked too much about the police killings of Tyisha Miller in my city, and Amadou Diallo in New York City. I do admire the stand he took in those cases.
I’ve done radio shows on racial issues b/c of my work and b/c I know several local hosts very well. I only do it with the understanding that I’m only speaking for myself, even if I’m sharing experiences that I’ve had, and often I recommend people who I’ve worked with to go on the radio and tell their own stories b/c no one owns our experiences like we do.
Radfem –
Do you really think that men who are feminist aren’t considered “suspect, and disloyal to your own kind” by many other men? If so, you’re mistaken. I’m not saying it’s a big deal – it’s not – but it does happen, quite often.
I certainly wouldn’t accept an invitation to be a spokesperson for women!
As for feminism, I don’t think there’s a single, coherant feminist theory to speak for; there are a wide variety of feminisms. I’d never agree to represent “the” feminist viewpoint, as if I could speak for anyone else. I’d certainly be willing to provide my own feminist viewpoint, though.
I never said that doesn’t happen. I’m saying that the same men who say they would feel uncomfortable speaking for people of color, don’t feel the same way when talking about or for women. Hell, I am a woman and I would never feel comfortable speaking for ALL women, b/c gender admittedly is not a big unifer, except during those brief *click* moments when we share a common bond as women that bridge a lot of gorges.
Well, don’t worry, I don’t think you’re ever going to be asked to speak for “black power”? even by larger society and its media b/c they pigeonhole most racial issues as being only of interest to those racial groups. If you were a white, too interested in black power, you’d be suspect, and disloyal to your own kind.[…]Interesting though, that men won’t hestitate to be a spokesperson for feminism and women….hmmmm…..
Don’t they? Seems like a fairly good analogy to me.
Oh, and Amp, just a little more food for thought:
Did you read any of Robert’s comments to Molly in that sidetrack about environmentalism ? Did you not see that his “Earth First” crack, for instance, was obvious baiting ? Because it was obvious to me.
I’m also curious if Robert emailed you privately to try and justify his behavior despite the firestorm it kicked up, if he worried that his behavior was compromising your stance on certain issues ? You know, like I did.
Just something to think about next time you’re wondering about the day to day ramifications of this pesky “equality” business.
Also, you keep on talking about how you feel damned if you do and damned if you don’t ? Welcome to my world, Brother.
Radfem said:
Being compared to the Men’s News Forum by Andrew is both funny, and old
It was neither meant to be funny, nor something I’ve heard before, but an example of how ridiculous and offensive Paige’s overgeneralisation was. Most points I could make have been far better made by Ampersand, but this was what I was trying to say:
Yes, I feel guilty about any advantages I may have merely because I’m a man.
No, I probably don’t notice all of them.
Yes, I need to work to help get rid of the system that provides these advantages.
None of these points mean I should admit to doing anything to perpetuate sex tourism, rape, forced prostitution, or domestic violence.
I’m not uncomfortable being told I think rape is okay. I’m as outraged as I would be to be told I was automatically inferior because of my gender.
To the best of my knowledge, the only people who have ever been banned here are spammers, the most outrageous of trolls, and funnie. Posters who are proudly sexist can stay, but funnie is banned for making you feel uncomfortable? Amp, that’s really beyond the pale. Maybe Alsis really *should* be watching her back.
Amy –
It’s up to Robert to say what he did or didn’t email me. I don’t think private emails sent me are appropriate for me to share. (I know I referred to my apologizing to you, but that was something I sent to you, not you to me.)
“Baiting” is an issue for another day’s discussion. I’m sorry if that seems like a cop-out, but I’m really freaking exhausted here.
Yeah, I see what you mean.
For what it’s worth (I know, this and a dollar will buy you a coffee), I really am horribly sorry that I put you in that position, and that I didn’t treat you as well as you deserve.
Flea –
Actually, Funnie was banned for saying “I couldn’t be less interested in even PRETENDING to dialog with you, you fucking piece of shit remora” to me. And, more importantly, for meaning that, and making it clear in many posts leading up to that one that she meant it.
Alsis is a friend of mine going back 20 years, and will never be banned, even if she calls me a fucking piece of shit remora.
Here’s the only relevant e-mail I’ve sent to Amp. I wasn’t concerned about his agenda, more concerned about the forum and its viability as a community.
“I think I’m going to bow out of commenting on your blog for a bit. It’s obvious that my presence isn’t helpful to a pretty big chunk of your audience, and I’ve said everything I wanted to say and represented my POV about as well as I can represent it.
I’ll continue to read and may post occasionally but won’t be as involved. I’m letting you know this because you’re my friend and I don’t want you to think that a sudden dropoff in commenting meant that I felt unwelcome or anything like that.”
And that’s pretty much what I’m going to do; comment if something really moves me to comment, but I’ve said what I wanted to say, so I’ll shut up and free that bandwidth for other participants.
(Except to note that my comment about protection and paternalistic feelings was not meant as a troll or a provocation; I thought it was interesting that a non-feminist could arrive at the same policy destination (smash porn) as a radical feminist through paternalism rather than through egalitarianism.)
Yeah, she probably did mean it, and I know this is your space and all, and you have the right to be happy in it. But I have to wonder why you would prefer to surround yourself with posters who think you’re a PoSR but pretend to think otherwise? The thing with Funnie is, she’s coming at you with a sincere dedication to feminism and a commitment to feminist beliefs, which is more than I can say for many posters here, from the open sexists to their female “I am so ASHAMED to be a woman right now!” cheerleaders. I hate to think that on a board that (whether anybody likes it or not) is the highest profile feminist blog around, that sincere feminists are banned and anti-feminists are allowed to be as patronizing and condescending as they can be, giving free reign to their uninformed negative opinions about radical feminism and Catherine A. MacKinnon. If you get rid of all the people who actually know what they’re talking about (which is not me, by the way), what’s left?
I just wish you’d take a walk around the block, cool off a bit, and reconsider.
~flea
I for one liked Amp’s appearance on the show. For a mainstream audience, even hearing a man speak out on women’s issues is like getting a glass of cold water in their faces. Yes, he was using his male privilege, but there was so much more going on and I’m not going to through the baby out with bathwater. It’s critically important for people to quit viewing feminism as a male vs. female issue, and realize that it’s about women’s oppression, something other women participate in as well as men. It’s a social issue–privilege is extremely important as a concept but it’s not the end all and be all of everything.
Garofalo asked Amp to be on her show–her show, her guests. She had her reasons, which are glaringly obvious to me, and I support her reasons. Not the least of which is putting the notion that men and women can actually get along and support feminist causes together into people’s heads. And I’m suspicious of this zero-sum game mentality–shortly after Amp was on the show, Jessica from Feministing was on there, too. (And she plugged my blog! Woo-hoo!) I would like it if they had more feminist bloggers on Majority Report, of course, but I think with the few episodes they did on bloggers they tried to show that there is a variety of voices out there. Yes, including male voices.
Oh, I forgot to mention that I hope you’re not blaming the Ms. debacle on the radical feminists that posted there. I’m pretty sure we all got pretty muddy on that one.
God, and I hope I didn’t come of as a “I’m so ashamed to be a woman right now” type.
No, Amanda! For you I have only the love.
I wasn’t talking about Amp, though I think I recall reading about an appearance about his blog on radio. What I mentioned seems to be a common trend in the discussion of women’s issues, whether considered to be feminist or not, in radio, TV, the annual dreaded “feminism is dead or Ally McBeal” issue of Time magazine. Whereas I doubt some of these same individuals would do the same as white people, if the issue were race.
No conspiracy here. Sorry.
I also mentioned that no one women or group of women is qualified to speak for all women. That’s a stumbling block feminism still doesn’t seem to get, which is frustrating. But if I as a woman am not qualified to speak for all women, why is a man, who’s even further removed?
Yes, women do contribute to sexism. Women make more money bashing it than embracing it and some go for that, b/c just like there’s men who want to make money and be famous, there are women who do that. I personally spare no words with them.
flea,
I don’t doubt that funnie has a sincere commitment to feminism, and that is was part of what she was coming from, but I think she also has a sincere hatred of Amp, and that that was also where she was coming from.
Paige and funnie are very far from being the only people who have harshly criticized Amp here recently. No one else who has harshly criticized Amp has been banned.
It is perfectly possible to criticize someone’s motives, or to criticize the effects they have, or to criticize someone’s commitment to feminism, etc. without being banned. It is perfectly possible to get pissed off at someone being obtuse or offensive and express your fury at their idiocy or their monsterousness without being banned.
The best incident to compare this banning to was the banning of DonP. A ferverent pro-choicer and atheist, he was repeatedly asked to rein in his abuse of other posters (pro-lifers and religious people mostly). Eventually, he seemed to develop a grudge against Amp, and in a discussion related to fat, he began making vicious attacks on Amp on a constant basis. After being warned repeatedly, he was banned. Another poster, who was making the same arguments against tolerance of fat people, but was not making them as thinly veiled personal attacks against Amp, was not banned. He didn’t start out as a troll, and he had many positions that were in line with those of the site (although he was very much one of those people who, when they argue for your side, you really wish would shut up and go away), but once he made it abundantly clear that he had decided that his job here was to personally abuse Amp, he was banned.
funnie has made it clear (by her actions and by her explicit statements) that her purpose here was not to dialog with Amp, but to prove what a piece of shit remora he is. Proving that someone is piece of shit remora is the action of an egregious troll.
Again, proving that someone is a piece of shit remora is not the same thing as proving that they don’t actually support or benefit feminism, or that the actions they take are unjust and support patriarchy. Other people have argued all of those things here about Amp and this site, and none of them have been banned.
Alsis is a friend of mine going back 20 years, and will never be banned, even if she calls me a fucking piece of shit remora.
Ehhh, you know me better than that, Amp. :/
At any rate, funnie has a long history of being very selective about which male’s compromises need to be held under a microscope versus which male’s compromises does not. She played this game with other feminsts as well, over at one of the feminist boards I frequent. It’s pretty damn infuriating to a lot of us who have history here, though I don’t expect every Alas poster to be aware of the history in question. Which is too bad, because funnie is right on a lot of other issues. What can I say ? It’s not a perfect world.
My quarrels with the politics embodied by Garofalo and Air America are legion, so nobody would take me seriously if I questioned why their first thought in setting up a feminist/anti-feminist debate was to cast a male as the former and a female as the latter. At the time, I didn’t think about it all that much. I’ll go out on a limb now and guess that they did it because of the old “man bites dog” school of journalism/commentary. They thought that it looked cooler and, yes, you could argue that their prioritizing of coolness over the perception of sexism was wrong, but– like I said, I’m not gonna’ get into trashing Air America here. ‘Nother topic, ‘nother day.
Actually, Funnie was banned for saying “I couldn’t be less interested in even PRETENDING to dialog with you, you fucking piece of shit remora”? to me. And, more importantly, for meaning that, and making it clear in many posts leading up to that one that she meant it.
But that was in direct response to your earlier comment to her: “My vision is that “Alas”? will be a place where belligerent small-minded assholes pretend to be interested in dialog while yelling questions at me.”
Which, for you, is (in my experience anyway) about the same thing. If we’re figuring out what people really mean, now.
As you rightly point out, it’s your blog, you create a space where you’re comfortable, that’s normal. But to claim that you’re not a public figure (you are), to claim that you don’t use feminism (you do), is dishonest.
I think Flea’s nailed this one, except that I think it’s also about you not liking Funnie, historically, repeatedly, dependably.
You’re certainly not outright claiming this to be feminist space, and you’ll explain that it’s space where you feel comfortable. But if feminists mistake it for feminist space, you won’t necessarily correct them. And it won’t be until the obviousness of it NOT being feminist space is so glaring that anything changes, and that appears to be okay. I think what’s depressing is that it COULD be feminist space: you have a big enough voice and a big enough soapbox, and you’re a feminist. But it’s still not.
[snort]
Life growing dull and flavorless in your usual clubhouse, portia ?
Don’t bother to answer. It’s a rhetorical question. :/
Yeah, alsis, there is something familiar about all this. Once again, it’s about men, and who’s better than the other: Ampersand or Rich…but if you can’t deal with the misogynist in your yard, what credibility do you have here or anywhere else?
Yawn.
As far as Amp not liking funnie, I dare say it’s mutual. She came, she called him on the carpet on behalf of all feminists, she got banned, she went home and no doubt, is probably processing the whole thing like she’s amazed about it, when she’s really not…to a misogynist she’s totally blind to, who no doubt has had his entire year made by another by-proxy attack on a man he both despises and envies due to his accessibility to mainstream feminism. The only shock would be if anyone at the WB ever called Rich on his crap…but then hell’s inhabitants probably aren’t quite ready to invest in snow tires and mufflers, so won’t happen.
Maybe Rich can break the ice with another tacky racist joke about Asian warbrides and you can all like titter nervously on it, because racist jokes, equal non-PC, equal cool, or something like that.
If it would be of general interest, radfem, would you mind posting a smidge about who these people are/were, for those of us not quite as much in the loop?
Look, folks, I’ll never buy that a lack of willingness to be treated hatefully makes me a bad feminist or an anti-feminist.
During this recent mess, it occured to me that there’s a big difference between me and everyone else who posts on “Alas”: Everyone else, if they don’t like what’s going on here – if they feel bruised or sick to their stomoch or head-gamed by what’s going on here – has the option of leaving. I don’t.
So it’s easy for folks to say “well, he should have just kept on engaging people who obviously hold him in contempt for post after post, day after day. It’s no different from us having to deal with people we don’t like in the comments.” But it is different, because you don’t have an 0bligation to keep on engaging with that person if you don’t want to.
Portia, if I’ve made a name for myself, it’s entirely of the small-fish-in-a-tiny-pond variety. I’m happy that many people in the feminist blogging community respect me and “Alas,” of course, but I think it’s a bit weird to act as if running a mid-level poliblog is a big deal. It’s a good blog, but that’ s all it is.
I’m not too worried about if Portia or Rich or Heart or whomever thinks this space is feminist enough. If some feminists find what I do useful or entertaining to read, they’ll read it. If others don’t, they won’t. I trust feminists to decide for themselves if “Alas” is worth their time or not.
You mean to say you don’t already KNOW, alsis? ;)
It’s geniunely good to see (read) both you and radfem.
yes, who the hell is Rich?
[snark] and if s/he/it makes tacky racist joke, does that mean there are non-tacky racist jokes?[/snark]
Good point. Sorry, I meant that the joke was both tacky and racist(and also sexist). Tacky, because it’s being told as a joke(involving a racist sexist sterotype of women) to women who have been hurt by sexism, abeit in a different way. I would have a problem with that.
What I mean is that there’s history between some people here, like happens on the net I suppose. Which is why, I think, is part of what went between funnie and Ampersand, and I don’t think it’s accurate to say it’s just on one side. And I’ve been angry at both of them, at one time or another. But they’re grown ups. The differnce btwn Funnie and Paige is that funnie was looking for a ban to prove a point, and Paige, I think got caught up in that undertow.
But it does show that when men react to women and feel threatened or uncomfortable, the punishment for those feminists is more severe than it is for the men. But, it’s like that in every area of a woman’s life. And that double standard in any form reeks.
I ignored funnie FTMP, for that reason, as I don’t particularly care for her, or her choice in music lyrics for that matter. Though she’s got her network of female friends to support her during her banning so she should come through it just fine.
“But it does show that when men react to women and feel threatened or uncomfortable, the punishment for those feminists is more severe than it is for the men.”
Yup.
” But, it’s like that in every area of a woman’s life. And that double standard in any form reeks.”
Double yup.
As for the business with Funnie (OK, yes, I did have to restrain myself from writing “Funnie business”………yeah, I *know* it’s beyond crap to the point of being embarrassing……….), well, to be honest when I see a message with her name on it, I tend to cruise on by. Not because I don’t think she has anything valuable to say–she often does–but because she & I also have a “history” & I have no intention of getting into it again with her at present. But looking over some of her stuff, I have to say that she was looking for a rise out of Amp……………however, I’d also have to add that that fact, in and of itself, does not mean that along the way she didn’t raise some very good points. Not that those should be an excuse. But I don’t want to give the impression I’m endorsing the dismissal of *everything* she had to say just because she came here with the agenda of needling Amp.
I’m also more than a bit concerned that the fact one or two women were here with slightly shady motives may be used as a blanket excuse for disregarding all the points feminist women have raised over the past few days.
How were Funnie and Paige punished more so than, say, Don P? Or that dude I banned a couple of days ago?
There are plenty of feminists here who have made me feel threatened and uncomfortable, you included, who haven’t been banned. I think there’s a difference between what Funnie did and the kind of criticism that (say) Crys did, and it’s not that I’m happy and comfortable with everything Crys wrote.
Speaking of which…
I don’t disregard the things you’ve said, Crys. I’m not sure I agree with everything, but clearly I have screwed up. And where we disagree, I can’t disregard the possibility that you’re right and I’m wrong.
But that doesn’t mean I see a clear way forward, or know how to fix anything. You’ve convinced me that there’s a real problem, but the last couple of days has convinced me that junking the civility rule is no solution, either.
Damn mouse…
Racist, sexist humor is bad on its own stead, but telling a joke to people who on some level have felt racism, sexism or both together(and might have some feeling of empathy that crosses the different lines) and have expressed how they feel about it, shows a lack of respect to them as well and I would have a problem with any claims they had about being sympathetic to women as a class. Was it considered less offensive because although she was a woman, she wasn’t white? Were people offended, and didn’t say, or just pretended to ignore it? And how does that serve feminism?
That and hurting badly the feelings of a feminist woman I hold high regard for and other women too, was enough to make me wonder if I wanted to call myself a feminist or what feminism is really about.
Whatever….
But this discussion in a different way, brings to mind the same questions. Particularly how men and women(if they can) work together to end sexism, when one class benefits(no wonder how much patriarchy “hurts” they still do benefit) at the other’s expense. And the fact that we’re all bringing our socialization into the process. It’s been dismaying, as far as the men have been concerned, as every defense mechanism in the book went up automatically, and most of us have seen them all, and that it was women who got shown the door in order to “prove” that men weren’t being treated unfairly.
That’s the same mechanism that governs reverse racism, reverse sexism…oh how quickly the pendulum swings back to favor those with all the cards.
CrysT, I agree.
Ampersand, what posts were those that got Paige banned?
Well, it kinda was, but you’d have to know me in real life to understand why. I have no memory. Before Funnie started posting here, I had a vague idea that Funnie was an ex-Ms-poster, but I didn’t remember she was friends with Rich until it was brought up by someone earlier today; I didn’t remember she disliked me; I didn’t remember her. I have a very hard time remembering most people I know only slightly (there are relatives I’ve known for three decades I can’t remember), and people I’ve never met in person are ten times harder to recall. (One reason I used to save Ms. threads on my harddrive was so I could remind myself of who people were).
I know that sounds weird and you probably won’t believe me, but that’s the truth. I’m like a sheep who’s surprised by the sunset every morning. When people I barely remember come into contact with me, I usually depend on them to tell me – with their attitude and what they say – what our relationship is like, because I have no clue. With the exception of a couple of people who made a REALLY deep impression on me, most people who want a clean slate with me can get one by just waiting a year.
However, once Funnie had given me the appropriate cues to make me understand that we don’t like each other, after that it was a mutual thing, just as you claim.
All of them.
She was banned because she gave me the very strong impression that she was a prosecutor looking for evidence to support her already-determined conclusion. It was an impression gathered from many posts, not from any single one.
Antifeminists tend to be very hung up on blame. According to antifeminists, feminists blame men for all their problems, and feminist men are masochists who enjoy guilt.
My personal experience of feminism ain’t at all like that. I’ve met a handful of feminists who blame men for everything; but the vast majority of feminists I’ve met don’t waste their time with that.
Presumeably Amp will not be using the contents of this thread as evidence to prove his point about what the vast majority of feminists don’t waste their time with.
“There are plenty of feminists here who have made me feel threatened and uncomfortable, you included, who haven’t been banned. I think there’s a difference between what Funnie did and the kind of criticism that (say) Crys did, and it’s not that I’m happy and comfortable with everything Crys wrote.”
Then are you really sure you’re really ready to tackle feminism? B/c as threatened as I might make you feel(which was not my intention) there’s other women who will probably elicit as much or more of a response from you. That’s par for the course for a man in the feminist movement. Women have issues with being threatened and feeling threatened by men every day.
I had an exchange with our county’s public defender who promised when he was hired several years ago to reform his office. I wrote about a case where a man was pressured to plead out to charges including a felony that he just didn’t commit, but they didn’t wait for the evidence which exonerated him on two charges including the felony. They just assumed he was guilty, and were rude to the point of being abusive, on occasions witnessed by myself. The guy took his case to court, pro per on the remaining two charges and was acquitted on one misdemanor, convicted on the lessor one. A testament to his resolve, his intelligence but also to the weakness of the case. While the public defender had read it and is now conducting a personnel investigation and review of that case, he told me that his reforms included allowing the defendant the exclusive right to make the decision to plead or to go to trial. And I thought, you have no fucking idea what’s going on then, because that rule doesn’t exist in reality. This case was only unique b/c a pro per defendant basically beat the system, with its own rules and the fact that he wasn’t guilty of a crime, except for sleeping while Black. The coverup was so half-assed, too. The police don’t even have to really work at it, because the system is slanted in their favor. But this guy did this case all on his own. It was his freedom at stake and he treated it like the high-stakes that it was, plus he had resources for one thing being out of custody and having family support other defendants in similar circumstances don’t have.
Anyway, he had his perceptions as the one who held the cards for all the people in his office, who why they don’t have the upperhand with the DAs(who colorcode heiarchy by shirt color), he did compared to the defendant who usually has few cards but knows how the system in place actually works much better than the trained lawyer who supervises other trained lawyers. When the system hurts you, you know your part, and everyone else’s part better than those everyone’s elses. If you’re in a better position in the heiarchy, you only know your own part and don’t have a clue about anyone elses. Sometimes that’s what I see here in a sense.
“Anyway, he had his perceptions as the one who held the cards for all the people in his office, who why they don’t have the upperhand with the DAs(who colorcode heiarchy by shirt color), he did compared to the defendant who usually has few cards but knows how the system in place actually works much better than the trained lawyer who supervises other trained lawyers. When the system hurts you, you know your part, and everyone else’s part better than those everyone’s elses. If you’re in a better position in the heiarchy, you only know your own part and don’t have a clue about anyone elses. Sometimes that’s what I see here in a sense. ”
Sorry, the “he” here is the public defender.
radfem:
(quoting Amp) “There are plenty of feminists here who have made me feel threatened and uncomfortable, you included, who haven’t been banned. I think there’s a difference between what Funnie did and the kind of criticism that (say) Crys did, and it’s not that I’m happy and comfortable with everything Crys wrote.”?
Then are you really sure you’re really ready to tackle feminism? B/c as threatened as I might make you feel(which was not my intention) there’s other women who will probably elicit as much or more of a response from you. That’s par for the course for a man in the feminist movement. Women have issues with being threatened and feeling threatened by men every day.
I think what Amp was saying is pretty much the same thing you said about yourself earlier in the thread :
Since the vast majority of my interactions each day are with people of color, mostly African-American, I’m uncomfortable most of the time because I have priviliage that they don’t. I didn’t ask for it, I didn’t create it, but I have it and that’s what matters, is that you HAVE IT, not how you got there.
What I think Amp is saying is that he accepts the fact that he has to deal with feeling threatened and uncomfortable, that he recognizes that it is his problem to deal with and no one else’s (that it is not the fault of the people making the criticism that he feels threatened or uncomfortable), and I think he even implies that he accepts that he may receive criticism harsher than anything that you choose to give him, by specifying that there is a difference (by which I think he means not merely one of degree) between the criticism he receives from you or Crys T and the abuse that he received from funnie.
The criticism he accepts and respects, the abuse he just gets sick of. Even the abuse he was much slower to treat as abuse, because he was trying not to discard the criticism that some of it was packaged as.
This past week is not the first time funnie has appeared on Alas. She appeared previously to criticize Amp during the discussion around his appearing on Garafollo’s radio show. Her criticism then was just as harsh as it was this time, although somewhat less abusive. I can say from personal conversations at the time that Amp took funnie’s criticism seriously at that time, even if he never became convinced that her criticisms were the only legitimate interpretation.
As Q Grrl has said (roughly), feminism that doesn’t make men feel threatened and uncomfortable isn’t feminism. And I would add that men who don’t feel uncomfortable and threatened at times by feminism are not feminists (or even pro-feminist). Feminism demands that men give up power and privilege, and remain vigilant to the ways they fail to do so. Giving up all that, or even recognizing that you have it and working towards giving it up, which is all you actually can do, is uncomfortable and threatening. Realizing that you still haven’t actually given it up is also uncomfortable and threatening. Being a feminist man requires living with and working through that discomfort.
To be very clear, I’m not in any way trying to say that the discomfort of dealing with one’s own privilege is the equal of the misery that comes from being denied that privilege, nor the suffering that comes from fighting that privilege as a member of the oppressed group, any more than you are in talking about the discomfort that comes from having white privilege.
Anyway, sorry to butt in, but I just thought it might help to try to clarify that (of course, I speak only for myself, and don’t actually know that that is what Amp meant, but that is what I would have meant if I had said what Amp said).
Men are johns. Men are pimps. Men are rapists. Men are batterers. And other men ““ YOU men ““ let them get away with it.
Try these alternatives:
Muslims are terrorists. Muslims are terrorist supporters. Muslims are fundamentalist fanatics. And other Muslims – like YOU – let them get away with it.
Americans are torturers. Americans are torture enablers. Americans are torture apologists and hypocrite warmongering crypto-fascists. And other Americans – like YOU! – let them get away with it.
Spot anything wrong in that kind of reasoning? How about, logical fallacies to start with? Substitution of a part for the whole, attribution of collective guilt, binary thinking, pre-emptive categorisation of literally millions and billions of people, disregard for individualities and diversity among those very groups being neatly categorised. In other words, nonsense.
Some men are rapists, some Muslims are terrorists, some Americans practiced and advocated torture. That’s a fact. Reversing the statement into “therefore, all… are…” is just wrong. False statement, and wrong logic. Even if you only mean it more metaphorically than literally, as a point about responsibility of denouncing and changing certain behaviours and attitudes, it’s still the worst possible way of making that point. It has no effect except reinforce prejudices and further categorisation.
Spreading blame all round has a tendency to diffuse it to the point where everyone is to blame means no one is to blame. Real individual and social responsibilities get blurred between all, or nothing, with no real distinction of the various degrees of social responsibility, especially in terms of cultural factors rather than political issues. So ultimately, the real culprits, at all different levels in the “chain of command”, get away with it. That kind of argument is good only for polemics. It changes nothing.
I’m not saying this out of concern for strategies of debate, I believe if an argument is strong enough it stands on its own, no need to dilute it or compromise it to make it more palatable to those who don’t get it. I just don’t think any “collective guilt” argument is strong enough in the first place. It’s a cop-out, it’s a fallacy, it’s pompous rhetoric, it’s just wasted time.
mn,
I don’t mean to be rude, but I don’t think it is particularly fair to argue with someone who is unable to respond because they have been banned from the site. Perhaps someone else will pick up the flag for them, but you can’t be at all confident of that. Also, doing so may kind of force someone to pick up the flag out of a sense of fairness, even if they don’t think that Paige’s statement was particularly useful.
Just thought I’d mention….
I just don’t think any “collective guilt”? argument is strong enough in the first place
The circular logic statements are exactly that… proof by induction, which isn’t proof at all but an assumption based on correlation.
A sense of responsibility for one’s own actions must be collective, guilt should never be. Guilt is rarely productive (neither is entitlement). Unfortunately, when some bright person came up with the idea of rejecting guilt as a negative emotion, they ditched the responsibility aspect as well, in many minds.
Which isn’t to say that the intial statement doesn’t have some good you can take out of it… the idea that Men let other Men get away with rape, violence, sexual exploitation does need to be considered and is much better phrased in Amp’s “rape culture” post. But what needs to come away from that statement, as a man, is the notion that even if I am not a rapist, batterer, john or pimp, that I need to take those behaviours seriously, not joke about them, not support them through inaction. I need to actively model to my children and/or community that those behaviours are unacceptable (by not participating in them and actively challenging those who do), or nothing will ever change.
The guilt and blame won’t help me change the world, but conciously changing the way I behave/think/speak will.
“Muslims are terrorists. Muslims are terrorist supporters. Muslims are fundamentalist fanatics. And other Muslims – like YOU – let them get away with it.
Americans are torturers. Americans are torture enablers. Americans are torture apologists and hypocrite warmongering crypto-fascists. And other Americans – like YOU! – let them get away with it.”
Well, for a start, the above 2 examples aren’t strictly speaking comparable. Islam is a religion that is spread across the globe and is practiced by people from all the different cultures, in different places, and in different ways. The US is a state with fixed borders, and who can be called “American” is limited to specific legal definitions. Also, who is at the top of Islam’s hierarchy in one country or even region of a country, may be in complete opposition to those at the top of the hierarchy in other regions or states. Those at the top of the American hierarchy are (in theory, anyway) voted in by the US electorate as whole. So yes, I’m afraid all Americans–or at least all of those with a vote–ARE responsible and should feel they are.
You know, Spain was also contributing to the war in Iraq, and though I was vehemently opposed and therefore not *directly* responsible, am I still a Spanish voter, therefore I share at least some of the responsibility. I certainly would never dream of contradicting an Iraqi who was accusing me of being complicit by insisting, “It’s nothing to do with me! I didn’t even want the damn war!” It was my government, acting in my name, wasn’t it? The fucking least I can do is listen when an Iraqi speaks without insulting them by falling all over myself to show how “innocent” I am. Especially when I know that whatever I did to show my opposition, I could’ve done more.
” Substitution of a part for the whole, attribution of collective guilt, binary thinking, pre-emptive categorisation of literally millions and billions of people, disregard for individualities and diversity among those very groups being neatly categorised. In other words, nonsense.”
This sounds to me very much like an attempt to make class-based analysis impossible. After all, if we’re all individuals, responsible for only our own actions, how can such things as class-based privilege or discrimination exist? They are simply reduced to “bad behaviours” carried out by specific individual members of society.
“Some men are rapists, some Muslims are terrorists, some Americans practiced and advocated torture. That’s a fact. Reversing the statement into “therefore, all… are…”? is just wrong.”
Well, it might be useful to compare the actual percentages of men who rape (higher than most want to admit), Muslim terrorists (laughably low), and Americans who advocate torture (much lower than those who actively practice it, no doubt, but I think we’d all be shocked if we saw figures on just how many think it’s ok). I think then we’d see that rape, although a *majority* of men may not do it, is still a shockingly generalised behaviour amongst men. That only a negligible minority of Muslims ever participate in terrorist activity and not that many of them even support it. And, that a sizeable number of Americans do in fact support torture, at least under certain conditions.
Then what? Does this mean that every member of Groups 1 & 2 is *actively* guilty of rape or torture? No, but I think we are left with the fact that there is something definitely wrong going on in those groups, and that even those members who are not actively participating in these things need to be held accountable for the climate that makes such behaviours possible.
“Spreading blame all round has a tendency to diffuse it to the point where everyone is to blame means no one is to blame. Real individual and social responsibilities get blurred between all, or nothing, with no real distinction of the various degrees of social responsibility, especially in terms of cultural factors rather than political issues. So ultimately, the real culprits, at all different levels in the “chain of command”, get away with it.”
This may work if you’re tracking stolen funds from an organisation, but when the topic is sex slavery & sex tourism done by rich men who travel to countries where widespread poverty forces women & children into the sex trade, I think we have to analyse it differently. We have to take a look at *generalised* attitudes in society, especially amongst men, that make this sort of thing possible. Sex tourism is possible not just because there are some Bad Men out there who do it, but also–I might even argue mainly–because men as a whole think it’s okay….or at least aren’t bothered about it enough to actively condemn or sanction the men who do it.
It’s like white people who make no comment when another white person makes a racist remark. Did you say it? No, but you also didn’t condemn it & make the person who did feel censured, so guess what? You’re guilty of helping perpetuate the system, because lack of punishment for bad behaviour is tantamount to condoning it.
And btw, Amp wrote: “I don’t disregard the things you’ve said, Crys.”
I wasn’t actually thinking of you when I wrote my original comment, but more some of the guys like Foolish Owl and some others I don’t want to name unless I get it wrong and accuse someone innocent. To be honest, apart from a few posts at the beginning, most of what I had to say didn’t have much to do with you specifically, though I suppose it could have sounded that way. It was mainly due to the responses that were coming in from a good number of the guys.
Charles wrote: As Q Grrl has said (roughly), feminism that doesn’t make men feel threatened and uncomfortable isn’t feminism.
Probably, yes, but that in my opinion might very well apply to women in general too. Anything political that is challenging has to be to some degree uncomfortable, otherwise it’s not really challenging. It must require to give up the comforts of established conventions.
Mysoginistic attitudes or views are shared by women just as much as by men, because they do offer the comfort of pre-established identity roles, for both. Otherwise they wouldn’t have stayed around so long.
It’s exactly like Amanda says:
Individual men are not all-powerful and individual women are often all too happy to be complicit with the system if they have a benefit in it. Looking at it as a system rather than a conspiracy isn’t the easy way out”“it’s the truth.
That’s why I just cannot see feminism as a question of females vs. males. It’s a cultural thing, it’s about ideas. I cannot assume what one person thinks based on their gender. Neither do I assume I should feel threatened by someone based on their gender. My experience contradicts that. Both male and female assholes are capable of threatening and bullying others, as well as of exploiting that system to their own ends.
That’s why I have trouble understanding the problem with a male speaking on feminist issues he supports. Of course, I can understand the problem if someone is doing that not genuinely but only to be patronising, or to exploit feminism as a banner to, say, argue for invasion of other countries to supposedly liberate women from burqas, as if that was the motive for war in Afghanistan. Then again, some women have done that too, showing the same utilitarian and hypocrite disregard. Some women, like some men, are perfectly skilled in appropriating an entire and diverse system of ideas (for want of a better definition) – feminism, socialism, conservatism, anti-racism, whatever – to paint themselves as the spokespeople on that issue for the entire “category” they supposedly “represent”.
Say you want to defend WWII internment camps for Japanese people and argue that the same should be done with Muslims today. If you happen to be of Asian origins, no matter if you’re not really Japanese, you’ll be able to get away with it more easily and be even more palatable to the mass public. Same for ultra-conservative anti-feminist female columnists. They’re female, they get to speak about “real women” and family values, they get to be “representative”. And get paid for it, too. I’d say that’s a pretty clear benefit, one I would not want myself, but still, objectively, it is.
In the end, it’s down to the difference between being assholes or not.
I appreciate non-asshole people speaking out, no matter who they are, male or female, American or European, Arab or Israeli, Asian or African, black or white or hispanic, when they simply argue ideas I support. Simple as that.
Of course a white person cannot have experienced on their own skin the racism directed at blacks, hispanics, foreigners; a non-Jewish person cannot have experienced antisemitism directly against them.
But that doesn’t mean that if they do speak on those experiences, they are necessarily being colonisers. There is a sort of respectful “distance”, which is different from embarassment or truly uncomfortable unease, to keep if you’re not “part of” the group in question, however loosely or strictly defined, culturally or biologically, or both; but it is the same respectful distance to keep between individuals who have different experiences, no matter what their group identity is, and how strict or loose it is. I personally think there can be real full understanding even from that respectful distance, because individual differences, those culturally, ethnically, biologically defined categories do not turn us into separate herds of cattle, because we are all humans with a capacity to share experiences, communicate, empathise, disagree, and argue. And because even the smallest, most strictly defined group always has a lot more diversity within it than neat categories allow for.
Proof is, all the disagreements even among feminists…
Charles – I only realised later she’d been banned (I had only skimmed the comments), but in any case, I took her statement as a starting point, but was making a general argument anyway, also in response to the points raised in Ampersands’s own post. So I suppose it’s ok?
Do discussions always get so meta around here?
wookie – A sense of responsibility for one’s own actions must be collective, guilt should never be. Guilt is rarely productive (neither is entitlement).
Exactly what I meant, yeah, that’s the difference.
But what needs to come away from that statement, as a man, is the notion that even if I am not a rapist, batterer, john or pimp, that I need to take those behaviours seriously, not joke about them, not support them through inaction. I need to actively model to my children and/or community that those behaviours are unacceptable (by not participating in them and actively challenging those who do), or nothing will ever change.
Oh I completely and absolutely agree with that, but then I wouldn’t even frame that as exclusively a feminist issue, or a men vs. women issue, I mean, it is a matter of civic responsibility in the first place. It belongs to everybody. If I, a woman, don’t report a case of violence against other women that I hear about, I’m just as complicit. If I, a woman, make jokes about how so-and-so sued so-and-so (be it celebrities or ordinary people) for sexual harassment only because she wanted to settle out of course, then I’m just being just as much an enabler of that sort of mentality.
It is a civic duty for everybody to take and promote responsibility for public issues. Even at the smallest personal level, there are so many ways we can do that.
mn,
Yeah, I figured you had read her post and not gotten to the banning, so I was mostly pointing out that you were arguing with someone who wasn’t here.
If good discussion builds off of it, then it is probably okay ;)
But there is still the problem, which heart raised elsewhere in relation to the mackinnon thread, of arguments which take place in the absence of holders of one position.
Most of the time it doesn’t get this meta, but flamewars tend to bring out the meta (and yes, this was an extremely tame and short lived flame war).
Going back to the original post, I note that ‘time to clean up this mess’ does not assign any responsibility for who spilled the milk, or who should do what share of cleanup. That makes it kind of hard to prevent future spills.
Radfem,
“Though she’s got her network of female friends to support her during her banning so she should come through it just fine. ”
of course, if getting banned from the weblog of a person you can’t stand is the worst blow her self esteem suffers this year, she’s doing a hell of a lot better than me.
Crys T
This sounds to me very much like an attempt to make class-based analysis impossible. After all, if we’re all individuals, responsible for only our own actions, how can such things as class-based privilege or discrimination exist? They are simply reduced to “bad behaviours”? carried out by specific individual members of society.
No no no, nothing like that, that’s not what I meant.
It’s just that “men”, as in, the 3.x billion group consisting of all male human beings, are not a “class” in the social sense.
Social classes and circles of power and wealth and privilege are another thing from gender distinctions. They may overlap, a ruling class may be largely comprised of men, but even then they have privileges over other men as well as women in the working classes.
I never implied responsibility is all and only at the individual level, only that there are different levels of responsibility. Social and cultural and political responsibilities, even specifically in relation to mentalities about gender roles and mysoginy and sexism and homophobia and all that comes from traditional conservative fixed notions of sexuality, are not neatly divided between males and females.
As for the comparison of “men are rapists” with “Muslims are terrorists” and “American are torturers”, it doesn’t matter that those groups are different in nature – religion, nationality, gender. It’s the making sweeping generalisations that is the same.
Of course every citizen is responsible as citizen, voter, etc. but no, I refuse the notion they are responsible for their government’s decisions. Did anyone ask your permission to sanction the war? Did anyone ask your vote for that? Did protests have a direct political impact to stop the war or even only my country’s participation in it? Nope. So you are just as pissed off about it as an Iraqi who is, even though they’re the ones who had to undergo the consequences of bombing, not you, but you have the same opinion. But you are not directly responsible for the war and its consequences, you didn’t approve of it and there is nothing you could do to stop it. No Iraqi is going to hold you directly responsible. Only terrorists would.
If we believe in collective guilt, then all victims of terrorist attacks deserved what they got. Same for war – if we take the notion all Afghans were responsible for terrorists training in their country, then we should accept everyone who was bombed got what they deserved too. Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki – all justified because those people were the enemy too. This is an extreme example, but it is what the logic of collective blame leads to.
I think then we’d see that rape, although a *majority* of men may not do it, is still a shockingly generalised behaviour amongst men.
If the majority do not do it, then a minority does it, so it is not shockingly generalised. It is the very same as terrorism and terrorism support among Muslims.
Please note I am in no way diminishing the impact of rape. But I cannot hold all the males with whom I share much in terms of views and values and so on, “accountable for the climate that makes such behaviours possible”, because it’s not the climate they, like me, live in, or support, or share. Of course, anyone could be a potential criminal, me included, but you know, generally we tend to befriend people we share some basic principles with. Rape is not something that any generic male would do just by virtue of being male. Just like terrorism is not something any Muslim would do just by virtue of being Muslim. And I am also responsible as a woman for fighting the mentalities, the climate that makes rape possible. What I’m saying is very simple and obvious. It’s what wookie said about the difference beetween blame and responsibility.
Do men have a higher responsibility in fighting that climate? Yes, when it comes to male-only interaction, fair enough – but that kind of cultural, social, political responsibility is not limited to men, and it doesn’t equate accountability, which is direct.
A government only is accountable for its decisions to go into war, decisions that are not voted directly upon by the population; the voters have the responsibility to make their government accountable (and good luck with that!).
A rapist only and his accomplices if any are accountable for what they did. At the social level, everyone who endorses and supports mentalities of violence and dominance over women is also responsible for creating that climate, and everyone who denounces and fights that climate also has the “positive” responsibility to carry on in their efforts.
If that social “responsibility” is the meaning in which you intend “accountability”, then we basically agree – but I prefer to keep the linguist and conceptual, distinction otherwise all kinds of responsibilities, from cultural efforts to direct accountability to individual blame, can overlap into one big collective generalised guilt, and this is not fair or right to facts.
It’s like white people who make no comment when another white person makes a racist remark. Did you say it? No, but you also didn’t condemn it & make the person who did feel censured, so guess what? You’re guilty of helping perpetuate the system, because lack of punishment for bad behaviour is tantamount to condoning it.
Yes, of course, absolutely, *if* I don’t condemn it – but you cannot assume a priori that I would not condemn a racist remark directed at a person from a different ethnic group from mine, just because I belong to a different group. That’s my point.
I am responsible like every citizen for denouncing the mentalities that condone rape or find excuses for it or create the climate for it to happen, even when it is already recognised as a crime.
Men are more responsible in that sense only in terms of not letting those mentalities pass without censure in other men they have close contact with.
But in the end, I don’t live in a sex-segregated society, and many people, male and female, even aside from what’s defined in legal terms as criminal, already have some moral principles of their own to be able to understand why rape, sexual harassment, mysoginy, racism, abuse, are wrong, and they don’t embrace it.
On the other hand, among those who condone or find excuse for things like sexual harassment and come up with the “she was asking for it” or “she was being provocative” typical excuse, there are women too. I have had frustrating discussions with some women who, say, doubted the motives of a woman asking for compensation for sexual harassment at work. That mentality may be more widespread among those men who don’t understand those basic principles, but it’s not exclusive to them, because mentalities are cultural and social, not biological, factors. They are not equivalent to one biologically-defined group, and are not exclusively confined to it, and there is diversity within any group, be it defined in biological, national, or religious terms. Which I suppose is obvious, but that’s my point.
I am not so much disagreeing with you in substance about social responsibilities, for men and for all members of society, as more in terms of the importance of distinctions rathern than huge generalisations and categorisations of the “men are rapists and other men are responsible” kind, however non-literal they are.
I’d rather keep a clear distinction between collective responsibilities of all us members of society, collective responsibilities of people who do directly endorse or condone or stay silent about racism or mysoginy or homophobia, and individual and group accountability of people who do act racist, mysoginy, homophobic and do commit rape or harassment or abuse. Those distinctions do not neatly overlap with the male-female biological distinction, that was what I was responding to.
Really, at the end of the day, it comes to power and benefits. So I may not go out of my way to be racist, and I may acknowledge that I derive a lot of privilege and benefits from being White, and I may even do a lot of anti-racism work. However, Whites as a class of people still benefit from instituionalized racism. They “system” is to blame, but it’s hard for a person of color to stay particularly objective if “the system” was originated, created, and dominated by Whites, who not-so-coinidentally benefit from this.
The same goes with class, with gender, with homophobia.
Acknowledging this doesn’t mean I think men are evil, or that Whites are evil, or anything like that. It simply puts into very cold terms where the power lies.
So, as an American, as a flaming anti-war, anti-globalist pinko, I didn’t have the power to stop the invasion and occupation of Iraq, the torture of prisoners, and the efforts of the US to become like old Rome and own the planet. But I still benefit, and I can’t ignore that. I’m not the one whose kids were maimed and killed by daisy cutters. My home is still standing. I’m not working in some godawful sweatshop in the Phillipines for pennies a day. I have access to the cheap good the workers in those hellholes make, however. I have access to cheap gas and oil thanks to our genocidal (mis)adventures in the Middle East. If I had my way, things would be very different, but that means little when I still have access and privilege at the expense of others.
People must remain cognizant of their power, the benefits they derive from a system that was created by people like them, and their privilege.
I think this is especially true when we have no problems blaming the *powerless* for things. Muslims don’t immediately denounce terrorist attacks by other Muslim groups, therefore they are to blame–not the colonialist powers who made such a mess in the Middle East and now pretend the carnage is strictly indigenous. Feminists are to blame for how people see them because they aren’t nice enough–it’s not the problem of men who refuse to listen and dial down their own condenscation. Developing nations are at fault for poverty because they are corrupt–not the powerful nations and corporations that use their people for cheap labor and meddled in their affairs to ensure access to their resources and labor. African-Americans are to blame for poverty and racial hatred because of choices they make–not the Whites who run the corporations that won’t hire them for good jobs or the White politicans who wring their hands over them around election time.
I’m not into denouncing people, but I’m quite happy to call it as I see it. We’ve still got a wage gap, the overwhelming majority of rape survivors out there are women, women and children make up a growing population of the working poor, women do not have access to powerful positions on the scale that men do, and women do not have the freedom of movement that men have. My next-door neighbor didn’t sit up all night and plan and plot to keep me down–he could be just as outraged about these things as I am. But at the end of the day, he has access and rights that I don’t, thanks to a system controlled and created by other men. I don’t think it’s all that terrible to acknowledge this.
Neither do I. On the contrary, I think my post made it clear that it’s important that people – and men in particular – acknowlege all that and take responsibility for trying to change it.
What I don’t understand it, do you think that my initial post was disagreeing with what you’ve said here? If so, my initial post has been very badly misread (which might be my own fault for bad writing, of course).
I was expanding on the points of your post and some of the comments here.
I agreed with a lot of your post–but I do think that knowing who made the mess is instructive. If we’re not cognizant of who made it, it will get made again and again, and the group who made it won’t have any real motive to clean it up.
Hearing “It’s not about blame, it’s about change” leaves people who are directly affected cold. I mean, damn, it’s easy for me to say it isn’t about blame, it’s about change when it comes to race. It’s rather hollow to my Black friends, though.
IOW, I can understand the skepticism when stuff like “it’s not about blame” come up.
Okay, thanks for clarifying that. And I agree with you – the skepticism is fully understandable and justified.
However, I don’t think the correct answer to that skepticism is to embrace collective blame (and you didn’t say that was the answer, obviously).
Amp, I wouldn’t ‘blame’ you, if you told the people at http://www.alternet.org/peek/ to take you off their blogroll, since they’re not including women, except for the token Wonkette. Would that be too much?
Oh and thanks Amanda for the heads up about this.
Done! Thank you for pointing out the issue to me.
But I still benefit, and I can’t ignore that. I’m not the one whose kids were maimed and killed by daisy cutters. My home is still standing.
There is a difference between acknowledging that (and no one ever said it should be ignored) and conflating all sorts of responsibilities into a giant indistinct blame.
My neighbour isn’t plotting against me either, but he’s not enjoying any greater benefits from any system either, because he’s just a poor bastard who barely makes enough to get at the end of the month. He’s not Dick Cheney. His presence is not even registered on the privilege scale that leads from poor bastard to Dick Cheney.
You know what I mean?
“It’s just that “men”, as in, the 3.x billion group consisting of all male human beings, are not a “class”? in the social sense.”
But that’s just what feminist theory posits. You can take a cross section of just about any society and certain behaviors are apparent regardless of the place in history or the particular men acting them out: rape as a social control of women; women’s disenfranchisement; forced childbearing; women’s denial of primary and secondary education; the wage gap.
What happens repeatedly in these types of discussions with men is that men only see the dichotomy of blame-guilt. They never translate it as blame-social responsibility (although Amp feels around the subject). In telling women that it is useless to blame men b/c the men will feel guilty, all social responsibility falls back on women to make their complaints palatable to men’s safety zones and ego needs. The second phenomena that happens in these discussions is that men almost automatically make it personal. They aren’t the bad guys. They’d never do x,y, and z. They’re trying really hard. Etc. What gets missed, almost totally, is how women as a group are coerced into certain social roles and behavior *regardless* of whether x,y, and z happens to them directly. Guys don’t want to be blamed. Understandable. But I don’t want to be raped either — and society puts the onus on me to make sure that I don’t get raped. So why do men get to skirt blame? I would like to just as easily say: “Don’t rape me! I don’t want to feel vulnerable, or defensive, or violated!” or better… “Don’t rape my sister! I don’t want to feel vulnerable, or defensive, or violated!” What man would listen to me and honor my request? The good guys? Or are they just going to sit around and say “But I’d never do THAT!”
Because of the historic and ongoing discrimination against women, we do have to analyze men’s action as class actions. Because the nature of discrimination against women is systematic and often state sanctioned, we can’t look at individual men and make political changes or theories from that information. We have to look at the overarching systems and paradigms that keep women down, or raped, or murdered. And like it or not, it is men who are keeping women down, raping them, and murdering them. Not just some men. Men as a system. Men as a part of a binary gendered society, in which gender is not about biological sex but is about the expression of hierarchical power.
You men can keep saying that *you* aren’t the ones doing these things. But that is irrelevant. Because while you aren’t doing these things, these things also ****aren’t being played out on your bodies, your intellects, your earnings****. You are the status quo; the parameter that outlines, not the limits on your personal lives, but the limits on the lives of all women. You, the good guys, are a non-permeable parameter because of the fact that your bodies are not being raped in the name of social control; your intellects are not being stifled because of historic and current attempts at limiting women’s access to education; your bodily integrity is sanctioned by most States; your worldview is not considered insane or hysterical b/c you have access to polititcs, media, and public space; and your healthcare considers you to be the baseline, not an abnormality to be treated as a disease.
Damn, comment #88 is good. That’s a great explanation of feminist theory about men as a class. And, I think, that understanding of class is what is missing in the responses of many of the men we’ve seen posting here. Without understanding that feminists are not necessarily talking about the action of an individual man, the criticisms of men’s actions as a class are blurred (to the men reading) and thus are easily taken personally. And if taken personally, it will seem like blame rather than criticism (constructive or otherwise).
Part of it is that a lot of people, especially men, don’t know this basic tenet of feminism. Part of it is that it is hard to pick up what refers to men as a class and what refers to men individually in many comments. That second part is doubly true if you don’t understand the issue of class.
I think that you could take that comment & just re-post it in almost any thread where this dynamic is taking place & it would clear up 90% of the problem.
You think comment #88 is good? Check this out!
_________
You deplore the demonstrations taking place In Birmingham. But your statement, I am sorry to say, fails to express a similar concern for the conditions that brought about the demonstrations. I am sure that none of you would want to rest content with the superficial kind of social analysis that deals merely with effects and does not grapple with underlying causes….
[P]rivileged groups seldom give up their privileges voluntarily. Individuals may see the moral light and voluntarily give up their unjust posture; but, as Reinhold Niebuhr has reminded us, groups tend to be more immoral than individuals…. [F]reedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed…..
I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods….” Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.
I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and that when they fan in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress. I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that the present tension in the South is a necessary phase of the transition from an obnoxious negative peace, in which the Negro passively accepted his unjust plight, to a substantive and positive peace, in which all men will respect the dignity and worth of human personality. Actually, we who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with. Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with an its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured….
We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the hateful words and actions of the bad people but for the appalling silence of the good people.
[I] stand in the middle of two opposing forces in the Negro community. One is a force of complacency, made up in part of Negroes who, as a result of long years of oppression, are so drained of self-respect and a sense of “somebodiness” that they have adjusted to segregation; and in part of a few middle class Negroes who, because of a degree of academic and economic security and because in some ways they profit by segregation, have become insensitive to the problems of the masses. The other force is one of bitterness and hatred, and it comes perilously close to advocating violence…. Nourished by the Negro’s frustration over the continued existence of racial discrimination, this movement is made up of people who have lost faith in America … and who have concluded that the white man is an incorrigible “devil.”
I have tried to stand between these two forces, saying that we need emulate neither the “do-nothingism” of the complacent nor the hatred and despair of the black nationalist. For there is the more excellent way of love….
The Negro has many pent-up resentments and latent frustrations, and he must release them…. I have not said to my people: “Get rid of your discontent.” Rather, I have tried to say that this normal and healthy discontent can be channeled into [a] creative outlet….
And now this approach is being termed extremist. But though I was initially disappointed at being categorized as an extremist, as I continued to think about the matter I gradually gained a measure of satisfaction from the label…. Perhaps the South, the nation and the world are in dire need of creative extremists.
I had hoped that the white moderate would see this need. Perhaps I was too optimistic; perhaps I expected too much. I suppose I should have realized that few members of the oppressor race can understand the deep groans and passionate yearnings of the oppressed race, and still fewer have the vision to see that injustice must be rooted out by strong, persistent and determined action. I am thankful, however, that some of our white brothers in the South have grasped the meaning of this social revolution and committed themselves to it. They are still too few in quantity, but they are big in quality. Some … have written about our struggle in eloquent and prophetic terms. Others have marched with us down nameless streets of the South. They have languished in filthy, roach-infested jails, suffering the abuse and brutality of policemen who view them as “dirty nigger lovers.” Unlike so many of their moderate brothers and sisters, they have recognized the urgency of the moment and sensed the need for powerful “action” antidotes to combat the disease of segregation.
But despite these notable exceptions, I must honestly reiterate that I have been disappointed…. I have traveled the length and breadth of Alabama, Mississippi and all the other southern states. On sweltering summer days and crisp autumn mornings I have looked at the South’s beautiful churches with their lofty spires pointing heavenward. I have beheld the impressive outlines of her massive religious-education buildings. Over and over I have found myself asking: “What kind of people worship here? Who is their God? Where were their voices when the lips of Governor Barnett dripped with words of …. defiance and hatred….?”
Yes, these questions are still in my mind. In deep disappointment I have wept…. But be assured that my tears have been tears of love. There can be no deep disappointment where there is not deep love….
Yours for the cause of Peace…,
MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR.
City Jail
Birmingham, Alabama
April 16, 1963
… because the words of a “great” man have so much more weight.
Sigh.
Qgrrl, I really appreciate that you opted not to throw in the towel. 8)
[profers beer]
Nope, for the subject at hand, comment #88 is much better. It specifically addresses interactions between (generally unknowledgeable about feminism) men & feminists on the subject of feminism.
And that, I thought, is what we’ve been discussing.
Actually, Q Grrl, while the famous MLK passage is beautiful and powerful, I think your words had far more weight here. I don’t think that Jake would have gotten it from the MLK quote, since the parallelism requires the understanding of men as class that you described so well.
Oops! Sorry, cross posted!
Anyway, beautiful and cogent piece, Q Grrl.
… beer. Yum.
When you do laundry as infrequently as I do, there never can be any towel tossing. Double sigh.
oh, don’t get me wrong. I dream of a day when I could write/speak as intensly as Dr. King.
What hit me in the face is how, in a way, it was supplanting a woman’s voice with a man’s voice. Perhaps I’m being overly sensitive… it’s been known to happen.
Heh. Well, I’m not anymore a model of Ideal Housewife than you are, Qgrrl. So no worries. :/
Also, nobody_really, I don’t know how relevant that post would be to the issues Qgrrl is trying to hammer out, even if it was written by Joe the paralegal down the hall from me. MLK had his own issues with women. Hell, James Baldwin is one of my favorite writers (fiction or non-fiction) in the whole universe on issues of race and gender. Yet even he once poo-poohed Women’s Lib (he called it “emancipation”) as [paraphrase] “a baseless and rootless and totally unanchored existence.” You can find the specific quote buried in his essay regarding (of all things) The Exorcist in a book about film called The Devil Finds Work.
OTOH, the MLK quote did suddenly help me get a better grasp again on some of the dynamics here in relation to funnie. The mode of protest is very different from the mode of argument, and requires entirely different sorts of actions.
Not to say I think Alas was particularly deserving of protest actions, but just that I have a better grasp on what was going on.