At the blog “Feminist Critics,” Hugh — whose view, if I’ve understood it correctly, is that both women and men are oppressed by the gender system, but women are oppressed more — writes:
This post shows that some of the objections to the notion of the oppression of men also serve as objections to various examples of what feminists consider to be oppression of women. My Double Standard Detector is going off. Either feminists should admit that men are oppressed, or they should relinquish some of their claims of the oppression of women. What feminists can’t do (rationally at least) is employ a broad conceptualization of oppression in characterizing harms towards women, while simultaneously constricting that conceptualization of oppression to exclude harms towards men.
Are women actually oppressed? Are men? I don’t know, and the answer depends on how we conceptualize “oppression.” Yet however we conceptualize it, we need to use the same standard for both sexes, rather than switching standards whenever it is politically convenient.
I agree that inappropriate double-standards should be avoided. However, I think that Hugh’s argument is based on his misunderstanding of how feminist theorists talk about “oppression.” (Hugh is by no means alone in this; feminists often discuss concepts like “oppression” in sloppy and imprecise ways, too. I certainly have. Most of us aren’t academic theorists, after all.)1
Hugh writes:
I only bring up the term “oppression” because feminists use it to characterize harms to women, but not harms to men.
Note that Hugh consistently talks about “oppression” as if it’s another word for “harm.” But I don’t think that’s how feminist theorists use the word. Marilyn Frye, in her essay “Oppression,” writes:
When the stresses and frustrations of being a man are cited as evidence that oppressors are oppressed by their oppressing, the word “oppression” is being stretched to meaninglessness; it is treated as though its scope includes any and all human experience of limitation or suffering, no matter the cause, degree or consequence. Once such usage has been put over on us, then if ever we deny that any person or group is oppressed, we seem to imply that we think they never suffer and have no feelings. […] But this is nonsense. Human beings can be miserable without being oppressed, and it is perfectly consistent to deny that a person or group is oppressed without denying that they have feelings or that they suffer.
Frye could not have more clearly stated that suffering (which, as Frye uses it, is quite similar to how Hugh uses “harms”) in and of itself is not oppression. Similarly, in his book The Gender Knot (pdf link), Allan Johnson writes:
…If we say a group can oppress or persecute itself we turn the concept of social oppression into a mere synonym for socially caused suffering, which it isn’t.
My point isn’t that I agree with every aspect of Johnson or Frye’s discussion, but that they clearly argue that oppression is something significantly different from suffering (and also, I think it’s reasonable to infer, different from harms). If I’m correct about that, then Hugh’s argument seems inapplicable to what these feminist theorists are really arguing.
If I say “both this glass eye and this hammer are hard surfaces, but the ocean is not,” it doesn’t make sense to respond that I’m using a double-standard, merely because the marble, the hammer, and the ocean are all blue. Yes, they are all blue; but since “color” isn’t the metric I’m using to make distinctions, the accusation of a double-standard merely shows that my critic has failed to comprehend my argument.
I think the best way of thinking about “oppression” is that the word refers to systems of determining who gets to comprise the dominant or controlling class, not to specific instances of harm.2 Specific harms are not oppression in and of themselves; they are part of systems of oppression. (Since the same harms can be simultaneously part of the system, and results of the system, the system of oppression is a vicious cycle).
In this view, someone who says “X is an example of the oppression of cartoonists” is mistaken. X might be a result of the oppression of cartoonists, but X is not oppression.
Hugh writes:
One example is the argument that men cannot be oppressed by themselves. Yet there are many examples of women harming women (e.g. female genital mutilation) that are considered by feminists to be oppression. If women can oppress women on the dimension of gender, then men can oppress men.
The gender system is perpetuated by both women and men, and both women and men suffer under it. However, that doesn’t mean that the relationship of women oppressing women within the system is identical to that of men oppressing men within the system.3
When women perpetuate the system of oppressing women, such as in FGM, the conflict (if there is any conflict at all) is not over which woman gets to dominate the society. Neither woman will get to dominate the society; the gender system guarantees that virtually all members of the dominating class will be men.
In contrast, most examples of men contributing to the oppression of other men are instances of men attempting to become dominant, or to ensure that other men don’t become dominant. To quote from Adam Jones’ essay “Gendercide and Genocide”:
…In gendercides against men… the wider collectivity is “culled” and “sifted” to isolate a minority considered threatening, according to the blanket application of diverse variables (usually gender and age). Furthermore, the “challenge” and “threat” to “the dominant group” captures something of the competitive and belligerent character of intra-male politics, the principal challenge of which has always been to suppress perceived male rivals or competitors.
What makes the gender system one of oppression of women is that, even though both women and men act in ways that perpetuate the system, the system’s effect is that the dominating class will be nearly all male.4
Note as well that viewing oppression as a system of dominance does not make any claim about who is hurt more, or who suffers more. Suffering and harm are among the results of oppression, but they are not the metrics by which oppression is measured.
What’s unsatisfying about my own analysis, so far, is that a definition of oppression must refer not only to dominance, but also to injustice. Otherwise, we’d have to conclude that even holding an election — which is, after all, a means of determining who will be in a controlling class — is perpetuating a system of oppression.
We can, however, incorporate the concept of injustice into a conception of oppression as a system of dominance. For instance, swiping aspects of Caroline New’s definition of oppression (pdf link) (which I quoted in an earlier post) and combining it with the view that oppression is about systems of dominance and control, I came up with this definition of oppression:
Oppression is a system whereby a group “X” is systematically mistreated in comparison to non-Xs in a given social context, and in which members of group “X” are effectively prevented from joining the dominating or controlling class of society in significant numbers.
As I think I’ve demonstrated, it is possible to create a feminist definition of “oppression” which does not rely either on double-standards or on denying that men experience harm and suffering as a result of the gender system.
(This post is a cleaned-up version of a comment I left on Hugh’s post; Hugh has since replied to me there. There’s also a related post by Hugh here, which I responded to in Hugh’s comments here.)
(I’ve decided not to make the comments for this post “Feminist only.” However, I will be moderating closely whenever I’m online. Rudeness will not be tolerated, personal attacks will not be tolerated, and snide implications that feminists are man-hating bigots — even when delivered in “civil” language — will not be tolerated.)
- I want to add this disclaimer: My thoughts on “oppression” are actively in development. Therefore, my views stated today may well be inconsistent with views I’ve stated in the past, or the views I state an hour from now. [↩]
- Although I didn’t reread any works by Catharine MacKinnon while writing this post, I want to point out that this post — and, indeed, any feminist discussion of oppression and dominance — doubtless owes a great debt to MacKinnon’s work. [↩]
- I don’t think Hugh disagrees with me on this specific point. [↩]
- To be clear, I am claiming that the members of the dominating or controlling class will be nearly all male; I am not claiming that all or most men get to be members of that class. [↩]
Pingback: KerrPlunck:
Just to quickly clarify, my view is that:
1. If oppression is a meaningful concept, both men and women are oppressed on the dimension of gender.
2. So far, the oppression sof men and women are incomparable due to the lack of an objective metric, but I suspect that IF they turn out to be comparable, the comparison will show that women are oppressed more. (Does this make me a feminist by Amp’s definition?)
3. Either way, I hold that the oppression of men does not get enough attention relative to how severe and prevalent it is, and that feminism is partly responsible for this problem, which is why I talk about gender politics in a way that is often critical of feminism.
I’m less interested in what academic theorists mean by the term than I am in what rank-and-file feminists mean when they tell me to “check my privilege”
I am unconvinced that the disproportionate number of men in positions of power is in any way my privilege given that I am not, have never been, and and never will be in such a position.
The majority of men appear to be in a similar position to me.
If we are only considering men v. women in the patriarcy, I think I agree with everything in this post. But I do not think you can stop there, and when you start cross-secting race, class / ecconomic status, etc., this analysis does not hold up, because it seems to me that the wealthy and the dominate races use patriarcy as a weapon to aid in the oppression of specificly men of the underclass or subjegated races. Two examples I can think of are 1) how poor men are convinced to act as footsoldiers in wars that aid the wealthy because it is “manly” to be brave and willing to die for your countr, and 2) Southern lynchings of black men on flimsy claims of having raped white women.
Daran, see Amp’s footnote #4.
One could argue that it _is_ your privilege because you’ve met at least one criterira (gender) for being in power. Your gender makes it more likely you will gain acces to this group, not less.
Also, those men who are in power will, by virtue of being men, share many of the same preconceptions, priorities, and preferences as you. They use their power to shape the world according to these preferences, to the benefit of men and the detriment of women.
It is difficult to take a word like “oppression” and apply it to a discussion of class without taking into consideration the power relations that exist both between and within classes. The very idea of class denotes hierarchy and inequality. Two individuals within a class have, by definition, a greater degree of equality than two individuals from different classes. The idea of class leads in turn to discussions of the terms that are used to determine social status, terms such as age, race, sex, education, occupation, marital status and income.
But we must not be confused into thinking of social status as being synonymous with power relations. Power is a measure of the ability of a person or group, through action or inaction, to influence the actions of others. Power is relational in a way that status is not. The difference between status and power is this: Status is what divides people into classes. Power relations can extend across certain classes within a society and in some cases across all classes within a society.
Some types of power relations are greater than others. This holds true within classes, between classes and even between societies. Measures of status such as education, occupation and income do not have the same correlation when used as measures of power.
For example, income is more important as a measure of power in America’s class system than education or occupation. Education or occupation may provide a person with higher status, but income trumps both education and occupation where power is concerned. In other societies, religious, familial or political affiliation can be more important than any other measure in the establishment of both status and power relations. At the highest levels of the social order, in any society, political affiliation trumps all other measures of status and power.
The thing that makes gender (i.e., sex) different from any other measure of status or power is the fact that gender, even more than race, has maintained a consistent power relation throughout history and across civilizations, religions, cultures and societies. In almost all cases, the power relation between men and women has remained constant. Women have historically been subordinate and remain so. Even ethnicity and race can change from time to time with regard to its position in a given power relation. A race can be superordinate in one time and place and subordinate in another.
Here is where I am going with all of this. When it comes to gender, status is most useful as the metric that describes the current state of the power relation between women and men. It is not a good measure of the relative oppression of men as compared to women. A woman can achieve the highest status in the highest class and still be subordinate in the power relationship with a man of the lowest status in the lowest class.
It is one thing to say that the person occupying a superordinate position in a power relation is oppressed as a result of the relationship. It is another thing to say that the oppression is of a form that is in any way comparable to the form of oppression experienced by the person in the subordinate position.
To oppress a person’s ability or opportunity to grow and experience life in a way that leads to self-fulfillment and enlightenment is one thing. It is another thing to put that definition of oppression in the same box with the oppression that results from slavery or any other related form of ownership and control.
Oppression as the oppressor’s unconscious self-exclusion from the possibility of enlightened self-awareness is always the product of a superordinate position in a power relationship. Oppression as the oppressed’s inability to act independently of the desires and actions of the oppressor is always the result of a subordinate position in a power relationship. To act as if the two forms of oppression are in any way identical is disingenuous.
Uh, not in any statistically significant way. Michael, I’d like to introduce you to two people. This is Paris Hilton, and over here is Nameless Homeless Guy On The Street. Please explain to me how NHGOTS is in a superordinate power relationship with Paris Hilton.
The likelyhood of me gaining access to the group of powerful people is zero. Zilch. Nil. None. Nada. Ninguno.
It’s like declaring someone to be wealthy on the grounds that they once had a lottery ticket which didn’t win.
And your evidence that men in power actually do behave in this way is?
Me (quoting outlier):
Incidently, Sailorman and I have been discussion this very issue. Here’s Sailorman’s post (which quoted a comment by me in full), and My reply. Sailorman responded in the comments, and I responded to his response. That’s where we’re at, currently. Sailorman seemed to think it quite unfair of me to ask him to show that his theory about how men in power behave is actually how they do behave. He seems to think I should accept it as an article of faith.
I’ve seen it. I still don’t see why I should check my privilege.
Yes, I think it does.
While I agree with your points 1 and 3, I differ on point 2 in that I think IF they turn out to be comparable, the comparison will show that women are oppressed less.
But I don’t think them comparible. As far as I can see, that puts my position just a whisker away from yours. If you’re a feminist according to his definition, then I’m just a whisker away from it.
I don’t believe that Amp thinks I’m just a whisker away from being a feminist.
I want to look at this from multiple issues, political, social, economic.
Politically (in the Western countries) we have no rules which deny women the opportunity to run, indeed many women could and have run for seats. America is a little odd in the way that it elects people however most countries are pretty representative. We have experienced the reverse of this however (in the UK Labour forced all women short lists for seats [and incidentally lost seats], Conservative were thinking of forcing 50%+ female short lists and Lib Dem have suggested targeted recruitment). Is there a systematic discrimination in the political sphere or is it simply the will of the people?
Socially society implies rules, however many of these are deteriorating on both sides of the fence. Again I cannot see a systematic discrimination against women. Perhaps in the 50s when gender boundaries were much more defined but now most women can do what they wish to with the major thing holding them back being themselves (as a male I was told my school / career / uni choices were silly, I bucked the trend and took them any way and am doing fine).
Economically I cannot see a way that society discriminates, women are more likely to inherit wealth now, businesses tend to operate based on profit so if a female run company makes a product that is useful its likely to sell well. Studies also show that for similar job / career paths men and women are paid almost identically (last one I read was $1.02 for every $1 a man earned). Women do however tend to occupy more flexible / part-time or non-paid occupations bringing down the average wage.
Is there a clear example of systematic discrimination in each of these areas?
Decnavda wrote:
I agree and disagree.
I disagree with you that this analysis cannot be held up; I think that it’s possible for this analysis to lead to the conclusion that men are not oppressed as men, but poor men can be oppressed as poor men, American Indian men oppressed as American Indian men, etc..
I agree with you, however, that it’s kind of an awkward fit. It encourages people to say stuff like “he’s not being oppressed as a man, he’s being oppressed as Black.” But, as many feminists of color have argued, it’s inaccurate to think that identities can be parsed in that manner.
This, in my view, is an advantage of a “women and men are both oppressed by the gender system” analysis: I think that view may make it easier to talk about the intersections of gender, race, class and other factors, in a coherent and accurate fashion, when talking about victimized men.
I feel odd about the turn this thread has taken so far.
No particular person has digressed the thread in a particularly unfair or far-off fashion. And yet, only a dozen or so comments into it, I feel that much of the discussion has at best been tangential to the subject of the post.
So I’m not blaming or criticizing anyone; I’m just expressing my concern and hoping that people can keep it in mind.
Daran and Hugh, if you want to discuss my definition of feminism and how y’all fit into it — which is fine with me — here’s a good thread for that.
* * *
Chris, I’m not going to discuss every issue in the world with you here, but I will refer you to previous posts. Here’s my post about why more women aren’t elected; and here’s a bunch of posts about the wage gap. As you’ll see, there’s a lot of evidence that an unfair wage gap favoring men does exist, at least in the US. As for your statistic, it’s meaningless unless you can cite the study it comes from.
In the US, the usual wage gap comparison excludes both part-time workers and non-paid workers. So while it’s true that women are paid less because of these factors, that’s not at all reflected in the usual statistics we see about the wage gap.
Daran, responding to Outlier, wrote:
This isn’t a controlled social science experiment; we can’t look at how the non-patriarchal United States differs from the actual United States. Inherently, when talking about issues as broad as this, it’s going to be a matter of opinion more than evidence.
That said, there is some evidence that having more women in office does lead to more women-friendly laws. It’s also suggestive that Sweden — which has the highest percentage of women in the legislature in the world, iirc — also has some of the (imo) best laws in many areas of interest to feminists, from prostitution to family leave to same-sex marriage.
Looking through this, I think that I need to rethink and expand upon the idea of dominance/control. I think that who is in the ruling class (meaning not just politicians, but CEOs of major corporations, editors of the major news outlets, and other such positions) is an extremely important aspect of dominance and control in oppressive systems, but I don’t think it’s the only aspect.
I don’t feel able yet to put what I’m thinking about into words, however, so I’ll have to think about it some more.
I would like to draw your attention to the http://www.xyonline.net site, which has done an excellent job of deconstructing the mra’s rhetoric and motivates. In particular the work of Michael Flood is quite enlightening.
“motives”
Amp, interesting post.
I especially like the fact that there’s at least some link between the oppression and the ability of the oppressed to escape the oppression. i think that’s where a lot of people go wrong by ignoring that link; it’s often an important part of the distinction between oppression and plain old bad treatment. I sometimes think of it as a bad sports analogy. Oppressors are biased referees. And who are you going to complain to about that–the referees? Doesn’t work.
For anyone who’s interested, BTW, I’ve been arguing with Daran on a related subject. he didn’t summarize it that well though–a more accurate summary is that I’m taking the position that disenfranchisement of women was oppression, and he’s arguing against that. opinions are welcome at my blog.
Amp,
You’re defination seems rather broad. It would seem to include people under age 50, UFO enthusiasts, men with beards, neonazis, anyone with large numbers of body piercings, etc.
All of the above are underrepresented in positions of power and it isn’t hard to imagine a social context in which they would be systematically mistreated. Yet do you consider all of them “oppressed”?
Ballgame comes up with the astute question:
Because Paris Hilton, like the majority of girls and women, have been socialized to believe that they can’t go out at night, can’t walk around by themselves, can’t have conversations with strangers, can’t be sexually free, all because the Nameless Homeless Guy On The Street is used, via the very, very, very minute chance that he is a rapist, to put fear in women and to curb women’s actions.
If Paris Hilton were to meet Nameless Homeless Guy On The Street and he assaults her, 9:10 says that the first question to Ms. Hilton would be “why didn’t you know better” or maybe “why were you ever in a place that put you within close proximity of this man?” [which really just means: why didn’t you recognize that he is still a man, despite social role and class, and as such you are only a female body, regardless of social role and class, and therefore you are fuckable, rapable, and ultimately just an extension of the male phallus, regardless, again, of social role or class.]
Cites please.
Are you including childcare and housework in your “non-paid occupations”? If you aren’t, then you need to include it in the benefits packages men get for working the more rigid, highly paid, full-to-overtime jobs.
I’m going to advance an idea. I’m not sure if it is correct or not, but I want to see what people, particularly Hugh, Daran, and Amp think of it. I’m a sporatic reader and even more sporatic commentator on Feminist Critics. So I may have missed some critical piece of information. However, from what I have read, I suspect that Hugh and Daran have fallen for the oldest oppressor trick in the book: make sure that various victims of oppression hate each other more than they hate you. Then they’ll argue with each other rather than fighting the system that oppresses both.
Basically, I think that Daran and Hugh often identify ways in which patriarchy hurts men–the draft (or registration for the draft) being a classic example–but mistakenly blame feminists rather than the patriarchy* for the damage thus inflicted. Feminists often fall into the same trap and accuse men who complain about the ways in which patriarchy restricts and oppresses men of “whining”. I understand the temptation to do so–listening to men complain about their oppression as men** is a bit like listening to whites in the US complain about their oppression as whites: it just doesn’t sound likely–but I don’t think it is entirely fair either. Men are oppressed by the patriarchy. They are less oppressed by and get more benefits from it than women, but it has its downside for men too. So let’s get together on this, people. If all people are suffering, what does it matter who is suffering more? Drop the unequal laws, point out social inequalities, teach equality. Everyone benefits. If you then want to argue about who benefited more, well, have fun.
*”Patriarchy” and “feminists” are both rather nebulous and debatable terms, but I’m using them for lack of any better descriptors.
**As opposed to their oppression for being a member of an oppressed group. Being male is no protection against oppression on the basis of race, sexual preference, ethnic group, country of origin, size, religion, mental condition, or color of socks, of course.
Also like to point out that it’s more a pattern and regularity of the behavior and motivation for that behavior which distinguishes actual systematic oppression from incidental harms.
Many religious and misognist groups would like nothing better than for women to go back to the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant. It’s about systemic control. There is no equivalent for men.
Various cultures have never attempted to force men into only one genderized role as has been the case with women. For centuries, the only role considered appropiate on a wide scale was motherhood and housekeeper – baby maker and bed warmer for someone else. Wives could make and sell things, but only after their primary duties were completed. Little tolorance was shown for women who existed outside this parameter.
The mra’s know this, but somehow they are under the impression that the cumulative impact of history stopped yesterday. Today is a new day in their eyes, and isn’t it silly to think those abusive control freaks are continuing the pattern?
Personally, I think there are much better question which explore the underlying basis of oppression; off the top of my head: “do men dominate women’s life choices”, “what evidence do we have for this”, “what evidence do we have that men don’t do this”, “do women dominate men’s life choices”, etc.
The more I look at patterns and trends, etc, on a wide time scale in various societies, the answers become painfully obvious.
sorry, couldn’t think of a different phrase other than “abusive control freaks”, and I was referring to past patriarchal modes of justification for their legalized unequal treatment of women.
I still don’t see why I should check my privilege.
Is it still your belief that being male gives you no privilege at all?
While your own statement of your position in that discussion is correct, it doesn’t make mine inaccurate. As you say, you’re arguing that disenfranchisement of women was oppression and in support of that position you’ve been arguing that having men in positions of power (we’ve focussed on legislators, but the arguments apply generally) leads to policies which benefit men.
Having failed to restrict the discussion only to feminists, you will now have to endure comments from the most oppressive group on the web: neophytes!
I understand Amp’s post 1) to attempt to reconcile various comments about “oppression” by arguing that different people have used the term in different ways, and 2) to expound on one definition that supports the conclusion that patriarchy “oppresses” women but not men.
That strikes me as a fine academic exercise. I suspect we could craft definitions of oppression that would say that blacks are oppressed but not whites, that poor are oppressed but not rich, that people with certain types of bodies are oppressed but not people with other types, etc. And we could explore how all the dynamics of oppression based on gender differ from oppression based on race, etc.
But to what end? If the goal is to blame or criticize, I kinda see a purpose. And as Amp acknowledges, people seem animated by the idea that this discussion is intended to blame and criticize. But if it isn’t, what motivates it? For example, how would a new conception of oppression influence public policy? Can we say that a policy of drafting men but not women is justified based on the disparate types of oppression in Western society? Given that Sweden has elected a larger percentage of women into the legislature than other societies, could we say that the Sweden would be justified in adopting a different type of draft than other Western nations? Or something like that.
Of course, you needn’t alter your discussion for the benefit of an audience of neophytes; I realize you are primarily speaking to each other, not to me. But if you could throw in an occasional practical implication of your arguments, it would be more edifying to those of us in the bleachers!
That’s never been my belief. What I believe is that in general both men and women enjoy significant (but different) gender-privileges. Sustaining the view that women do not requires feminists to deny, dismiss, minimise and ignore male disprivilege, and to slander and victim-blame men.
In addition, I as an individual do not enjoy many of the claimed[*] male privileges for reasons which are gendered, but which are not solely due to gender. For example, I do not have a career of any kind. Nor am I able to enjoy the kinds of personal relationships which others take for granted. I therefore tend to get a bit irritated when women with high-powered careers and who do enjoy such relationships dismiss my concerns and demand that I acknowledge my (personally non-existant) privilege.
[*]Some of the the claims are valid, others aren’t, still others I am undecided about.
in general both men and women enjoy significant (but different) gender-privileges
And those privileges are equivalent, or at least offsetting, so that for every disadvantage men suffer women have a corresponding advantage and vice versa?
Daran, you do know that “high-powered” career women might just not be feminist, right?
How much feminist theory have you read? Who did you particularly like or dislike? Which theoretical framework looks like it is most sympathetic to your concerns about gender?
You do us all a disservice when you don’t know your feminist theory and you mistake the opinions of women for feminism itself. Further, without a career and without a significant relationship with any given female, what females (aka: feminists) are you actually talking to?
It’s like you’re looking at a fraction of the puzzle and pouting in your corner because some woman isn’t there to console you and *show* you where the rest of the missing pieces are.
I believe what Daran is saying is that because some women have privileges (neurotypicality, class privilege) that he doesn’t, they should not be suggesting he has male privilege, because their “net privilege” is greater than his.
Why are you frightening women by evoking images of them being attacked by homeless men, which you acknowledge is a very, very, minute risk?
As you say, this is a very unlikely scenario. Many more times – orders of magnitude – more likely is that the homeless guy will get the shit kicked out of him for being male and homeless.
It’s also misandrist. Feminists generally appear to be blind to their own prejudice, but it we just change the label it will become apparent:
“If Paris Hilton were to meet a Black Guy On The Street and he assaults her…”
Your efforts to portray Nameless Nomeless Guy as privileged in comparison to Paris Hilton is absurd, prejudiced, and smacks of desperation.
Daran, you completely missed my point. You’re not even close.
I’m not saying those things. I’m saying those things, those threats of action that really have a minute chance of happening, are a major socializing force in the lives of girls and women.
It’s akin to saying to all boys that they should become Jewish becuase they might get raped by a Catholic priest. Rather, it would be like forcing all boys to undergo circumcision as a Jewish rite in order to prevent the miniscule chance they have of being raped by a Catholic priest.
But we don’t do that to boys.
Instead, we raise our girls to use the fear and threat of rape as a social delimiter.
Again, it’s not feminists saying these things about men. It’s men saying these things to women about *other* men.
Nice reversal though.
more likely is that the homeless guy will get the shit kicked out of him for being male and homeless
By Paris Hilton?!
Hey, and at least the homeless guy won’t have his homemade porn splashed across the world for the hopeless titillation of the male masses. At least his privacy is intact.
“By Paris Hilton?!”
—————————–
No, by her bodyguards. Or anyone she could easily pay to do it.
That’s true, but women who aren’t feminists don’t generally claim to be disprivilaged in comparison to me.
However there are feminists who are doctors and lawyers posting to this very thread.
Not very much, I haven’t liked any of it, nor found much sympathetic to my concerns, (unless you count Adam Jones, who self-identifies as a dissident feminist. I’m not sure you’d agree).
I’m unimpressed with the “appeal to theory”. If theoretical feminism is the same as street-feminism, then my criticism of street-feminism applies to theoretical feminism too. If theoretical feminism is different from street-feminism, then the latter’s appeal to the former is void.
(This works both ways. I’m equally unimpressed by the antifeminist “proof by quotoid” attack on feminism: Famous feminist Jane Doe said “X Y Z”. Therefore feminism is horrible QED.)
I don’t think I do. Perhaps I’m mistaking the opinions of feminists for feminism. Am I wrong to?
You, at the moment.
I don’t believe the missing pieces (which would render the whole coherent) even exist.
Man, I disagree with almost everything Daran says, but this is a vile argument.
Yes, the dude sleeping on concrete and eating shit he dug out of a dumpster has it better than Paris Hilton, because although, hey, strangers may watch him piss in public because he doesn’t have any other option, and because hey, he may need to beg random passers-bye for enough money to get through the day, at least naked pictures he consensually took didn’t get leaked by an ex-lover!
He’s got way more privacy!
Why, I’ll bet she would trade places with him!
I’m saying those things, those threats of action that really have a minute chance of happening, are a major socializing force in the lives of girls and women.
But the question asked was, how does the homeless guy has a superordinate power relationship over Paris Hilton – not which of them had what socializing forces applied in childhood.
He doesn’t have a power relationship over her. She can kick his ass. She could probably beat him bloody in public at noon and walk away from it laughing – because her power and position in society are vastly superior to his.
I suppose you could make an argument that the socialization is so terrible and so crippling that it arises to the level of creating such functional female inferiority that even hopeless homeless guys are better off than even super-rich glam gals. But (a) we don’t see much evidence of that in the actual life performances of women, most of whom seem to be strong, intelligent, self-confident etc. with broadly the same distribution and variability we see in men, and (b) if it were true, it wouldn’t be an argument conducive to the notion that women have or deserve agency.
In other words, if ordinary genderized socialization has such an effect on Paris Hilton that it makes her comparatively powerless next to the most feeble specimen of male power, then feminism is a doomed project because women are grossly incompetent to handle independent life. My own observations of what women are like leads me to roundly reject that consequential argument. Women do OK; socialization puts them at a disadvantage in some areas, but the magnitude of that effect does not swamp all other considerations. Quite the reverse seems to be true – that effect is more often swamped by questions of class or inherent ability.
This may be a subject for another post, but I think it makes more sense to think of privilege as something that classes of people have, not individual people. So men as a class are privileged; being male is privileged. But individuals don’t “have privilege”; instead, they perhaps experience the results of privilege.
This is, I realize, a major departure from how feminist bloggers and others online talk about privilege, but I think it may be a more accurate and useful way of looking at how privilege operates in real life.
Amp writes:
“Flexible” doesn’t just mean “part-time” and “unpaid”.
Here’s an example — I work on projects where if I take off any time over a 2 or 3 year stretch of time, my replacement has to take several weeks or months to learn the project. I’ve worked other projects where if I was run over by a truck, the project would have been in a huge ditch, with little chance of recovering. That’s not very flexible.
There are other positions — full-time, paid positions — where the cycle times and learning curves are much shorter. Many of those positions are like commodities — a loaf of bread, bushel of wheat or gallon gasoline is just like all the others — and as with all commodities, the price is driven downward by market forces.
Women get driven into commodity work positions more than men, in large part I suspect, because women’s involvement, and thus continuity, in the workforce isn’t valued. Without the attributes of a non-commodity job, the wages are driven to whatever minimum level is supported by supply and demand. With theoretical full employment for women about 25% lower than it is for men, there is a large pool of ready candidates for any commodity work positions that are primarily occupied by women.
How is it vile?
That I’m using him the same way Paris Hilton gets used? Notice please, that even though this is a supposedly neutral and theoretical argument, the only theoretical person is the homeless man. Paris Hilton is real, these things are really happening to her. Yet you can reduce her to theory while bringing the in-theory homeless man into a fuller sense of human dignity. Funny that.
Paris is just another rich gash right? She gets what’s coming to her, that silly bitch. Why did she think her private sex acts were hers to own?
But that theoretical homeless man, damn he’s got it rough. He might have to theorectically piss in front of a theorectical general public. Oh, the shame.
And you say I’m vile.
You’re fucking comparing a real woman to a theoretical man, saying that her class trumps his gender. Obviously, quite freakin’ obviously, it doesn’t. This thread shows that. He’s not even real, but damn, he might need to piss in public. The shame of the naked willy. That poor, cold, homeless, unclean willy.
Paris Hilton might get to piss in private, but that seems to be about it. Otherwise, her sex, her body, her name — all part of the great public sphere. Men feel a right to jack off to her image because she *is* a rich gash, and just a stupid bitch for filming herself having sex.
Nah, no privilege for teh mens there.
but the magnitude of that effect does not swamp all other considerations
Nope. It’s interesting, though, that to present an example of “woman > man”, the example had to be so exaggerated: Paris Hilton vs. Homeless Guy. Stratospheric money and class privilege vs. bottom of the heap, so that we can pretend if any privilege can overcome the effects of gender privilege, then there is no such thing as gender privilege. The example’s not quite such a slam-dunk if it’s Recently Homeless But Now In Public Housing Woman vs. Homeless Man, or Community College Professor Woman vs. Factory Worker Man.
(Of course, if we’re going to point to outside threads, I’d note that Daran has such a sense of perspective on this issue that he refers to feminist arguments of privilege as “blood libel.” I’m sure the fact that he did so not long before Passover was completely unintentional, but it’s a reminder of why I quit blogging at CD.)
Mythago (quoting me):
No most likely by other men.
Q Grrl:
Until she decides that it would be cool to make a video showing her rescuing homeless guys.
But you both are right. When he’s getting the shit kicked out of him, he can take comfort from the fact that his attackers have penises just like him, and that the happy-slappy mobile footage they’re also taking isn’t pornographic.
Hey we need another privilege list: How homeless bums have it so much better than wealthy female celebrities.
Her power and position in society are null and void the moment he does sexually assualt or rape her. Then his homelessness and his namelessness become Paris Hilton’s responsibility, because in this society a woman who is raped or assaulted is guilty of consenting until she can prove that she didn’t consent. Once she’s raped, she’s just like any other woman. A thing to be fucked by men.
To clarify, so that nobody sees my earlier comment and attributes views to me I do not hold:
I agree with this completely.
—Myca
My “blood libel” analogy refers specifically to the idea that men are waging a war on women. As for Passover – yes, it was unintentional. I have next to zero knowledge of Jewish religious rites, holidays, or festivals. In fact, without looking it up, I couldn’t even say what Passover was about, let alone when it falls.
I may be ignorant about Jewishness, but I’m not antisemitic, and I object to the implication that I am.
In any case, my reference to my discussion with Sailorman was relevant to matters brought up here. This, by contrast has nothing whatsoever to do with anything here. Rather it appears to be an attempt at poisoning the well against me.
Ah, but now you want to switch from a personal and somewhat anecdotal critique of privilege to a class analysis of privilege. That, my friend, is why an understanding of feminist theory is highly relevant.
You seem to want the privilege to be relational, rather than the results of the privilege. Which blinds you to my criticism, which is: that despite all her social and class privilege, men, with their relative gender privilege, can always reduce Paris Hilton to her gash and what she puts inside it.
I wrote:
But perhaps they don’t, or they do but only occasionally or rarely. Being male or female is one aspect of a person, and an aspect that (on average) usually gives an advantage if you’re male or a disadvantage if you’re female.
But it’s still only one aspect. Other aspects of a person — aspects such as race, class, body type, etc., which we talk about a lot on “Alas,” and also things like inclinations, personalty, confidence, strength of character, talents, which we don’t talk about a lot — also have a lot to do with what happens to someone. You can’t just look at the fact that someone is “male” and reliably know much about his life, because although the class of people called “men” are privileged, how much any individual man benefits from privilege depends on many factors.
These discussion often wind up in places which ignore the idea of privilege accruing to classes, instead boiling things down to particular individuals; hence the perennial question, “what about Hilary Clinton/Paris Hilton/Meg Ryan versus a mentally disabled black man named Rupert sleeping in a gutter”? It’s pretty obvious to me that given the choice, I’d rather have Meg Ryan’s life than Rupert’s life; and that Meg’s life has many more “results of privilege” in it than Rupert’s. The most likely result of an altercation between Meg and Rupert is that Meg’s bodyguards beat up Rupert, after which any authority figures in the area will take Meg’s side.
But none of those differences are about male or female; they’re all about those other factors. The fact that Rupert has so many traits about him which, in a conflict with Meg Ryan, would prevent him from experiencing the results of male privilege, doesn’t mean that male privilege doesn’t exist or is always irrelevant. (And it doesn’t mean that Rupert, if he were an evil man on top of all his other traits, couldn’t rape with impunity and get away with it, if he selects a less well insulated victim than Meg Ryan.)
Something to bear in mind. This conversation uses the terms privilege and oppression to define the approximate poles of a discussion that addresses the relative benefits of men and women in society.
I made the distinction between measures of privilege as defined by measures of status and measures of oppression as determined by the power relation between men and women. Privilege and oppression are not necessary poles or end points on a continuum, but can operate in two separate dimensions.
The example,
can be interpreted in terms of a power relation as,
Pretty harsh words, but I am fairly certain that no reader here thinks that this is not a plausible scenario.
Someone may ask how much of that vitriol is the result of her politics and how much is the result of her gender? It’s debatable up to a point.
This type of behavior is the result of the age old power relation between men and women, a relation that has at its center a set of institutionalized normative behaviors that include violence and threats of violence against women by men. These behaviors extend from the top to the bottom of the class hierarchy. This power relation is deeply embedded in everything that occurs between men and women in society. It is the source of the oppression of women by men. It precedes and effects everything that follows from it, including privilege.
It is really about men’s use of violence as the ultimate form of oppression and control. Any discussion of the relative privilege of women and men, or men and men, or women and women within a class system must begin with a discussion of oppression.
A few links to make the point:
http://hrw.org/women/
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=20732&Cr=women&Cr1=violence
I didn’t said “flexible” means that.
He listed three factors — flexible, part-time and unpaid — which, in context, he implied were part of what causes the wage gap. I pointed out that two of those factors are excluded from the “wage gap” statistic people usually discuss.
I have next to zero knowledge of Jewish religious rites, holidays, or festivals.
Or, in fact, of what ‘blood libel’ actually refers to. I’m not sure how referring to a discussion you have had on the same issue (male vs. female privilege and feminist commentary thereon) on a blog referenced in the original post is supposed to be turning everyone against you in a dastardly fashion. Unless by ‘poisoning the well’ you mean ‘pointing out something I’ve said on the topic that people might find offensive’.
And it doesn’t mean that Rupert, if he were an evil man on top of all his other traits, couldn’t rape with impunity and get away with it, if he selects a less well insulated victim than Meg Ryan.
What’s with the Rupertism, Amp? ;)
The extra-bizarro thing about the Paris Hilton example is that in real life, when one is trying to isolate a causative factor, one tries to eliminate confounding factors. If you want to see whether house size results in a difference between groups A and B, you’d want to try to make groups A and B as alike as possible in all ways but house size. (Of course, it’s not always possible to do this, but that’s the goal.)
So if we’re really trying to figure out whether there is such a thing as gender privilege, we’d be comparing Paris Hilton vs. Kevin Federline, or Homeless Rupert vs. Homeless Rupertina.
Can we please stop?
I mean, shit, can’t we all concede that Paris Hilton (god i hate to talk about her) is way, way, more privileged than essentially everyone else on the planet, because gender privilege isn’t the only type of privilege out there that accrues to individuals and Paris is insanely rich, white, and famous? can’t we say “yes Daran, you have managed to list a single example of PEOPLE who are differently privileged from what one would generally expect. but since that says shit-all about privilege in general, can we move on?”
Q Grrl, if you really think that nameless homeless guy (regardless of his race, if he’s mentally disabled, etc) can rape any woman and the woman will be blamed, then I think you’re badly underestimating or whitewashing the impact that factors like class (and, perhaps, ablism and race) have on how people are treated in society.
It’s true, of course, that many women are raped and then blamed for the rape. It happens all the time. But it’s also true that there are rapes that nearly everyone, even misogynist men, are willing to label as rape; these usually are cases in which the rape is taking place across lines of class or race or mental illness.
Suggesting that the homeless guy is well off compared to Paris Hilton because he’s not a celebrity with a porn scandal was a bad idea; it implies that you don’t take class, or any kind of oppression other than gender oppression, seriously. It’s not necessary to minimize and dismiss the disadvantages of being homeless in order to talk about male privilege.
The example’s not quite such a slam-dunk if it’s Recently Homeless But Now In Public Housing Woman vs. Homeless Man, or Community College Professor Woman vs. Factory Worker Man.
Quite true, it’s not. That’s why the extreme case is used – to demonstrate that as a matter of logic, it is in fact a slam dunk that gender privilege is one factor among many. We usually prove arguments with the strongest case we have, rather than with the weakest.
Her power and position in society are null and void the moment he does sexually assualt or rape her.
For this to be true, the rates of convictions for crimes committed against rich and connected women would have to be the same as the rates of convictions for crimes committed against poor and helpless women. Are they?
Then his homelessness and his namelessness become Paris Hilton’s responsibility…
This makes no sense to me; perhaps there is some here-unarticulated logical thread behind it?
because in this society a woman who is raped or assaulted is guilty of consenting until she can prove that she didn’t consent.
Nah. While it is objectionable in the extreme that the sexual behavior of women alleging rape all too often makes it onto the list of questions to be considered in a courtroom, “consenting” is not a crime and it is not possible to be guilty of things which are not crimes.
It’s rhetorically satisfying to frame it this way, of course. But it isn’t logically compelling to anyone not already inhabiting the frame.
I couldn’t possibly agree more.
The problem is that there is a school of thought that says that if you are the oppressed, you are the oppressed, period, and thus there’s no such thing as a situation where X oppresses Y in this situation and Y oppresses X in this different situation.
You see it a lot in discussions of transgender issues, for example, folks who are so invested in their identity as ‘the oppressed’ that they can’t see the privilege they express over transfolks.
—Myca
That’s why the extreme case is used – to demonstrate that as a matter of logic, it is in fact a slam dunk that gender privilege is one factor among many.
As a matter of logic, the same example could be used to show that gender privilege is such a huge factor that a woman needs to be Paris Hilton and a man needs to be Rupert the Homeless Guy before his gender privilege is canceled out.
That’s not a counterargument I agree with, myself; but it’s no less valid than the deliberate implications of the example, namely that gender is either insignificant, or is no more significant than any other factor.
I think that this is a common consequence, though not an inevitable one, of the concept that all other prejudices grow out of sexism. If sexism and misogyny is ‘the top’, who cares what subordinate oppressions might come into play? I’ve got the trump card!
Now, like I said, I don’t think that it’s an inevitable consequence of that concept, and I don’t even necessarily disagree with the original concept, but I sure disagree with the conclusion, and it’s sure something I’ve seen a heck of a lot.
—Myca
That’s not what I’m saying though. I’m saying that Paris Hilton can be raped by any man, regardless of his class, etc., and still be held responsible for her rape. Her class does not insulate her from our rape culture.
Well, thanks for putting words into my mouth Amp. That’s not my position, which I’m sure you’re aware of. I never freakin’ said the theoretical homeless man was well off. I did say, in ways less eloquent than Michael above, that Paris Hilton’s privilege means less is the face of any theoretical violence (aka, rape) that this theoretical homeless man is willing to use against her.
I’m not minimizing jack about anything. And for the record I’m not talking about male privilege. I’m talking about how men can reduce women’s privilege to the sub-human level easily and effectively in our society.
Homeless guy is theoretical. Paris Hilton lost a great deal of privacy to wankers because of her ex-boyfriends distribution of a home video.
wow, my comments are getting really weirdly cropped. Anyone else having that issue?
some of my paragraphs above are out of order. Le sigh.
Agreed!
I also wish that there was more discussion of context! I don’t at all think that gender is insignificant, or is no more significant than any other factor . . . but I’ll tell you, random white woman X has way more ‘driving a car in a nice neighborhood’ privilege than random black dude Y.
And he has more ‘walking the streets at night’ privilege.
And she probably has more ‘getting a loan’ privilege.
I just wish that the concept that X trumps Y trumps Z would fucking die. I don’t see why it’s useful except in a masturbatory sense.
Does anyone see a problem with this?
How about: “A white person’s power and position in society are null and void the moment a black person sexually assaults or rape them.”
There are two problems here. Firstly there is the framing of a homeless guy or a black as default perpetrators, both of which reinforce prejudice. Secondly, Q Grrl, having earlier complained about women being socialised into fear, is the one peddling it. (She’s not the only feminist to do this).
If feminists really were concerned about the (very real) widespread fear of being attacked while outside, why do they feed that fear Shouldn’t they be drawing women’s attention to the fact that they are far less likely to be attacked than men?
Q Grrl:
Yeah, and if cheese fell out of the sky like manna from heaven it would devastate the dairy industry.
You’re postulating a “what if” scenario, while ignoring the fact that Spears’ privilege means that she never need even see a homeless person, if she doesn’t want to, let alone be exposed to the (miniscule) risk that they might assault her.
Yo, you’re all smokin’ crack now.
I’m not the one to posit the homeless man vs. Paris Hilton thing. Have a good day.
It’s not theoretical. HE’s not theoretical, and that’s why it’s vile.
I walk past a fairly large number of homeless men with much less privacy than Paris Hilton each day.
Don’t like the analogy?
How about:
I walk past a fairly large number of homeless men with much less privacy than anyone with a house with fucking walls each day.
If the Paris Hilton and the homeless guy proves that women and men are equally victims of gender prejudice, doesn’t OJ Simpson prove that whites and blacks are equally victims of racism? How about Henry “power is the ultimate aphrodisiac” Kissinger. Does his existence and power prove that Jewish people are really the beneficiaries from anti-semitism? Or do all these examples simply prove that society is complex and that there are multiple confounding factors such that no given person can be definitively said to be less powerful than any other based on a single characteristic (race, gender, ethnicity, etc.)?
Right on.
Obviously, if you read this thread, a lot of people do. And they’ve brought up far better reasoned responses than anything you wrote in this post.
I usually dislike the “replace the word _____ with the word ‘black'” mode of criticism. I’ve been meaning to post about what’s wrong with it for ages. Anyway, unless race and gender are identical in regard to how men/whites and women/blacks are treated in society, especially regarding the particular issue of sexual assault, then this particular comparison will tend to confuse rather than clarify the discussion.
No one here has said or implied that homeless men are “default perpetrators.”
I don’t think that the comparison you bring up is legitimate, because for it to be legitimate we’d have to assume that all attacks are equal; for example, that a simple assault — say, being punched in a bar — is the same as a woman being raped by her husband in import or impact.
If it’s not the case that all assaults are equal, then simply counting up the number of assaults is not very meaningful. (Also, I don’t think it’s true that men are “far less likely” to be attacked, but that’s not very important because the whole comparison is meaningless.)
Regarding “If feminists really were concerned…,” are you aware that you frequently make these sort of personal attacks on the integrity and honestly of feminists when you debate feminists, or is it unconscious on your part? In either case, I’m asking you as a moderator to stop doing that while you’re posting comments on “Alas.”
Also, if we take your argument seriously, we’d come to the conclusion that feminists should never discuss bad things that happen to women at all, since doing so could conceivably increase someone’s fear. That would be a ridiculous outcome. I do agree that feminists should not be screaming “LIVE IN FEAR!!!!” at women, but I don’t agree that a fairly academic discussion of privilege on a blog is the equivalent of screaming “LIVE IN FEAR!!!”
Exactly! This is a lot of what I was trying to say in comment #50, but you’ve put it better (and much more succinctly) than I did.
Q Grrl (quoting me):
Mea culpa. What I should have said was “How homeless bums have it so much better than Paris Hilton”.
(The bum in this case is a hypothetical representative of homeless bums as a class, but the celebrity is one particular celebrity.)
Here’s what you said earlier on in this subdiscussion (quoting ballgame):
My bold. You were defending a claim which was explicitly relational. By all means withdraw from that position if you wish, but don’t pretend that you were really arguing something else, and I’m being blind to it.
I can’t respond properly to your new claim until you tell me what you mean by “men”. Men generally? Men collectively? Some men? All men? And how do they do this? By viewing her porn video? Pardon me for thinking that Paris Hilton carries on being Paris Hilton regardless of who watches her video.
I mean Hilton’s
What the hell? He is of course theoretical. He’s a made-up discussion point for the purpose of this thread.
If he’s not theoretical, call him by name. Like you’re doing with Paris Hilton.
If you want to treat this non-existant arguing point as a full flesh human being then quit fuckin’ using Paris Hilton. Just say “rich woman” instead.
Damn but ya’ll are dense.
Daran: can you explain how my critique of how fear is used against women is the same as promoting that fear. You’ve really lost me on that one.
Q Grrl to Daran
Which bit of feminist theory would justify the notion that a homeless man (and this is personal, by the way, I’ve been homeless myself for quite long periods of time) is, by virtue of being male, more powerful than a woman with millions? Which bit of feminist theory would predict that if a homeless man were caught raping a rich celebrity he would be acquitted on the grounds that the celebrity was a woman and therefore, in the patriarchy’s view, deserved everything she got? Which bit of feminist theory would justify you in holding two mutually contradictory positions: that on the one hand the fear of rape is unjustified – a delusion fostered by the patriarchy to keep women in their place, and that on the other hand the fear of rape is perfectly justified – given that if the perpetrator gets caught he will automatically be acquitted?
I ask because I’ve been debating with Ampersand (on FCB ) what I regard as an evasive tactic practised all too frequently by feminists who should know better: non-specific appeals to feminist theory as a way of defending otherwise indefensible positions (“Feminist 101ing”). He seemed unconvinced that it was much of a problem on Alas.
I also think that the ‘trading places’ thought experiment might be useful here.
That is, if we believe that members of class X always have more privilege than members of class Y, then in any given situation, any rationally acting member of class X would be willing to swap places with any member of class Y.
It’s fairly easy to disprove, because it’s ludicrously easy to identify a woman/black person/poor person/disabled person who would be unwilling to switch life circumstances with a man/white person/wealthy person/able-bodied person.
That doesn’t claim at all that being female, black, poor, or disabled has no connection to oppression, of course, or that being male, white, wealthy, or able bodied carries no privilege. It’s just that as many many folks have articulated, it’s complex, and you can have a lot of privilege in one area without missing that you’re oppressed in another . . . and simplistic reductions are not helpful.
Personal attacks like this one are against both the “Alas” rules and the specific rules I wrote for this thread. Please don’t do it again.
Tom, your claim was that people frequently say “it’s feminism 101” as a substitute for making arguments and answering questions. Q Grrl has done no such thing; she has engaged with Daran’s arguments and answered his points. (That I don’t always agree with her arguments doesn’t change the fact that she has made arguments). Her asking Daran what feminist theory he’s read was in addition to, not instead of, her making arguments.
Your new position, it seems, is that it’s always wrong for feminists to ask what feminist theory the person they’re debating with has read, regardless of circumstances and regardless of if they’ve been making other comments. That’s nonsense.
Also, in general, the tone of your comments to Q Grrl seemed more like unfriendly interrogation than discussion (you could say the same thing about Q Grrl’s questions to Daran — but unlike Q Grrl, you haven’t contributed anything else to this discussion), and as you yourself admit, you’re only posting to this discussion to score points regarding a debate you and I had elsewhere.
If you want to continue the discussion we were having on “Feminist Critics,” by all means continue it, but do so there — or, if you want to do so on “Alas,” use an open thread. But if you continue posting on this thread (and I invite you to), please try and contribute to the subject at hand.
No one said this.
Amp, it’s not a personal attack if you guys are being deliberately dense. But yeah, your blog and all that good stuff. If you prefer sophmoric reading comprehension and “debate” have at it. I, personally, think it is dense and irratating.
And this is a tactic practiced all too frequently by Daran and you: There is one feminist on this thread who is making that point. Here–as usual–you’re trying to attack “feminists” and, by default, “feminism” by anecdotes or experience with a single feminist.
that, of course, is ludicrous.
Show me where I said this.
But if you wish to explore it, both Susan Brownmiller and Susan Griffith are good places to start. Audre Lorde too.
Q Grrl, if you had said “I think you’re pretending to not understand my point in order to score cheap debate points,” or “you’re being disingenuous,” or something else that actually means “you guys are being deliberately dense,” then I would not have objected.
But that’s not what you said, and you know it. You said that the other posters here are dense. That’s all you said. It was a personal insult, and it doesn’t belong on “Alas.”
How can a man consider himself a feminist critic when he hasn’t even read feminist theory?
The mind boggles. It boggles at the density of ignorance and privilege all wrapped up together.
Maybe ya’ll should take on quantum mechanics with the same negligence and intellectual laziness. Or congressional law. Or theology.
Okay, how about ‘disabled black veteran dude who slept in the doorway outside my last job and cried as people walked past’ or ‘guy rooting through the trash for aluminum cans to recycle’ or ‘guy who pees in the alley on the way to my job and who gets hassled by the police on a daily basis, and who (I’m sure) would really like to not have his entire life on display, but doesn’t have the option of hiring bodyguards, suing anyone, or even closing any doors.’
I don’t have full names, but hopefully that will help you to discuss in a non-theoretical way.
—Myca
Tom,
The “privilege” that’s used in feminist discourse is not the kind of privilege that’s reflected by the size of your bank account.
Here’s what’s meant — if you get off the street and go into a store, you will be treated better, in many instances, than a woman of similar class, etc. Even if you later wind up back on the street, and then again get back off the street, this will be true.
Your advantages as a male cannot be lost by virtue of losing your job. They are something you get because you are male and short of becoming a female, you can never get rid of what you get just for showing up and being male.
For it to be non-theoretical, you will need to name an actual homeless man. And then compare him to Paris Hilton.
Otherwise all it is, is speculative. You know, the other meaning of “theorectical”.
Myca writes:
Use Patrick. A somewhat mentally disabled guy who used to sleep under near the Exxon station by my house.
Every couple of months he’d get his act together and get a job doing landscaping work. Then, whatever it is that’s his disability, he’d wind up back on the street, living up my end of town because it’s safer to live on the street where I live due to the lower population density.
I’ve bought him shoes, cooked him breakfast, and driven him around town a bit. I’ve not seen him up my way in a year or two, so perhaps he’s finally gotten stabilized.
I don’t know the name of the more colorful street people, like the man who flies a sign that reads “Why sleep in a $200K when you can sleep under a $20M bridge?”
For it to be non-theoretical, you will need to name an actual homeless man. And then compare him to Paris Hilton.
Setting a bar that is too high to meet is not a useful discussion tool. It’s a way to shut down discussion.
Besides, I just named three actual, specific homeless men. If you do not share my frame of reference, you should not have asked for specific people you would likely not be familiar with. I can make up names for them, if it will help you.
This is why people have theoretical discussions. “Random homeless dude #5” was under discussion because that’s someone all of us can identify, unless we’re so very insulated from the world around us that we can’t have a discussion of ‘a homeless guy’ because that conjures no useful images. ‘Paris Hilton’ was similarly under discussion because that’s someone all of us can identify, because she’s a celebrity.
—Myca
*******EVERYONE READ THIS*******
As I understand it, many people on this thread thought that Q Grrl was defending a position that Tom described thusly:
Q Grrl has clarified that this is not what she was saying. (Please don’t respond by explaining why you think that was what Q Grrl was saying. Even if you think it was once reasonable to think that was her position, it has now ceased to be reasonable to think so.)
I think the entire homeless person vs. Paris Hilton discussion, though no single individual’s fault, has become a “poison pill” digression to this discussion. (I say this even though it’s clear that I contributed to this digression as much as anyone else.)
Therefore, I am telling EVERYONE TO DROP THE PARIS HILTON VS HOMELESS MAN SUBJECT, AND ALL VARIATIONS OF IT. I want to try and return this thread to a more productive area of discussion.
I’ll wait a little while to allow for cross-posting; after that, I’m going to start deleting comments that continue that particular discussion.
Look, don’t fuckin’ put Paris Hilton in scare quotes. She’s not theorectical.
You have yet, that I can see, put out people’s real names in conjunction with Paris Hilton. Until you do, it’s theorectical.
Actually, no, please keep putting Paris Hilton in scare quotes.
You prove my point soundly.
Ampersand (quoting me):
I wouldn’t say it was “a lot”. At the time I was writing the above, nobody had objected either to that quote, or to Q Grrl’s rather grotesque argument generally. As far as I can see, besides myself, only Robert has challenged the precise quote (on different grounds), while only Myca has pointed to the general objectionableness of her argument. (I appreciate his doing so.) But the thread is fast moving, and perhaps I missed others also doing so.
The rest of your comment is a content-free snipe.
I don’t agree that analogies have to be identical. They have to be similar in all pertinent respects. In this case the stereotyping of men (in particular creepy men who live on the streets) as molesters is similar to the stereotyping of blacks as the same.
In any case, isn’t sauce for the goose also sauce for the gander? Dianne has made a comparison with race: “listening to men complain about their oppression as men** is a bit like listening to whites in the US complain about their oppression as whites”.
Dianne’s analogy fails because there is a pertinant differences. Nobody says “Albinarchy hurts whites too”, because, basically, it doesn’t. But there are real problems for men which feminists deny, dismiss, etc.
Yet you raise no objection to Dianne’s comparison.
Nor did the film industry say that blacks were default rapists and muggers, when they were casting blacks predominantly in those roles.
Why has this homeless man been cast as a rapist? He wasn’t introduced into the discussion as one. Do you see no predudice being played to here?
The risks and consquences of domestic violence have no bearing upon whether her fear of being assaulted by a homeless man, or more generally, of being assaulted outside by a stranger is well-founded, so this is a Red Herring.
Men are much more likely to be murdered, and, if assaulted, more likely to be seriously injured than women. I can dig out a cite for you if you need one.
Permit me to rephrase the point: Why do we not see feminist campaigns aiming to allaying women’s fears about going out?
(I would also add that I see plenty of attacks on my integrity as an individual, and feminists including you attack the integrity of critics of feminism generally, so I wonder if there isn’t a “one rule for them; another for us” in operation here.)
I do not agree that “if we take [my] argument seriously we’d come to [that] conclusion”. It’s quite legitimate for me to point to a disconnect between feminists stated goals (relieving women from the burdens imposed upon them by the Patriarchy) and their (lack of) action (failing to make efforts to allay those fears, even though they are unfounded). I could also point out that feminist actions in this regard are consistent with other possible goals, such as fomenting hatred towards men.
Would it be against to rules for me to do this? It’s pretty much the same technique you use when criticising, for example, anti-abortion arguments.
The same way that a man can be a street-fighter without ever studying martial arts.
I don’t need to have studied mathematics to know that a proof which contains the statement 2+2=5 is bogus.
If it had been just the single feminist on this thread, then Tom could never have commented about it on FCB, could he?
The things we criticise feminists for, are things we see time and time again.
Yes, I agree, Diane’s comparison would have been better not made, for similar reasons I think your comparison would have been better not made.
I disagree with the implication that I’m required to respond to each and every instance of logical fallacy X that occurs in a discussion on “Alas,” or else it’s illegitimate to respond to any of them.
I’m not responding to further iterations of the Paris Hilton discussion, for obvious reasons.
You’ve shifted your claim. Yes, many more men are murder victims than women, and men are more likely to be injured in an assault. But there are vastly more female rape victims than male murder victims, and for that matter quite possibly more male rape victims than male murder victims.
Because feminists haven’t seen that as the most pressing priority. Feminists do not have infinite resources.
There is indeed a double standard on “Alas,” as I’ve explained to you more than once in the past. As an MRA, or anti-feminist, or whatever the heck it is you’re calling your “I do virtually nothing with my time but attack feminists” position, there are about a billion forums available for you to smear feminists, demonize feminists, lie about feminists, and so forth. “Alas” is not one of them. If you can’t deal with that, then you’re free to go away.
This argument might hold some water, if it were not possible that you and many feminists might have a good-faith disagreement about what the burdens imposed on women by the patriarchy are, and which ones should be prioritized. If, however, such a good-faith disagreement is possible, then it seems likely that feminists’ “lack of action” in this one, single, narrow area doesn’t reflect a lack of sincerity, but just a failure of feminists to march in lockstep with Daran’s thinking.
Edited to add: Also, you weren’t criticizing feminist action in a general fashion. You were criticizing someone for bringing up a particular argument on this particular thread, and saying that for them to have brought up the argument on this thread is encouraging fear. That’s a ludicrous argument.
Yes, to say that would be against the rules of “Alas.” Say it again — even in an indirect way, such as the way you said it here — and you’re banned from this thread.
Daran writes:
Granted, a street fighter can fight without ever having taken martial arts. But unless you’ve studied, or at least have practical experience with, martial arts, you just can’t criticise it.
Your criticisms of feminists are just … weird. If you don’t understand what a term of art like “privilege” means, you bound to come up with these weird comparisions that have nothing to do with what “privilege”, as a feminist term of art, means.
Surely you jest. Surely.
Ever hear of “Take Back the Night”?
Also, read my threads about rape culture.
Daran:
The more I read you, the more it becomes obvious that you only critique what you think feminist might say. You’ve not read feminist message boards or blogs. If you had, you’d not be able to pull off the “feminists aren’t doing anything to allay fear.”
Amp, the fact that you didn’t catch that and set him straight is appalling. Especially with your comment about feminist limited resources.
What the hell? Has everyone forgotten what feminism is and what it’s doing?
This, Amp, goes beyond dense. This is being obtuse for the sake of… what? I dunno.
Q Grrl, good point about Take Back The Night. I was being obtuse.
(I’m sure that you’ve never in your life had a momentary brain fart; I’m not so lucky.)
Can you please provide a link to your “threads about rape culture”?
outlier:
Me:
Ampersand:
If our theories aren’t at least in some way based on reality, then we might as well be arguing about dancing angels on a pin.
For a start, can you identify a single issue on which men’s interests generally and women’s interests generally don’t in fact coincide? I’m talking about men’s real interests here, not their feminist-theoretical interest in having every woman on the planet in terror of rape.
On the other hand, they may have a greater or more direct interest in a thing. Let’s call these women’s and men’s interests respectively. Can you identify a single act of legislation or government that disfavours women’s interests other than those based on conservative sexual morality?
Can the theory that powerful men “shape the world according to these preferences, to the benefit of men and the detriment of women” explain why the less vulnerable women were given priority over the more vulnerable men in the 1993 evacuation of Srebrenica? (Two years later, all the men were massacred.) Can it explain why the 1930 convention on forced labour prohibited the exploitation of women, but permits the exploitation of men?
My theory that powerful people of whatever sex “shape the world according to gender norms which often benefit women” explains both these things.
I think you realise the difficulty when you say ‘suggestive’. Your theory (at least, the theory you’re defending here) predicts that the vote will split on gender lines with respect to these issues. Mine that it will along political lines, (since political consituencies often have different gender-norms). Your linked site shows that among US legislators it split on political lines. In particular, the Republican women sponsored no women-friendly laws at all. Also some things classed as women-friendly were just generally progressive (such as gay rights).
At best, your cite stands for the propostion that female Democratic legislators are more progressive than male Democratic legislators. Unfortunately we haven’t progressed far enough to recognise the idea that men’s needs matter.
I don’t know about Sweden. What the betting that, in enacting (or blocking) ‘women-friendly’ legislation, the votes were split along political rather than gender lines?