Well after reading through this post by Becky over at Archaeopteryx (a fellow Hoosier feminist–yes we do exist), I can see why women and girls can’t “play nice” with certain men and boys, who have certain preconceived notions about a woman’s place and role within society (ie: conservative anti-feminist men). Remember the whole civility nonsense? Hard to play by someone else’s rules, especially when they put you at a disadvantage in a debate or in the public arena. Becky brilliantly–in a snarky fashion of course–criticizes this Men’s News Daily post, which is just your typical misogynist diatribe against women and girls having equal rights and opportunities. It’s loaded with all the stereotypical and laughable misconceptions about feminism and blaming it for everything that has gone wrong in society of course, with a little of uber-conservativism’s hyper-phobia of Marxist propaganda run amok in social politics thrown in for some more fun.
Why can’t feminists just play nice?
We all know that presumptuous little girls taking advantage of our free education are taking away from little boys’ opportunities to learn. This is an outrage!! Women shouldn’t be allowed to go to school because it is men who build the schools. If you don’t help build it, you can’t go.
That was Becky and her lovely sarcasm. Now here’s Mike if MND (his words will be in italics and quotations).
“Although innovative and honest, the majority of men are nonetheless insulted by a political climate that holds men responsible for inferiorities contrived as impossibly unique to anyone else. Boys in school learn at the expense of the girls, we are told. But it is boys who have worked in the garages of America in their spare time to develop better cars and engines and, most recently, computers and software. How is society served then, when feminist teachers tell boys not to “monopolize” school computers so that girls can sit at the screen and gossip electronically? How will promising “boys of tech” hone developing computer skills? For having been industrious, men are now portrayed as shiftless; for having been innovative, men are shown as domineering; for having been sensitive and honest, men are now manipulated and degraded.”
So,…because women were socially and legally prevented from taking part in much of the innovation, they should now be restricted from enjoying the luxuries that resulted from them. Okay, I get it. Women were not allowed to help draft the Constitution, so they are not covered by the laws therein. Men went through all the pain and suffering of building the schools, so only boys should be allowed to attend. I see.
“Criticism of men comes easily when viewed by what you want rather than by what you must provide. For example, would women clamor for gold and diamonds if they had to dig and operate mines themselves? If men were to go on strike, infrastructure would suffer within a week, and imagine teen-age girls despairing as malls no longer received shipments of clothing, shoes and baubles. When Madonna sang the virtues of being a Material Girl, she forgot which gender accommodates that lifestyle most.”
Oh, Jesus. Does this even deserve commentary?
No, it doesn’t. The basis behind that wailing against equal rights and opportunities for women and girls is just beyond ludicrous and illogical…and stupid. The hysterical boogeywoman myths and willful, very much cliched misconceptions of feminism (all in a pathetic attempt to discredit women’s rights period) Mike uses in his “argument” against equal rights and opportunities for women and girls, makes this MND post all the more ridiculous. But I wasn’t expecting much anyway.
Um, yeah. It’s sort of like criticizing neo-nazis for being too anti-Jewish. Who expects those nutcases to have a rational argument anyhow?
For some reason I spent way too much time defending myself against the fans of the Sexist News Daily. I know, I know. It was a complete waste of time. At the end of it, though, one of them did admit that I was one of the ‘good feminists’ and that I was an ‘exception to the rule.’
That wasn’t satisfying in the least, but it was only then that I realized how ill-fated my attempts were.
Well, as I said on your site Becky, good on you regardless for trying, even though yeah, convincing these people was going to happen. We all can respect differences of opinion, but these guys are trying to paint us in a way that bears no resemblance to reality, and that’s a different story.
“When you argue with a fool, chances are he is doing the same”
Using his logic, I guess we can deny all men life since women did all the work to bring his and his chums’ ungrateful asses into existence.
BTW P-A, we have got to get you out and about more — you need to spend some time in Bloomington (or even the north side of Indy) so you won’t feel quite so bad about being here. And remember, it could be worse — you could be in Utah.
I’m waist-deep in their rantings right now, since Glenn Sacks sent out my site in his mailer. (I let him, no worries.) Their utter and complete sexism makes it like dealing with another species or something, seriously. The MND readers don’t quite grasp that women are human beings, I think. They get really frustrated with any woman who deviates from providing comfort and support and approval at all points in time.
“But it is boys who have worked in the garages of America in their spare time to develop better cars and engines and, most recently, computers and software.”
This fellow seemingly has never looked into the history of computers. There’s some debate about Lady Lovelace’s contributions, but none I know of on the contributions of Grace Hopper, Betty Holberton, Anita Borg, or many others.
http://cs-www.cs.yale.edu/homes/tap/Files/hopper-story.html
http://www.uri.edu/personal/csul7234/bettyholberton1.html
http://www.fastcompany.com/online/27/sisterhood.html
http://www.cs.yale.edu/homes/tap/past-women-cs.html
I was the first girl to take advanced computing in high school and (for a time) the only girl in the computer club – one guy used to accuse me of being a “token” on a right regular basis, but I took comfort in the fact that one of my programs ran in less than half the time his did. “Playing nice,” according to some guys, seems to boil down to “playing dumb,” which is one game I never excelled at.
I myself live in Utah. If you think the developed world in general is a patriarchy, you should come visit the theocracy of Deseret.
MND talks as though if men all quit work, women would suddenly be helpless. Men make a majority of the workforce, but it is nothing compared to our workforce prevalence before World War 2, and women did just fine picking up the slack when we menfolk left for Europe and the Pacific.
Mens’ News Daily appear to be like a nasty humorless bunch. Sadly, it seems that a lot of the mens’ movement is negative and at least a little sexist. However, Glenn Sacks and the fathers’ rights people often seem reasonable and fair in their ideals (though I am not convinced of their central political tenet, that universal equal shared custody is usually in the best interest of children.)
I can’t believe I missed that “like.” Oops.
Many people feel isolated and/or alienated from their society, or some large part thereof. If those people become activists, they often bring a lot of bitterness against their perceived enemies.
I have never noticed this phenomenon to have any predilection for appearing in any group in particular. It seems to be a common ailment.
You are right, Robert. As an example, even though I strongly sympathize with the pro-science (anti-ID) movement, some of those guys can get pretty brutal on their blogs.
I just perused Mens’ News Daily, and was surprised that they had far fewer editorials about gender issues than purely political ones. They are conservative to the point of caricature, and often blatantly anti-Muslim. They also have a link that says “Pretty Russian Girls” which connects to a mail-order bride service.
I just can’t get over that Man-Strike thing.
Leader (through a bullhorn):What do we want?
Crowd: Some vague goal outlined in various rants at Men’s News Daily!!
Leader: When do we want it?
Crowd: Errr
Random Guy: Why aren’t we working again?
I STRONGLY URGE YOU ALL TO VISIT http://WWW.IHATEWOMEN.COM
I know, I know…it’s the type of thing one should ignore (and laugh at), but I think it’s a microcosm (spelling?) of something much larger.
So boys use computers to “hone their skills”, but girls use them to “gossip electronically”?
Obviously I was a boy, then.
Also yes, if all men went on strike, that would cause major problems. But imagine if all women went on strike, including the ones who do unpaid work??
In fact, suppose half the population went on strike, regardless of gender. Wouldn’t that also cause widespread disruption. I don’t understand what he hopes to prove here.
Also, the women who “clamor for gold and diamonds”? You won’t generally find them among the feminists. It seems to me that here, as is so often the case, feminists are getting the blame for problems actually caused by traditional gender roles, which feminism generally opposes.
“feminists are getting the blame for problems actually caused by traditional gender roles”
Bingo. I’ve been noticing that a lot lately, actually: the men who endlessly whinge on about “feminists” usually back up their complaints with some sort of totally conservative gender-role stereotype about women.
Weird.
I’m all for a man strike. I’d be a scab, and pick up some of the jobs those nitwits walked off of.
Bingo. I’ve been noticing that a lot lately, actually: the men who endlessly whinge on about “feminists”? usually back up their complaints with some sort of totally conservative gender-role stereotype about women.
Weird.
Not really — they resent women having any identity or role other than what they define as acceptable. The sin of feminism for these guys isn’t that it encourages women to make any particular choice but that it encourages women to make their own choices, regardless of what that choice might be.
If you pretend it’s satire, it’s kind of funny.
I love how he takes credit for the work diamond and goldminers do.
What Andi said. I still fondly remember one of Glenn’s disciples showing up on another feminist board to chide women for being too aggressive in the job market and to simultaneously whine about how hard it is to be a man, because a man always has to pay for dinner. Oh, my sainted Aunt Tillie !
At least a few feminists pointed out to him that he looked like an utter fool trying to have it both ways. Which do you want, Mr. Man ? A woman who makes enough money to easily pick up her half of the dinner bill, or a woman completely at your beck and call, because she can’t get a decent job and desperately needs you to be her dinner ticket ? [bangs head on keyboard]
Maybe they all just want the Stepford Solution. Robots don’t need food at all, which would fix Glenn, Jr’s. self-inflicted dilemna quite nicely. I say that the minute mass space travel is feasable, we give them a rocket ship and a box of old car parts and let them have at it— somewhere very, very far from here. :/
What really irritates me about MND is that their swill sometimes comes up in Google News searches. I’m sorry, but that nasty, sexist crap is not mainstream news.
The negative anti-feminist stereotypes in that article didn’t surprise me. So girls only use computers to gossip and they spend all their time shopping? Give me a break. According to that ugly point of view, boys would spend all their time on the computer looking for porn. I guess the author should be proud that slave labor is used in diamond mines. DeBeers has been criticized for that for ages. Yeah, let’s send Mike Spaniola to Africa to mine diamonds and see how much he likes the treatment.
Conflict diamonds, that’s what they’re called. Yeah, Mike should be proud of that. Not.
Blood diamonds. It’s one of the reasons I keep wishing that synthetic diamonds would get to market. It’s time we stopped valuing those goddamn rocks.
I think most of the clothing made in the third world is due to female labor. Certainly, most of the food is. So we ladies will forego diamonds and gold while the gents will forego food and clothing. I wonder who is getting the better deal. Actually, I hate thinking this way and agree totally with the idea that what men who complain about women who are eager to spend their his hard earned money on jewelry are only “victims” in the sense that they couldn’t be bothered to open their minds to a better, more egalitarian kind of relationship. You want a Russian bride, well, friend, she wants an American sugar daddy.
I’m not sure how many people wandered into the comments section of that article, but one reader (‘badger’) proposed that feminists 1) stereotype and generalize men 2) maintain their own oppression through a victim status.
But these ideas were part of a really long diatribe in which he 1) stereotypes women and feminists 2) complains about how men are the real victims.
I couldn’t help but point out the irony to him.
I think I’m going to be sick.
I WILL be sick if I copy and paste the thing and do a line-by-line dissection of this rubbish, so I’ll settle for summarizing what they seem to think:
These people are using the logical outcome of centuries of male dominance (“men invented everything”) to argue for continuing said male dominance (“women already profit from the system by getting lots of stuff”) and denying women any opportunities to get out of the hole men have forced them to dig (“only guys should get schooling and chances to invent new stuff”).
The patriarchy controlled education. Boys were educated much more than girls. Boys were given the opportunity to make something of themselves intellectually. Girls, even those who showed any promise of genius, were married off and shoved into the kitchen and the nursery.
The realm of thought and invention and hard work that THESE men are so eager to claim for their own gender, was the realm of men solely because women never had a shot at it for centuries on end. If Galileo had been a woman, she’d have wound up in front of the Inquisition a heck of a lot sooner, assuming she could have managed to be a scholar in the first place. Aristotle might never have even learned to read. George Washington would never have made it to the Patriots’ Army if her breasts were too big to hide; let alone the Continental Congress or the Presidency.
If, as they suggest, everything we have were created by men, we have no one to blame BUT men, for not allowing women a fair try. And they’ll fight tooth and nail to keep us from GETTING a fair try, because they’re afraid we’ll succeed. But why should the women of the present suffer for the injustices that men of the past committed on women of the past?
Oh, and by the way, these men are very eager to point out the inequity of the production and distribution of material goods AS IT PERTAINS TO GENDER, but they’ve conveniently not mentioned a rather more severe form of inequity. You see, while a man of a certain ecomomic class can buy a diamond for himself as easily as he can for his girlfriend or wife, the people who bring diamonds out of the ground are not the people who wear them. The workers of the diamond mines may be men, but it is not the women who wear the diamonds but the men who own the companies, who profit from their work, and do not pay anywhere near the value of the diamonds to the men who get them out of the ground.
And, if they are trying to suggest that women should join them in the “dirty work” before we profit from all these nice inventions that we might have invented first if we’d gotten the chance? Well, when women first helped mine for iron ore in northern Minnesota . . . I won’t go into detail, but the phrases “sexual harrassment” and “hostile work environment” come vividly to mind. That’s harrassment OF these women, BY men much like these MRA’s, because they were “taking jobs away from men.” I detect a bit of a contradiction here.
The Dark Ages called. They want their gender viewpoints back.
Who invented writing? In many ancient civilizations, it was attributed to a Goddess. Seshat in Egypt, for example, and Sarasvati in India, and Nidaba in Sumer.
Just a thought.
PS: These MRA nutjobs are manipulative bullies. Why the hell SHOULD we play nice with them?
I’ll play nice with anyone who treats me as an equal. People who want to put me in an inferior position while claiming it’s equality or superiority, do not qualify.
Is any criticism of a woman by a man sexist? What of the reverse? Can a woman be guilty of sexism towards men? Can a woman be guilty of sexism if she criticizes another woman? Or a man another man? Exactly what is “sexism” anyway?
A critism of “A” woman? No, it’s not sexist, providing it’s “You’re being lazy” as opposed to “You’re being lazy, like all women”. The first isn’t the second is. Can a women be sexist? Damn skippy, I’d like to introduce you to “Concerned women for America”. Can a man be sexist? Hell yes…expected a man to fit a certain stereotype, and then when he does not, anyone calling him a “pussy”, “women”, or “fag” is being sexist (and homophobic to boot”. Sexism: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=sexism. The short and simply answer is sexism is discrimination based on sex, and trying to foist stereotypes on someone based on gender.
Somebody go over there and nail them with arguments, every time I read their arguments my eyes turn red and I have the urge to kill someone.
I love how he takes credit for the work diamond and goldminers do.
Yeah, I laughed at that one too. Here I was thinking that diamond mining was a 3rd world trade where the whole family was pretty much involved at a near slave labor level. Guess that show I watched on the Discovery Channel didn’t talk to Mike before they made such outrageous claims!
Antigone;
On the sexism answer – I couldn’t have said it better myself. It’s amusing to me the way (could be just a perception of mine) some folks who are attempting to be sly, want to point out some nebulous sexism that they feel is part of feminism. I always find it entertaining when a few of the men on another board I post on get upset at me pointing out that they are being sexist to one another, as well as women when they call one another pussy’s, bitches, and in general attempt to belittle each other by ‘lowering’ their opponent to the status of a woman.
They then of course tell me I’m over-sensitive and too politically correct. Oh, and that I have penis envy.
Heh.
It’s hard to read sites like these, and also hard to look away, because you keep wondering: WHAT exactly are they afraid of? Because it’s obviously fear, of women or something connected with women, that drives their hatred. What do they think will happen–is it fear that once women get rights, we will do as their ancestors did and put men into gender-based slavery for a few thousand years as an act of revenge? That we’ll all become lesbians because we really don’t need men at all? What is it??? I cannot wrap my brain around it.
And what about Jean Auel’s paleolithic cave woman, Ayla. Hey, she invented everything, right?
I’m not sure what they’re afraid of. But I’ll tell you, I’ve never met an insecure male feminist. (Although they probably exsist).
Way back in American history (or, not really that long ago if your looking in European time) we had slavery. Do you know who was one of the biggest advocates of slavery? Poor whites that didn’t have any. Because even if they weren’t on top, they were still higher than them. Sad, really.
Gentlemen, those of you that are for going on strike, you have this feminist’s vote. There are many women willing to line up and snatch your jobs’ and be given the chance to show mainstream America just what a woman can and is capable of doing. Let us not forget we would be closing that wage gap somewhat. As far as some of the conservative comments with in regards to child cusody, women still far better in court with a conservative judge vs. a liberal one. I hate saying that, but I realize we have not come that far. As far as the gentleman who stated something about it’s the men and boys that build the schools, the day you have an answer for single mothers to get out of poverty(completly), I suggest you come up with a positive!!!
Too much to comment on, too late in the game – bummer!
I have often been called sexist in my attitudes toward men, by men, of course. Fortunately, I don’t give a rat’s ass what men think about anything. They’ve had 5,000 years of an unnatural social order, and they’ve f’d it up, utterly.
And they’ll never strike. Then their employers would find out they can get a woman to do the work better for 23 cents an hour less.
I came here from the post on the Men’s News Daily website (though did not post there) because of the invitation to discuss Feminism on Feminist sites. The thread did not address all my concerns, and I would like to bring one up here for anyone is still reading this thread to answer.
Can anyone explain to me why we should not be pushing for a replacement to the Violence Against Women Act? the name itself is clearly slanted towards woman and therefore not in the interest of equality. How about a Violence Against People Act?
Andrew – I addressed your question in this post about VAWA last year, and also in this post the year before. Please go check out both of those posts, and if you’d like to discuss VAWA further do it in the comments to one of those posts, rather than here (where it’s not really as relevant). Thank you. :-)
Thanks for your quick reply. I am new here and didn’t realize that the issue had been addressed. I would still like to see the name of the act to change to something less inflammatory (perhaps “Intimate Partner Violence Act”?) but your posts have been informative.
Andrew;
I don’t think that would be a bad solution, considering it has engendered a defensive posture among some men, and the goal is to protect both women and men from what Amp has reported on his findings.
And welcome to the board. Hope you find it enlightening and entertaining.
I do think changing the name is a bad solution. Why is it that whenever something that affects women finally gets some attention, solving that problem must include placating men by hiding what they do, what they ignore, and what those things reveal about their values.
I’ve lost track of the number of discussions I’ve seen where discussing wife beating changed to whines of, “Oh, but violence is horrible, isn’t it?” Yeah, sure it is, buddy, but we’re talking about violence against women. No, we’re not going to talk about general violence. Women get attacked because they are women. Why do you suddenly want to discuss violence in general?
It’s a suberfuge, these constant attempts to conceal women’s victimization at the hands—and fists—-of men. Once you conceal the identity of the victim, you conceal the identity of the attacker, too, and everyone can go back to believing that, say, all rapes happen in dark alleys to women wearing short skirts.
Yeah, sure it is, buddy, but we’re talking about violence against women. No, we’re not going to talk about general violence. Women get attacked because they are women. Why do you suddenly want to discuss violence in general?
Well said, ginmar.
Otherwise we’d have to raise the same objections against programmes and laws targeted specifically against child abuse; racist violence; hooliganism; etc.
As if, when there is a specific phenomenon that specifically targets a group of people, addressing it specifically would require we devolve resources from addressing general problems. Like it’s all a zero sum.
I don’t understand how anyone can argue that anything done for women specifically detracts from facing more general issues that affect men too.
>>Can anyone explain to me why we should not be pushing for a replacement to the Violence Against Women Act? the name itself is clearly slanted towards woman and therefore not in the interest of equality. How about a Violence Against People Act?>>
Heh.
You know, given that the crimes addressed by VAPA would probably just become another illustration of the huge disparity between what women and men have to be afraid of from each other, I don’t know that I’d have much of a problem with the change. How about the PHMTA? Or the I Knew This One Guy in College Act? Or the Shut Up Already, There’s a Domestic Violence Shelter Three Counties Over and We Are Done Here Act? Or maybe the Peer Review, Schmeer Review Act?
Like other commenters have already pointed out: the reason it’s not the Violence Against PEOPLE Act is that it’s specifically tailored to deal with a specific problem: violence that targets women because they are women. Would you have a problem with an LGBT hate-crimes law that didn’t bother to cover straight-bashings? The name itself is a form of activism; a neutral name would be yet another pretence that violence is neutral. That misconception is a big part of the problem.
You guys are being really nice. I’m not in the mood right now to be tolerant of someone who wants to pretend that domestic violence against women isn’t a unique issue that needs to be addressed directly and not sideways.
I don’t understand how anyone can argue that anything done for women specifically detracts from facing more general issues that affect men too.
I’m not sure that is what is being argued. Maybe I’m being obtuse here, if that’s the case, I certainly am not doing so intentionally. I clicked Amp’s links and read and re-read the articles he wrote and also found it curious that a law seemingly made to address violence among intimates of both genders gave the impression via name it is a law only for men. The nuance seems to be somewhere between specifically and only. I do think that addressing questions like this, be it from ally or adversary in a manner that is informative, understanding and with the hope of bringing in context that clarifies for any individual addressing it in a thoughtful manner is important though (if the goal is mutual understanding).
I had to fight myself not to recoil back from feeling like my own statement of seeing it as a potentially legitimate change was being met with unwarranted snarkiness. Speaking about it informatively and without blame when people are asking in a civil manner shouldn’t be seen as a favor to the person asking. If I’m being oversensitive and reading into the comments in a manner I shouldn’t have, my apologies.
Ergh, Noodles that full statement was not directed at you specifically by any means. I just re-read it and it seemed like it could be taken that way, so I wanted to clarify up front.
For me anyways, the issue is about laying all the information out on the table and forming an opinion, hence the frustration. I can’t speak for Andrew, as to whether or not he’s coming into the discussion with an open mind hoping to absorb information and make a decision from there, but that is definitely my intent. I haven’t actually given the VAWA act name much thought, nor did I realise prior that it was written in such specifically gender nuetral language, so the question seems legitimate to me, even if the answer remains the same.
I just believe that all violence against people is wrong. No matter what the motive or relationship. When I thought the VAWA was specifying a gender, it occured to me that any law that applies to only one gender would be a law that works against equality.
I would like to echo Amanda’s statement though. Thank you for being nice when you didn’t have to be.
I’ve seen too many times when the only quest for equality that bothered men was getting themselves equally labelled as victims while concealing every other category in which they were over-represented. It’s like French gender constructions. As one of my long-ago French teachers said, “If there is one man in a group of ten thousand women, then that group requires not a female pronoun but one that can refer to both genders.” Well, sort of. He was exaggerating but not by much. If one man is beaten by a woman—it must be a woman, not a man—–then by God it must be acknowledged. Meanwhile, if one woman ever commits a rape, then that group must be referred to ever after as being ‘men and women.’
They could have called it the Violence by Men Act and that would have pissed people off even more, though it would in fact be more inclusive, since most violence against men is committed by other men.
For many years women have been working on the still-unpassed ERA so they could be fully included in the Consitution all the while graciously writing males and gender neutral language into rape, domestic violence, workplace harassment, ‘parental’ leave laws and more. It is beyond irritating to see someone suggest the VAWA is about unfair gender segregation when feminists continue to go out of their way to write males into anti-sexism laws mainly affecting women, and necessary mainly because of male sexism in the first place, while men don’t return the tribute to equality-minded justice.
I only meant to point out that violence is the enemy and I didn’t mean to irritate you.
I am grateful for all the effort to date that has been made to make laws gender neutral. And hope I am not asking too much from the graciousness of women to apply those efforts to the VAWA. That way we can focus on the real enemy. Violence.
Do you feel it defocuses on the issue of domestic violence against women, by trying to gender neutralize it?
How does making it gender neutral deal with making it more focused on domestic violence in general by not considering the majority of people affected by domestic violence?
No, the enemy isn’t violence in this case, it’s those who commit it against women. But then we can’t even talk about women’s needs for five minutes, before it becomes an issue of excluding men. That’s part and parcel of living in a patriarchal society which favors men as a gender, over women.
The “real enemy”? So we need to not waste the five minutes spent on violence by men against women, and include violence of women, against men, and men/men violence, which is of course, a much more pressing issue, b/c men even when they are getting hurt by their own gender, come before women getting hurt by men.
It’s not just language that is used when comparing the impact of violence on genders, but racially and ethnically as well. Any time, hate crimes are discussed in regards to White men targetting men and/or women of color in order not just to terrorize them, but to terrorize the racial or ethnic group(s) they are in. Whites will inevitably say at some point, well, isn’t all violence the problem? Isn’t all violence, hate-based? Why do we need these “special” laws(with or without pointing out that they weren’t tailored or even inclusive of white men, in terms of race and ethnicity). That’s what makes me cautious when violence is violence starts coming up as an argument against laws created to protect specific groups against acts of violence committed that group.
A law which works against equality???? We have an entire society that WORKS AGAINST EQUALITY. Our society treats women as inferior to men across the board. There is no equality, for one law that favors women, to “work against.” Sorry. A gender-equal society is a pipe dream with no basis(as of yet) in reality.
I don’t know if I said this “nicely” or not. I just put it out there with no hostile intent whatsoever, but often if it goes against the person’s grain, then it’s seen as hostile, which is why it’s hard for women to dialogue with men on issues that affect or pertain to women.
(Amanda, ginmar…I liked your posts btw.)
“But then we can’t even talk about women’s needs for five minutes, before it becomes an issue of excluding men. That’s part and parcel of living in a patriarchal society which favors men as a gender, over women.”
Andrew is demonstrating this concept beautifully by whining (out of male privilege of course) about the so called “exclusion” of male victims of DV which constitute only a minority. No one here is denying violence against men and no one here is denying that those male victims should receive justice and protection, however an overwhelming majority of DV is directed towards women and is perpetrated by men. All of this whimpering and convenient denial by men–on purpose–of the real issue at hand which is the predominance of violence against women and women’s lack of significant political/legal power (and even cultural power/influence) in this area, is a perfect example of male privilege within our culture, legal system, and politics. And an attempt to ignore and suppress laws that can protect women and girls who are almost always the victims of DV. This is just more of the bullshit constant minimalization of the “unique” injustices women face within the legal system and even our culture that promotes, ignores, and even justifies violence committed against women. The enemy here is our culture and legal system that has a nasty habit of always devaluing and marginalizing women’s civil rights. And usually those enemies are misogynist men, as men still wield most of the legal and political power.
kim said: Do you feel it defocuses on the issue of domestic violence against women, by trying to gender neutralize it?
How does making it gender neutral deal with making it more focused on domestic violence in general by not considering the majority of people affected by domestic violence?
———————————-
I have a difficult time when this is done on dialogue in regards to DV. Is it sincere, or is it diversionary?
Let me see if I understand this, if someone hits me over the head and takes my wallet, that is somehow not as bad if someone hits me over the head, takes my wallet, and calls me a name? If I’m targeted for violence by someone because I appear to have money isn’t that a hate crime? Obviously I am hated because of my perceived economic status. Should that warrant a specific economic hate crime law?
Radfem:
Kim is my housemate and one of my best friends – I’m confident that her intentions are sincere.
Pietro:
First of all, you can’t and won’t understand it. It’s obvious from your mean-spirited and sarcastic tone that you’re not here to sincerely listen.
Second of all, imagine two people trespassing on Woody Allen’s lawn to light a fire. One of them is a hiker who is lighting a campfire because he’s hungry and wants to cook a burger. The other is a KKK member who is burning a cross because he wants to send a threatening message to all Jews in the area.
Is it your view that these two people have committed the exact same crime, and it’s irrational of the courts to treat them differently?
Amp, there’s no need for you to intervene on behalf of Kim with a character reference. I’m not attacking her and I’m sorry if you look at my post and see that. My comments were to the issue in general, if that’s okay. Of how frustrating it is when discussion of neutralizing an issue is often done to turn focus away from women’s concerns to men’s concerns.
Because in a male-dominated society, neutral often means the default gender, which is male, kind of like when the pronoun he, or him is often used to describe either a man or a woman.
“Let me see if I understand this, if someone hits me over the head and takes my wallet, that is somehow not as bad if someone hits me over the head, takes my wallet, and calls me a name? If I’m targeted for violence by someone because I appear to have money isn’t that a hate crime? Obviously I am hated because of my perceived economic status. Should that warrant a specific economic hate crime law? ”
I hear this one a lot. No worries, I’ll explain.
If someone merely hits you on the head and takes your possessions, that’s a PC 211, strong armed robbery and an ADW, if a weapon is used. The motive, most likely is obtaining property that you have, through force if necessary.
The motive is NOT attacking you because you are a member of a particular racial, ethnic, group, or a particular religious group, sexual orientation, transgender, or nationality. The motive is NOT to by attacking you, install fear in everyone who is a member of the group you represent or are believed to represent(b/c sometimes people are attacked b/c someone mistakingly believes they are Black, or gay, for example)
In many hate crimes, property is not taken. Property is often vandelized, defaced, broken or burned only if it represents or is believed to represent the targetted group. Your wallet, may be taken or emptied of money, for example. But if you are carrying something that signifies a religion, for example, that property maybe destroyed, or vandelized. If you’re in a religious building, or a Black-owned business, that property might not be burgularized to steal money or property, but would be burgularized to vandelize, damage or destroy. The act of course is meant to terrify and harm the targets(who own or use the building) but also it is intended to terrify or intimidate others of that religion(i.e. we had a muslim cemetary attacked by arsonists last week).
I just want to end violence, not oppress women. Can we not just change the name to include all victims?
I don’t consider women inferior. This is the first place I have ever had to actually state that fact. It makes me sad that anyone would assume that about me.
To Radfem: In my experience, if I’m not sure if I said it nicely enough, I probably didn’t. I don’t mean to criticize.
Andrew,
No we can’t change the name, and we shouldn’t. Why? Because violence (specifically, when it comes to domestic violence, altho it does crop up with other forms too) to a certain extent, is just the symptom of the underlying cause; which is, namely, how gender operates in our society. The manner in which our society is gendered _produces_ violence.
It is like wanting to stop cancer, by just fighting the cancer, and not looking to what is causing the cancer. You’ll always be playing catch-up (don’t run with this analogy too far though).
Hence, if we don’t name the cause of the violence, then we aren’t really addressing it. We are effectively making ourselves blind to it. Domestic violence (like, I would argue, a lot of violence in our culture) is gendered, and to ignore that is just to allow it to continue.
Does that make sense?
Like Radfem’s excellent description of hate crimes (which is, weirdly enough, my dissertation topic) a hate crime operates to victimise an entire group, the actual victim themself becomes effectively interchangeable. Domestic violence operates similarly, like rape (I could go into detail about this if you want, but I’ll resist my lecturing impulses for now).
Speaking for myself, I don’t care if we change the name or not. There are symbolic issues that matter a lot, but I’m not convinced that the name of VAWA is one of them. What matters most about VAWA, imo, is what the bill does – the working title, which is all we’re talking about here, is the least important part of it.
Andrew, if someone passed a “men’s health bill,” which focused on kinds of health problems that primarily (but not exclusively) affected men, would you object? How about a “reinforcing fatherhood” bill, which was actually all about providing help to non-custodial parents (most, but not all, of whom are male?).
In fact, there are already federal programs aimed at fathers – largely in response to activism from Men’s Rights Activists and other folks concerned with “fatherlessness” – have you been objecting to those?
By the way, my memory of when VAWA was first passed was that it was named that way to attract the support of right-wingers who wouldn’t have been attracted to feminist anti-rape and anti-intimate violence legislation, but were willing to support something if it was named in a way that made it sound like old-fashioned “protect the ladies” chivalry. (That’s just my memory, I can’t prove it). VAWA was primarily written by liberal feminists, whose inclination is usually to write everything in gender-neutral language.
So the Violence Against Women Act should keep its name because it represents how it deals specifically with the unique domestic violence issues that women face, but also protects the small amount of male victims thanks to the gender neutral wording of the contents?
This title being the one being chosen by liberal feminists in opposition to their policy of creating gender neutral legislation so that they could trick right-wingers into voting for it?
Also that society encourages violent actions against women and any attack against a woman is a symbol of an attack against all women?
I think we have progressed beyond the point where further discussion would be helpful. Thank you for your time.
I have a difficult time when this is done on dialogue in regards to DV. Is it sincere, or is it diversionary?
It’s genuinely sincere, Radfem. It’s a subject I haven’t had much experience in with regards to the VAWA, and have remained relatively nuetral about for no other reason than not ‘investigating’ it properly enough to form an opinion. I’m kind of in a questioning/absorbing stage right now, as well as doing some research on my own with regards to what articles exist on it.
While I understand your suspicions when faced with hazy questions, I have zero reason to divert the conversation into anything, and always appreciate hearing commentary that is new and informative on subjects I’m not especially well versed in.
My post where I talked about feeling faintly defensive is basically an address towards the fact that not everyone on the boards asks questions (despite how obvious the answer might seem to the reader) with ill-intent. I’m not asking for anyone to persuade me, just inviting them to inform me of their opinions on something that I’d not thought about prior so I can be armed with plenty of information to create an informed opinion.
Amp&Kim
I have to respectfully disagree about whether the wording is important on this one. I think that all of us who spend a lot of time talking to other leftists tend to forget that there is a large section of the population that still believes that whatever happens within a family is a private matter and none of the legal system’s business. Many police officers still refuse to get involved in what they call “domestic issues”. Because there’s still a sense of shame and stigma attached to domestic violence a lot of people don’t talk about it, sometimes even within their own families. There are a lot of people who would still like to shove this issue back under the rug. Renaming the act would go part of the way to letting them do just that.
I think that the people who named VAWA knew exactly what they were doing. Part of the purpose is to draw attention to the fact that domestic violence is far more prevalent than the mainstream realises, and to reframe the issue to define the souce of the problem as the abusive partner rather than the old and still commonplace idea that the woman being abused was somehow responsible for her own abuse. It’s trying to change the general mindset about DV from something private that happens within a family to somthing that the government has the right and responsibility to be involved in. The name is a framing device intended to clearly define this as a gendered issue and to appeal to people sense that everyone should be entitled to equal protection under the law.
Also, I think that the left does have to be stringent about the language we use to discuss things. The right has done a much better job than we have of using semantics to reframe issues . The widespread usage of the term pro-life even amongst leftists is a perfect example – accepting the use of that term allows them to set the terms of debate and manipulate how the public thinks about abortion. I get very upset when leftists use the term “partial birth abortion” for the same reason – by using the term I think we are in some sense legitimizing their position. The right has consistently shown a willingness to use Orwellian semantics to reframe issues to their advantage, and we need to be very careful about letting them do that.
I think we have progressed beyond the point where further discussion would be helpful. Thank you for your time.
Interesting that that point was reached when some rather interesting questions got asked—but not answered. So it often happens in discussions about violence against women.
Andrew, if someone passed a “men’s health bill,”? which focused on kinds of health problems that primarily (but not exclusively) affected men, would you object? How about a “reinforcing fatherhood”? bill, which was actually all about providing help to non-custodial parents (most, but not all, of whom are male?).
In fact, there are already federal programs aimed at fathers – largely in response to activism from Men’s Rights Activists and other folks concerned with “fatherlessness”? – have you been objecting to those?
I guess we’ll never know. But I suspect we already do know the answers to those questions anyway.
Since the original post, I’ve attracted some MND trolls to my site. I’ve seen some pretty hateful things spewed at my expense, but this sweet little gem was directed at Alas’ own P-A:
“pseudo-adrienne,
Listen here girlie. Feminism was made for women whom nature was not so kind to. So therefore these pack of dogs wanted to change the rules of attraction by changing what society deemed “beautiful.” Unfortunately, feminists, are usually not only ugly on the outside but they are hideous on the inside as well. Re-read your post and you’ll see what I mean… bitter, hateful, and stupid. For those women who were shunned at the high school prom, feminism is quite attractive. Unfortunely [sic] the dog parade will not attract sisters in any serious number, thus feminism is dieing [sic] a slow but certain death.”
Imagine that, we are ugly on the outside and the inside!!! I thought it was hilarious and that Alas readers might enjoy it.
(sigh) Can someone remind me again what the point is of being “not ugly” if the only reward would have been a trip to the prom with one of these seixst yo-yos– or picking their stanky socks up off the floor for the subsequent 30 years ?
Tragically, I have forgotten the answer, if indeed, I ever knew it… :o
Wow, Becky! How hilarious. You should see some of our troll bile loaded with grammatical and spelling errors. A real reflection of their intelligence and education, or a serious lack thereof. And I was taken out to both of my junior and senior prom by one of the “popular” jocks who’ve I been “buds” with since Middle School (we just wanted to go and poke fun at all the hype and over-glorification of prom-night). Nothing screams intelligence like spewing shit about people you’ve never seen nor met before, and repeating old, out-dated stereotypes of a social-political group you have made zero effort to research or educate yourself about.
I demand a picture of P-A in her prom gown, ASAP !! And if I don’t think she’s hhhhhhot enough, we should all vote her off Amp’s blog. :p
Oh alsis! Do you know how much crap I will have to navigate through in my closet in order to find those pictures?! I’m sure my parents know where they are as they gushed all over me, and took tons of pictures of me wearing my prom-dress. Because they knew that prom-night would be the one time out of the whole year that I would ever wear a dress.
I don’t even remember what I was doing on Prom Night;probably watching “Doctor Who” reruns or listening to David Bowie’s *Low* with the rest of the she-geek battalion. :o No dressy photos of that era, but I might be able to unearth some of my crappy superhero artwork, if I didn’t toss it all the last time I moved…
I boycotted prom night by hosting a Tarantino marathon…kickass!!
I’ve also gotten some goodie-troll bits that speculated about my sexual activity, too. Apparently I just need some good sex, then I wouldn’t be so feminist-y.
Hey, don’t diss prom!
I went to my senior prom, cuz my mom said that I’d want to and occasionally she’s pretty smart. I asked the guy, I picked him up. I wore my homecoming dress, my friend did my hair and makeup. We (my date and I) ate at Arbys, then went bowling, then went to prom where we confused the DJ, (and some classmates) by convincing a bunch of people to request polka. After-prom consisted up hiking up Sehome hill in our formal wear discussing the archetypes in various religion and astronomy. Then, we stayed out all night in a coffee shop discussing whether or not prom was sexist :).
okay, hated prom.
For a start, my girlfriend broke up with me a few days beforehand because she wanted to go with this guy (not that her and I could have gone together, this was back in 1991), and then one of my guy friends set me up with in a heterosexual pairing as I was seriously not in the mood.
After prom was cool though, we all went out and got drunk and talked into the wee hours.
I did have one good prom experience though, when I was a sophmore in college one of my straight girlfriends who was a senior in high school asked me to go along as friends as she didn’t want to deal with all the shit of finding a guy to go with and she knew we’d have a good time. Together with a straight couple that were good friends of ours, we rented a limo, the whole thing, it rocked :)
Oh, and of course prom is sexist, but it’s so insanely bound up in tradition that it’s really never going to change.
My memory of the prom is that, a week or so afterward, the woman I was secretly in love with said that I really should have found a date and gone to it, and that it was so important to go to the prom that she’d temporarily gotten back together with her asshole boyfriend so that she’d have a date.
That’s the sort of thing you really should tell a person ahead of time.
That was pretty upsetting at the time, but eventually I decided it was funny. Now, I’m wondering how much pressure she must have felt to make that decision, and it doesn’t seem funny at all.
All of us who’s prom dates were thwarted by the road closures from the latest “storm of the decade” passed the time by drinking Mountain Dew shots and playing poker, using vanilla wafers for chips. We snuck a few guys up to the dorms to make things interesting.
Why go to a prom, where just when things get interesting on the dance floor, a nun assigned to the “passion patrol” comes up to you and shines the spotlight on you? Why should you have to pay good money for that?
Awaiting moderation?
Oh dear, I thought I did a pretty good job at keeping it G-rated….
[Due to the high proportion of spam about poker, any comment that mentions the word “poker” will automatically have to be approved by a moderator before it appears online. –Amp]
My prom date ended up being a long-term boyfriend who was so appalled by my ugly unsexy feminist-y-ness that he practically tried to bribe me to come back to him after a breakup with promises of the swank city life we would have. Telling feminists we “must” be ugly is the last resort of someone who’s been beat down and not gonna work. I’m no supermodel, but I’m no slouch in the bedroom. :P
Actually, the hands-down best troll was the guy who kept telling me that I must be young and pretty or I wouldn’t be able to get a boyfriend to “put up” with my feminism. When he realized that wouldn’t fly, he switched to saying that if I were pretty, I wouldn’t be a blogger. Make up your mind, dude!
If there is a Koufax award for best thread drift, the prom discussion is a sure winner.
Heh. Well, hell I was wondering exactly in what context the p-word got mentioned in that post of Radfem’s. Good God, did you use it on a date or something?
Oh, I meant the card game. Five card, dealer makes rules, don’t eat your p-word chips, that kind of thing.
Pretty on the inside of what – my pussy? ‘Cause that’s what he really cares about. All the rest of this is window dressing for not wanting to grow up to be a responsible Keeper of the Cock.
I didn’t go to prom – I wasn’t very interested, because most of my friends were not at my school anyway. Little did I know then that prom is really the first taste of what a corporate holiday party is like (and now I’m really glad I didn’t go). I honestly don’t remember what I did that evening – I think I read a book. My mom was the one who was ready to plotz because I didn’t go, but when she found out how drunk everybody got and that at least one of my classmates was raped at the afterparty, then she was waaaay more cool with my decision.