The other day, I was at a theater event for the amazing San Jose Repertory Theater. If you live close enough, and have enough money to get tickets, I strongly suggest that you support them. They present consistently good work that borders on genius at least a couple times a season. Their new work, particularly, is often striking; for instance, they produced the world premiere of my favorite play, Las Meninas, which was a historical speculation on a possible love affair between the wife of France’s Louis XIV and an enslaved African dwarf who was brought to her at court. I don’t see evidence of it having been produced since, which is, in my opinion, a travesty. The Rep has really good deals on ticket prices for students and teachers, too, by the way, so check it out.
I arrived early for the show. My fiance and I went to the bar to have drinks with some acquaintances of his from his hometown, who I’d met before, but only briefly. We were also joined by a woman who owns a vineyard in Northern California, which she works herself. I knew her a little bit through the memoir poetry she publishes occasionally online under a psuedonym, and we’d exchanged emails, but I’d never met her before.
She — let’s call her Joanne — was glorious. She was six feet two inches tall, tan and broad-shouldered. She wore a hand-made coat, pieced together from scraps of bright fabric, over black slacks. She held her head down at a forty-five degree angle, which made it easier for me to look her in the eye. My fiance said that it made her look a bit dismissive. Her mouth had a natural downturn. When she greeted us, she skipped the conversational niceties about the weather and the play we were about to see, and started talking immediately about the sexual subtext in a book of poetry written by a mutual acquaintance.
I liked her immediately.
Now, my fiance’s friends are good folk, and I’ve enjoyed talking to them the few times that I’ve seen them, but when the conversation turned to feminism, I wasn’t surprised to see the male half of the couple start to stir in his seat. He crossed and uncrossed his arms, and spent a lot of time clearing his throat. Joanne spoke very bluntly about something that had been running through the feminist blogs — I think it was the video of the honor killings that was featured on I Blame the Patriarchy, and which I linked to the other day.
Toby set down his drink with a loud clatter and said, “You know what really bothers me is we never talk about how men are affected in third world countries. Men are circumcized too, you know.”
My fingers froze around my glass. Likewise, my smile froze.
It’s not that I’m non-confrontational in person, but well… it’s never fun. I have a whole set of submissive behaviors which I learned to emulate in college, because I found it made people more likely to listen to me, and less likely to get angry at a woman with opinions. I smile and I say “umm…” a lot, and I generally act like a ditz while I ramble through a complicated political thought, as if to suggest — hey! I just thought of this, and if it’s coherent, then it’s probably a fluke. I do this with most strangers I meet. It’s like the heavy makeup and frilly dresses I wear, partially in apology for my large body. There are a lot of ways in which I don’t conform to femininity’s norms, being fat and opinionated and – frankly – smart. I have survival strategies to compensate for that.
My smile frozen, I cut my glance over to Joanne. She met my eye and laughed. She threw up her hands. “I can’t handle this,” she said to Toby, with a tone that suggested ‘this’ translated to ‘your assininity.’ “I’m going to stretch my legs.”
I smiled and ducked my head and started in with my, “Well… you know, it’s just that if you really look at the surgeries of female circumcision and male circumcision… umm… it’s kind of misleading to call it circumcision at all, you know? Some anthropologists call it female genital surgeries, because it’s pretty different. The thing is…”
And the shy thing, the break-it-down simply thing, the I’m not threatening see-my-head-tilt thing — seemed to make the information non-intimidating enough that Toby accepted it. I even heard him repeat the argument to someone else later, which is usually a good sign. So, score one for that.
But me, I was developing a healthy admiration for Joanne.
“I really like her,” I said to my fiance as we drove home.
“Hm,” said my fiance. “She’s kind of… grumpy.”
“Really?” I said. “She didn’t strike me as grumpy.”
“Maybe she’s kind of grumpy with men.”
I thought about it. “I think she’s just grumpy with ‘what about the men?!'”
“Not just then. I felt like I had to watch myself with her.”
“Huh,” I said.
We got home. We went about dinner and television and work and whatever else. I kept chewing on the afternoon’s events. Later, I phoned an activist friend of mine who lives in NYC. As I repeated the incident, I figured out why I’d been thinking about it so much.
“I really love grumpy women,” I said. “I love it that she can just throw up her hands and walk away. I love that she doesn’t NEED his approval. I love it when feminists can say ‘screw you, we’re working for ourselves.'”
“Repeating yourself is part of being an activist,” said my friend.
“Oh, I know,” I said. “But… I just really respect women who are sick of it.”
“Why? Is it because it suggests she’s already done it a lot?”
“No… I’m not sure…” I considered. “It’s because…” I trailed off, thinking.
This is what I wanted to say to my friend on the phone, if I could have found the words in time:
It’s because we’re women. We’re supposed to be tolerant, and submissive, and kind, and to be willing to reanalyze every goddamned thing because a man has questioned it. It takes real strength to be able to just say ‘fuck it.’ It takes a willingness to throw out every piece of training you have, to risk disapproval and dismissal and marginalization.
And isn’t that every bit as important as making a point about female circumcision to a man who has probably heard the arguments before, and who has no power in and of himself to stop female circumcision? Sure, it’s important for someone to tell Toby that he’s making an ass of himself when he compares two non-analogous procedures in an attempt to undermine feminism and recenter himself on the stage of conversation. But it’s also important to show him that women are not what he thinks we are.
It’s important for women to be strong, and grumpy, and important, and conceited, and walking out, and fed up, and confident in themselves. Women are what we are. Toby needs to see that.
And more — we women need to see that. Feminism isn’t just about showing non-feminists what sexism is, it’s also — to borrow a phrase from a man I saw speak at Wiscon — about decolonizing our minds. He was talking about decolonizing black minds, but it’s important to decolonize women’s minds, too. The feminist conversation isn’t just about external change, but also internal possibilities. When I see Joanne walk out with her hands thrown up, I thrive.
I thrive on reading Ginmar and Twisty and Amanda Marcotte, all women who brook no crap from the anti-feminists who are enraged by the presence of strong women. Amanda Marcotte laughs at them. Ginmar rages at them. Twisty brushes them aside with sly dismissal.
Don’t get me wrong. I have great respect for feminists like — say — The Happy Feminist (may she someday return to us) who argue quietly and calmly with each incoming interlocutor, assuming that they argue in good faith. I respect that, and I support that, and I think the Happy Feminist was an inspiration.
But let us never turn this into some kind of zero sum game, where there’s a right answer to how feminists should act. We should act in many different ways, and there will be both value to and problems in all of our different actions. I am a woman who frequently, in real life, uses femininity as a way to make myself heard and tolerated. And I am a woman who is strongly inclined toward certain aspects of femininity, such as community-building, and yes, even skirt-wearing since I hate the physical sensation of wearing pants. And of course, I’m masculine in other ways, even if I would probably not feel comfortable enough to throw up my hands at a valued acquaintance and walk out of the room. There’s room for me, and also room for acknowledging the awesomeness of women who are more comfortable either in more masculine or more feminine roles. Acknowledging them should never threaten my sense of my own value, because there is room for all of us in our own diversity. That’s what it means for women to be full people; there will be myriad ways to be a ‘right’ woman.
I admire grumpy women. I admire grumpy women even when they make men uncomfortable, or perhaps especially when they make men uncomfortable. In a way, I even value the men’s discomfort, because of what it means — it means that here is a woman who does not prioritize men’s comfort. How transgressive is that? How wonderful is that?
This is true when the men have done something unintentionally assinine, as Toby did. It’s also true when the men haven’t done anything particularly assinine. If it makes a man uncomfortable to hear a woman say “I hate men,” then fair enough. There is still value in the transgressive act of a woman who has chosen not to make male comfort her priority.
Again, this is part of life not being a zero sum game. The woman may have done wrong. I may disagree with what she did. I may think it was a big problem that she pissed this particular man off, in this particular way. And at the same time, there will still be a value — whether outweighed, or not — in her simply existing for a moment outside the frame of her gender role.
I value black people who make me uncomfortable for the same reason. My discomfort is important. It is part of shaking the system. As a white woman, I am often discomfitted by men; why should they never be discomfitted by me? As a white woman, I am sure I often discomfit black people. Why should I be sheltered?
Grumpy women are transgressive. And important.
And I love them.
How about substituting “strong” or “self-confident” for “grumpy”?
I have great affection for snarky women, which I think is kind of similar.
I think “grumpy” is the perfect word. It is the exact opposite of “pleasant” and “happy”, which women are always supposed to be.
Go grumpy women!
Lets lead with the chin.
The ‘grumpy’ woman was wrong to raise the issue and then walk off in a huff when someone trying hard to participate in the conversation makes a stupid comment showing their ignorance on the subject.
It was the perfect opportunity for her to educate the person on the issue. Instead, she belittled the person by walking off; made them feel small; and tried to ruin an evening on the town. This was a topic she raised, she should have been willing to converse on it.
At least the author explained the facts of the situation to the person. Three cheers for that. No American is for ‘female genital mutiliation’ once they are educated on the subject.
I was disappointed in how she changed her demeanor to answer the question. As in:
How fustrating it must have been for the other person to have his comment taken so badly.
It is the verbal equivalent to the only lady in a crowd of gentlemen being treated with scorn, derision and condensation when she tries to participate in a conversation on football by saying “So how many homeruns did the Eagle quarterback throw”.
It is always very uncomfortable to be in a crowd of people when they are talking about a subject you know nothing about. People want to participate and not be flies on the wall.
He went with his only point of reference {probably after looking down} after all, most American men are cimcumcised. He must have been thinking, “what is the big deal, we all go under the knife.”
Perhaps if you had explained to him that female circumcision is a euphamism from ‘female genital mutiliation’. That the procedure is more akin to male castration. That, yes indeed, both genders share a common bond on this, because male slaves in the Arab slave trade were routinely, horribly and roughly castrated. There was a huge death toll as a result. However, fortunately for most men, this practice has gone out of style {or has it?} as the Arab slave trade has been decreased. So perhaps it is time also for this custom to be put aside.
There are a lot of practices in that part of that world that are horrific for women. From the stoning of adulteresses to the requirment that they not go out in public alone to the requirment that they cover up in potato(e) sacks. There remains a lot of work for women to do to champion their cause in the Islamic states.
Right, Nick. Because we all know men are constitutionally incapable of 1) educating themselves or 2) grasping nuance.
Yo Nick,
This isn’t a feminist-only post, but you’re going to have to work on not derailing the conversation. And your last comment was a big derail. So, knock it off, or I’ll ask you to step out of the thread.
Eh, I think I’m with Mandolin on this one that there needs to be a lot of different kinds of feminists and feminist behavior. I tend to be in a similar camp to Mandolin most of the time. I’m pretty good at what I call a kinder gentler articulation of feminism and privilege. I’m particularly adept on the topic of white privilege in my classroom in large part probably because I am white and thus less threatening. But, that kinder gentler version a) doesn’t always work, b) is incredibly draining and c) not appropriate for everyone. In fact, it’s MORE effective when there is more “radical” behavior to compare mine to. If my kinder, gentler arguments are the most radical out there, then I’m less likely to be heard. When there are other more “radical” ideas/arguments then mine are more likely to be effective because at least I’m not the *crazy fringe.
There are absolutely times where it is probably most productive to just stop the conversation and walk away from it. By agreeing to try to talk to the opposition you give their discourse a certain amount of power – you validate it in some ways. There are times when the dissenting opinion just simply should NOT be validated. A quick easy example – anyone who wants to claim the Holocaust never happened. Nope, not going to address that argument – it provides more validation than it deserves.
I’m not certain the topic of **FGM is one of them, but I also really really understand why people just lose their patience over time for the bullshit. And I agree with Mandolin that sometimes it’s important for people in the dominant group to hear/see/feel that their opinions and words are simply not always welcome. The discomfort that is produced can be life altering – or it can cement one in the opposite camp – both outcomes are possible, but it’s really not up to me as a woman to make men feel comfortable about my feminism. Just as it’s not a person of color’s job to make me feel comfortable about my racism.
I have been the kinder gentler person at the table. I have also been the grumpy woman who just walks out of the conversation. It depends on the circumstance and what I have the energy for. Each are equally important (as well as everything in between) to advancing the cause. Part of that is the notion that women are a diverse group and not a monolith. Feminists are also a diverse group and not a monolith.
Ok, I’m rambling now so I’ll stop, but I agree Mandolin (as usual) that grumpy women get a big old thumbs up from me :)
*I’m not suggesting the more radical discourse or the behavior of what Mandolin calls grumpy women IS crazy, but rather that is how the general population sees them.
**I actually use the topic of FGM vs. male circumcision as an example of cultural relativism and it’s pros and cons. Always turns into an interesting discussion and informs my students in a gen ed requirement course about FGM. Bonus all the way around.
“Eh, I think I’m with Mandolin on this one that there needs to be a lot of different kinds of feminists and feminist behavior. ”
Which is part of why Nick’s response is such a poisonous derail. It attempts to define the only correct feminist behavior as what Nick wants to have happened. Not only is he denying that feminists can be many different things, but he wants to dictate what the monolith should be.
I also appreciate his analysis of my submissive behaviors — because of course, as a man, he has perfect experience knowing what defense mechanisms I need to be respectfully heard.
*grumpy woman here, too*
;)
All hail Q Girl who is educated about everything, and can grasp nuances on
every topic anyone can ever introduce to her!
Now, I admit that that the guy should have been a lot more cautious before
opening his mouth on a subject he was utterly ignorant. But I had not heard of
female genital mutilation until I was 25, and I know that many people feel
defensive and desperately try not to appear out of their depth. I can imagine
women I know and respect in similar situations, and some of them would try to
participate and hide their lack of knowledge.
When this happens, and it often does, one has pretty much three choices. You
can ignore the blunder, and let the person think that he managed to appear
informed. You can show everyone that you consider him a fool, and leave him
to his ignorance. Or you can try to educate him without insulting him.
The last option is for saints or those who care about the ignorant person.
The first option is passive and polite, for those with no emotional involvement.
The remaining option is a great opportunity and a god-given right for those
who hate the person in question. Exercising it on a stranger… iffy, but in this
case, there was provocation.
I can find justifications for Joanne’s behaviour. It’s a horrible practice, the guy
may be ignorant of the subject, but should have never tried to equate honor
killing and circumcision… Calling him a moron to his face was a good start,
but she should have not walked out without explaining. Without the poster’s
actions, that guy would have remained ignorant, insulted, unaware of his
blunder, and probably even feeling justified in his dislike of feminism.
Joanne had a right to humiliate him and no obligation to educate him. But
people who use their rights to the hilt and take care of only their responsibilities
seldom make converts. Fortunately, in this case, there was someone to deliver
the lesson after the spanking had been administrated.
You know what the really funny part is? This approach perfectly mirrors one
of the training methods I experienced (from both sides) in the Army. The
senior sergeant who swear and walks away disgusted with the fumbling
recruits, and the junior sergeant who explains the mistakes and actually help
the recruit improve. It works. It works very well. And the recruits never
respect the junior sergeant nearly as much as the senior sergeant.
Oh, sorry for the weird ranks… Different country, different army. To the
best of my knowledge, the ranks would be corporal and gunnery sergeant.
OK, the portion of the thread devoted to telling people what we should have done in that particular situation is closed.
Likewise, so is the “attack QGrrl” part of the thread.
Merci.
[The moderation hand will be heavy as long as this is an open thread. If I end up having to close it down to feminists-only, the moderation will get lighter.]
I love grumpy women, too! Having been raised by two grumpy women (my mother and grandmother) I learned early on to appreciate women who aren’t afraid to speak their mind. What bothers me was that both my mother and grandmother claimed that they earned the right to speak out by virtue of age. Why, as women, should we wait until our seventies to feel entitled to speak or not speak as we see fit?
I don’t want to have to wait to be grumpy, I want to be grumpy now! (Stamping feet)
I have no words of wisdom to add, just a comment that this was an amazing and wise post. Thank you!
I gotta say, Mandolin, that the thing that struck me most about this post was your fiance’s attitude. Perhaps he saw some nastiness that you missed, but he characterized a woman you perceived as assertive as “grumpy” and expressed unhappiness that he might have to “watch himself” around her. (Why? Because she might–ZOMG!1!!!–express disagreement in an assertive manner?)
That, combined with your comments about acting submissive and ditzy rather than challenging, REALLY makes me wonder about the man you’re about to marry. I don’t know if he’s perfectly OK with your being confrontational and assertive with him. But if you’re nonconfrontational, and he thinks women who aren’t are “grumpy”, what’s going to happen when you shed those college-age behaviors?
I’m confused. What’s so grumpy about that? It sounded great: Rather than attacking him, she expressed displeasure and left.
That’s not grumpy, it’s smart. Shunning really needs to get back in style. It’s a great way to get a point across.
I always think of grumpiness as being pissy without reason, like being in a bad mood “just because.” E.g. some people pre-morning-coffee. But if you have reason to be pissed? not grumpy–just normal.
That’s a totally fair interpretation.
I tend to do the submissive behaviors with strangers, acquaintances, and people I can’t confront directly because of career politics. I feel gross after I’ve done it for a while, so I don’t keep up association with anyone I need to continue doing it with.
I’ve got to say, though, that the times in my life when I have gone around doing it 100% of the time? I got a lot more masculine attention. And I do find that scary.
I tend to use the term “prickly” to describe myself… as in, “a generally prickly person”. I’m blunt, I’m often rude, I’m loud, and I’m outspoken.
The sheer volume of people who interpret this as me behaving unacceptably is ridiculous. The same behaviour on a man is entirely acceptable.
Forgive me if I’ve misread, but didn’t Joanne and Toby know each other prior to this meeting? From the sounds of it, she knew exactly what she was doing… and I see no reason to assume otherwise.
Joanne and Toby know each other, yes. Better than I know either of them.
Guys who are often rudely blunt and loud are called obnoxious or jerks. Women who are assertive are called bitchy but I don’t think assertive is the same thing as loud, rude, and blunt.
I think leaving the conversation may have been the polite thing to do. Sometimes it takes a lot of energy NOT to get really angry. Explaining why male circumcision is very different from female circumcision and is NOT a moral equivalent to murder would make a lot of people angry. Excusing yourself without accusation from a conversation “I can’t handle this.” Doesn’t seem excessive to me. Especially if the alternative would be a lot less friendly. Not saying she sounded like miss congeniality, but that’s all to the good.
Women who are assertive are called bitchy but I don’t think assertive is the same thing as loud, rude, and blunt.
Correct. Which is why women who are loud, rude and blunt are judged even more nastily than men ditto, and the terms aren’t limited to “bitchy” or “a jerk.”
I feel gross after I’ve done it for a while, so I don’t keep up association with anyone I need to continue doing it with.
Hope the future Mr. Mandolin knows this–I wasn’t there, so didn’t know what about Joanne bothered him, but that was a red flag.
I’d love the ability to, when somebody makes the argument that we’re done with feminism or it’s no longer necessary, bring out a video of my mother becoming creepily obsequious and attentive around my husband (who is not at all comfortable with the Men Above All Else treatment) because he’s The Man. She can’t just come and visit, but has to somehow retool her environment to simulate the dynamic of my grandparents’ household, however much she intellectually respects our more egalitarian relationship, general smarts, and all the rest. And she’s not even retirement age . . .
It’s a fantasy of mine that she could have the self-awareness to recognize such attempts at recentering, such paranoid questioning of the self in the face of male opinion, etc. but at this point I just try to be sympathetic to the effects of decades of brain-washing. The fact that I’m largely resistant to her attempts to pass the ethic along is pure luck of constitution, and I know full well that it doesn’t end with her generation (or with ours)…
When there are other more “radical” ideas/arguments then mine are more likely to be effective because at least I’m not the *crazy fringe.
This is an important, and all too easily overlooked, point.
I tend to have a “two strikes and you’re out” attitude toward the whole “playing nice” submissive behavior thing. I once had to deal with the boyfriend of the mother of a friend of mine who was really patronizing and obnoxious. He said two rather nasty things about me, making assumptions and such, denigrating my driving, insulting my intelligence – the usual. On the second one I warned him that I was going to stop being nice at the next comment of that sort out of him.
He said the third thing; I turned it on it’s head and mocked him for it. For the next fifteen minutes, he couldn’t say anything cleanly. My friend was laughing hysterically and her mom was cheering me on.
Once he shut up, I let off.
It was very freeing, being the “grumpy” one. Very effective, too.
I am amazed at the guys who can’t use google to look up female circumcision, though. Perhaps there are basic internet skills classes they could attend? It wouldn’t JUST be of import in educating themselves in the areas of rights for all people, it could help them in other ways, too.
In this case, I wasn’t there. But it just occurred to me what may have been going on.
To most men, “circumcised” means something pretty specific, involving bits of skin and a minor effect. As a result, for most circumcised men, the practice of circumcision is No Big Deal. Using the word to mean FGM simply doesn’t cross their mind. That is to say, even men who know what FGM is and understand the problem may not link it to the term “female circumcision.”
When people say “female circumcision” then it sounds like a relatively minor thing to folks who don’t happen to know the alternate term for FGM. I don’t know about women, but for those who don’t know about FGM I wonder if the same “not so bad” assumptions would be true.
If they called it FGM or (better yet) female genital mutilation, instead of “female circumcision” that would probably help.
You know, this is probably thread derailment… but I’m going to go there anyway. mandolin, as always feel free to moderate as necessary.
It seems to me that Mandolin’s friend Toby was actually talking about male circumcision as a bad thing and that’s what he was upset about – it was the whole “me too” or “what about men” whining that probably annoyed people (that’s what would have annoyed me). because in many other cultures male circumcision is thought of as just as barbaric as female circumcision/FGM. True that there are some VERY important differences, not the least of which is that the reason for female circumcision/FGM is about control of female sexuality and making women sexually available only to their husbands, and male circumcision does not have that purpose. There are of course other major distinctions – men can still orgasm after being circumcized. highly unlikely a woman would… etc.
That being said, many people think male circumcision is male genital mutilation. I’m inclined to agree, personally, but I am NOT AT ALL minimizing the very real and substantial differences between male and female circumcision.
Grumpy women are transgressive. And important.
And I love them.
So everyone should love meeeeeee
Kate L., it is barbaric for both sexes but most male circumcision doesn’t compare to FGM.
Donna, I totally agree FGM is a whole different level – I qualified my statements many times. But as you said, it’s still barbaric. Anyway, the eyerolling part of Toby’s statement to *me* is the “what about me?!?!?!?!” whinning that is just too much sometimes.
Pingback: Suburban Guerrilla » In Praise of Grumpy Women
Guys who are often rudely blunt and loud are called obnoxious or jerks. Women who are assertive are called bitchy but I don’t think assertive is the same thing as loud, rude, and blunt.
I didn’t say I was rudely blunt and loud. I said I was loud, blunt, and often rude.
It may have been a simple misread, but there’s a very significant distinction. Loud and blunt are not always rude, not even when coming from a woman.
I’m missing the distinction between what you wrote and what I wrote. But I think my point still holds with your exact wording. Men who are loud, blunt and often rude are considered obnoxious or jerks, or whatever.
” Men who are loud, blunt and often rude are considered obnoxious or jerks, or whatever.”
The threshholds are different.
True!
And furthermore, men who are loud, blunt and often rude are often rewarded for it, because they’re ‘tough’, they ‘play hardball’, they ‘tell it how it is’. That kind of thing.
Take a look at how John McCain is generally treated by the media. Now imagine if there was a female candidate who acted the same way.
—Myca
I can see that Toby probably was uninformed about the difference between FGM (which by the way covers different degrees of mutilation – from removing the clitorial hood to removing the clitoris itself and even more invasive mutilation) and male circumcision. But I wonder about all the interpretation of his motives for his comment. Some commenters believes he defends/downplays FGM by comparing it with male (his own?) cirumcision, others believes he whines “what about me!?!?!” – which I would think implies that the commenter believes Toby himself is circumcised. Others said he tried to recenter himself in the discussion. As far as I could read Toby never said anything about himself – but spoke of men in the third world. He didn’t say he was circumcised himself. So at best one could accuse him of whining “what about the men”, but the other accussations seems unwarranted to me.
I come from a culture without a tradition for FGM or male circumcision. And I can’t understand the taboo of mentioning them together when one speak out against genitalia mutilation. Because I sincerely am of the opinion that male circumcision is a mutilation (To make imperfect by excising or altering parts) of the male genitalia. Of course a much milder form than most forms of FGM, but clinically comparable with a “hoodectomy” without excision of the clitoris which is one form of FGM.
Although the original reasons for male circumcision are lost in time, the prevention of masturbation as been given as one reason for the procedure. Personally I don’t think the motivation matter.
Sweden has introduced a law which requires that a doctor or a nurse is present under a circumcision and that local anaesthetic is applied prior to the procedure. Jews and Musleems objected to the law and the World Jewish Congress compared Sweden with the Nazis.
Although I think the fight against FGM is very important I also think people should educate themselves on male circumcision as well and ask themselves why are you still routinely circumcise male infants in the US? As it is ultimately up to the mothers and fathers of infant female babies to decide not to have their girl undergo FGM it is also up to them not to circumcise their male baby.
I’m against male circumcision.
Male circumcision is not only not analogous to FGM, it’s even more not analogous to honor killing (which was the original “connection” in the conversation).
That said, I’m not interested in debating FGM or male circumcision in this thread. They are indeed mentioned in the post, but they are not the subject of the post, and they have a tendency to take over the conversation in one of several ways, none of which have much to do with the awesomeness of grumpy women.
” Others said he tried to recenter himself in the discussion.”
I think this is drawn from my original text. I believe that he was recentering himself in the middle of the conversation. The conversation was about the class women, which excludes him; he took the emphasis off of the class women (and the topic of honor killing) and recentered it on the class which includes himself (through a bizarre leap to circumcision, which had not previously been mentioned in the conversation).
The leap itself is reflective of anxiety about “women’s issues,” as it suggests that he filled in a mental blank between “honor killing” and “male circumcision.” That mental link, of course, is FGS (female genital surgeries).
This requires some condensations to take place. The most important one is “honor killing” = “all women’s issues in the third world” = “female genital surgeries.”
And of course, there’s the end point to bear in mind: bringing men back into the center of the conversation, which appears to be his goal from the fact that he said “these conversations annoy me,” seeming to indicate that he meant discussions of “women’s issues in the third world” (since the way he wanted to recenter the conversation was onto men, who may or may not be in the third world).
One notes that he didn’t say “These conversations annoy me, men get burned for their dowry money too…” or “These conversations annoy me, there are parts of the world where it’s against the law for men to drive.” Neither of these are true. He didn’t pick a random other exotic* oppression that women suffer; he picked the one through which he could make a link to men. Unfortunately, that link is problematic and largely based on the fact that both procedures involve the word ‘circumcision.’
Still, even if it had been a good, logically sound link, he would have been recentering the conversation on men. He might have said “These conversations annoy me, men get killed in wars” which would at least be springing off of the original conversational meat in a more appropriate way. It would still, however, be an attempt to take the focus off women and put it onto men, thus recentering men (and by proxy himself) in the middle of the conversation.
There’s a strong subtext here suggesting that feminism is untenable in some way. After all, it is the author of “these conversations,” and “these conversations” are the ones that focus on violence against women.
None of this means Toby’s a bad person. He’s a nifty person. I suspect that he’s bought into the intuitive logic that centering women means depriving men of something. After all, he’s living in a world where men are centered 90% of the time. He doesn’t notice that. But he does notice it when women, and specifically gendered violence against women, are the focus, because he feels the sensation of being decentered which women are used to.
Toby is a neat guy. He’s just also a person who is uncomfortable discussing feminism and who used a common anti-feminist tactic (however genuinely meant) over dinner conversation.
I called him on his bad logic. However, by walking out, Joanne called him on his behavior.
—
*I do think that there’s also a tone of “things that happen in (primarily) developing countries” to the way that his leap progressed, since he kept the conversation focused on oppressions of women that seem foreign (even exotic/barbaric) to the western ear. This can, of course, be criticized.
I’m missing the distinction between what you wrote and what I wrote.
You sure are.
As has already been pointed out, the threshold for what is “loud, rude and obnoxious” in a man or women is very different in our culture. And men generally aren’t called bitches or cunts for disagreeing with a woman. (Though a man could be called a pussy for not being loud and rude enough.)
And (I’m sorry if I missed this already by another poster) it is the responsibility, at some point, for men who want to discuss, say, honor killings, to educate THEMSELVES on the issues before leaping in and deciding to blather about its relative importance or lack therof.
In other words, it’s a Feminism 101 issue. Some posters seem to think that because Toby’s remark revealed profound ignorance of the topics at hand, he should be immediately and lovingly educated by the women present, effectively derailing their conversation and keeping it from getting to the advanced level they preferred. And yes, keeping him at the center of things, like a pampered toddler who wants you to watch him do a trick.
Guys, we’re not your mothers when it comes to feminism. The info is out there and easy to find. If you want to participate, learn the basics. If not, siddown, listen, and learn. Otherwise, we’ll assume you are attempting a deliberate derail.
I personally aim to get more and more like Joanne when it comes to this kind of stuff. I’m tired of holding the hands of men with wee little egos.
I think this constant requirement (demand?) of other people to “educate themselves” about the issues that are important to US is, well, sort of going overboard.
When someone else doesn’t know what you mean, that’s usually because it’s YOUR pet issue, not THEIR pet issue. If you want to develop an opinion, great. But please, there are only so many issues on the planet, and expecting someone to have diligently read about the competing interests involved in FGM, and what differentiates it from circumcision, before they can have an opinion, is ludicrous.
When I have an opinion that’s different from someone else, do I educate myself on every issue that’s important to them? Do I go and read about the detailed bases of the white supremacist movement before I develop an opinion that touches on white supremacy? Do I go and read “prolife 101” blogs before getting in an argument with prolifers? Do I read Main Kampf; do I spend a lot of time on MRA sites reading the various posts there?
No. I do not. Some people do, but not many. How many of you feminists spend time on MRA blogs? Can you pass “101” on my pet issues? On every issue for which you develop an opinion?
I used to be fully on board with the Feminism 101 thing but now it seems to be (more and more) being used to support things that are really not all that “101.” I’m beginning to feel like “101” is really becoming code for “I don’t feel like talking about it” rather than what it purports to be; “things which reasonable people should really be expected to know.”
It’s not as if this dude asked for “proof that women aren’t the dominant class” or something. We’re talking about an unusual term for an action that doesn’t take place in the U.S., which has little effect on women in the U.S., and which (though horrible) is actually not all that widespread worldwide… is taht really something everyone is supposed to know about? Does it ever become a tad ridiculous to pull the “101” line? If so, this seems like it.
After a more thorough reading of the original post (my last comment was more in reaction of the commenters) I see that the original topic of the conversation was on honour killings, not FGM (I myself don’t like the expression Female Genitalia Surgeries). I agree Toby made quite a leap, but calling that an anti-feminist tactic I find a stretch. Also the implication that Toby thinks honour killings = FGM = MGM is far fetched. The whole re-centering himself (or by extension of the class of men in the third world (he specifically said men in the third world) in the middle of the conversation accusation sounds to me like an attempt silence him (or anyone with a different point of view). Fair enough to state that you don’t want the discussion to stray outside the scope (of female honour killings), but accusing someone of anti-feminist tactics and egocentric behaviour when such scope-limiting is unstated I find judgmental if I may be a bit judgmental myself. I also find it interesting that you say he said he “finds these conversations annoying” because as far as I can see he said “what really bothers me (…) is we never talk about how men are affected in third world countries.” Am I the only one who desn’t think those two statements are the same? Toby chose a lousy example with male circumcision, a more appropriate one would be that it bothers him that noone talks about the men who are killed in honour killings. According to numbers presented for Pakistan in this Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honor_killing) 1/3 to 1/4 of honour killing victims are men. But from the public discourse on honour killing there is no mention of any male victims and the men are only cast as the perpetrator.
Even if one see no link whatsoever between FGM and MGM or absolutely no link between honour killings with female victims and honour killings with male victims I still can’t see why it would make sense fearing that the mere mention of these facts (male victims) somehow should reduce the suffering of the female victims or harm the the fight against honour killings (of females)?
To stray back on topic, I believe grumpyness breeds grumpyness and personally I tend to dislike grumpy people – regardless of sex. Although I haven’t been called a bitch or a cunt for disagreeing with a woman I have been called a prick and a worthless piece of shit. The cultural gap between the threshold for “loud, rude and obnoxious” behaviour in men and women are decreasing at a growing rate amongst the younger generations. I am sorry to see that it¨s not more men being less obnoxious and rude which is closing the gap. Of course that’s colored by my preference for less obnoxious and rude people.
I think this constant requirement (demand?) of other people to “educate themselves” about the issues that are important to US is, well, sort of going overboard.
How is it going overboard to suggest that people
a) don’t shoot their fool mouths off about things they know nothing about, and
b) don’t expect others to drop everything and make them the center of attention merely because they have expressed an opinion?
I find it illuminating that your examples analogize feminism to white supremacy.
There is, by the way, a world of difference between the genuinely well-meaning (but clueless) and the proud, look-at-me ignoramus.
Tamen:
Your analysis seems to come off without an understanding of feminist analysis of conversational dynamics in re: men and women.
“Am I the only one who desn’t think those two statements are the same?”
No, they’re not the same. However, which one did he really say? Both are reported from me, neh? Also, the body language was clearly reading annoyance with the conversation.
Do you accept that it is common for men to enter spaces where women are centered, and attempt to recenter men? Do you understand why that’s a problem? If you don’t get those two things, then it would be clear why you don’t think it’s a problem here.
If you do, then you just don’t believe me that this is what’s going on. Well, fine. I was there; you weren’t; and sad to say, my writing isn’t a transcript. I don’t really mind if you disagree with what I said about a specific dynamic which has been modified & paraphrased & otherwise edited to end up in personal essay form. If we agree on the larger point, so be it.
If we don’t agree on the larger point, that it is a problem for men to constantly attempt to reassert control of feminist-only spaces — well, it would certainly explain why you dig your heels in rather than engage with my analysis.
Sailor:
FGM is the obscure term? I hear the opposite, m’self.
And no, Toby doesn’t have to know about FGM. But don’t ignore the fact that the remark is offensive interpersonally (given the dynamic of the situation) as well as ignorant. Shoot your mouth off about something a subject on which you are ignorant, and you may offend someone.
Of course I don’t know which he said and I didn’t pick up on the fact nor extent that the original text was modified, paraphrased and edited and assumed that the first version of the statement in question was close to the original one and that the latter one was an interpretation of his meaning/motivation for the first version. Since you’ve clarified that misunderstanding from my side my point about Tobys motivation is moot since I don’t have any data/information to base my point on. I am left with either believing what you said about the dynamic or not. Frankly I’m to much of an agnostic to do either without any knowledge of what really was said. However, if he said the last version he behaved like a jerk.
You’re right, I haven’t studied feminist analysis of conversational dynamics between men and women, but without implying anything about the validity of such analysis I have noted that such thing can be used as a “weapon” to silence opposing views and thus such analysis may itself become a part of the conversational dynamics between men and women.
I am a proponent of equality between the sexes (all n of them) and have looked towards feminists and feminist discursion (blogs, feminist public figures who have written in newspapers, magazines or been on TV) as I from an early age was told that feminists fight for equality between the sexes. I have discovered that there are many different feminists.
“Equal pay for equal work” is my kind of slogan. “More pay to women” not so much. “Stop all genitalia mutilation on children” more than “Stop female genitalia mutilation”. “Stop all honour killings” more than “Stop the honour killings of women”. But as soon as one make this argument one is accused of not really meaning that women should be payed just as much as men for the same work, accused of minimizing the harm done to female rape victims, female honour killing victims and so on.
I can see the argument that expanding the scope of one cause (ie. to include male victims in discussion on the fight against honour killings) could be seen to lessen the issue of female honour killings. But I don’t agree with that position. A too tight focus on a issue will limit the number of people joining in on fighting the cause. Widening the scope a bit will tend to make more people willing to fight for the cause and thus in my view heighten the chance of improving the situation/making headway with the cause/even winning the cause.
This of course only goes for causes which can in some way be said to encompass all sexes (even though one may be more affected than the others). I think honour killing, rape, domestic battering, genitalia mutilation are included as they all also have (although to a lesser degree) male victims.
The fight for abortion rights is one cause which clearly isn’t of this nature.
Well, I’m off for a week long vacation, but will check for any responses (and reply if any) when I return.
“Stop all honour killings” more than “Stop the honour killings of women”. But as soon as one make this argument one is accused of not really meaning that women should be payed just as much as men for the same work, accused of minimizing the harm done to female rape victims, female honour killing victims and so on.
Perhaps because that’s exactly what “one” is doing, if “one” pretends that both men and women are the victims of honor killings in roughly equal numers, e.g.
Mythago: I understand and have sympathy with that argument. Which is exactly why I used qualifier as (although to a lesser degree male victims(comment #42)) and also provided numbers for the ratio between male and female victims of honour killings (comment #39). Allowing people to make up their own mind based on facts. Personally I don’t find that 4 females killed per male in honour killings are “roughly equals” numbers and I wouldn’t pretend that it was. I am not aware of anyone who pretends that either, although I am sure such people exists.
However, if the “one” in you comment alludes to me, I find that dishonest and insulting if you have read my earlier comments including the one you answered.
Anyway, I hope I have made my position clear and simply asks you people on this board to take my argument and my motives at face value without trying to assign unsavory motives to me as that really accomplice nothing else than make me question the usefulness and interest of a discussion/dialog and make me stop engaging you. A much easier way to achieve the same result would be to ban me.
Tamen,
The rhetoric of equalism is good in one way. We do indeed want equality for the sexes.
However, at the moment, women are at a pervasive, world-wide disadvantage. Therefore, to say that “sexes should be equal” is to sweep under the rug the fact that it’s women’s oppression that needs to be addressed.
Imagine, in the US of 1890, a position that said, “Hey, stop referring to slaves as being black. It’s not about freeing black people. It’s about freeing people people.”
Yeah, sure, but you’re ignoring the dynamics of race and sex that facilitate systemic oppression. And in doing so, you ultimately create a situation that will perpetuate those systems of oppression, and keep women (people of color, gay people, transpeople, etc.) at heel.
Anyway — this isn’t the thread for that discussion. However, here’s some more information, and a place where people will be happy to have that particular discussion with you. Why feminism and not just humanism or equalism? Isn’t saying you’re a feminist exclusionary? Be sure to check out the articles they have linked.
[Thread drift, removed by moderator.]
[Reply to thread drift, removed by moderator simply to try to stem the flow of thread drift.]
[Alas, the sound of thread drift.]
Tamen,
I’ve said this isn’t an appropriate place for this discussion. So, stop now. Thanks.
Consider me stopped. I’ll look elsewhere for this discussion.
Delete this comment at will.
just wanted to say that, speaking as a man, I enjoy and appreciate the company of “grumpy” women much more then the company of people of any gender who attempt to hid their intelligence in order to fit in. I spent most of elementary school and junior high doing my best to hide my intelligence because I didn’t know how to deal with my peers jealosy but somewhere along the way realized I was only hurting myself and got over it.
nowadays I make a conscious effort to say exactly what I mean and mean exactly what I say. Sure it’s cost me friends, but then those aren’t the kind of folks I want to be friends with anyway. that said, I can see your point about office politics requiring some degree of self-effacement. frankly, that sort of garbage is why I’m self employed. being financially independent means I don’t have to give a damn about what bosses or even co-workers think of me. As long as I deliver god work for my clients I’m good to go.
anyway, I’ve wandered off topic a bit. the point is I value bluntness and honesty and people who don’t hide behind politeness. I’d much rather deal with honest rudeness then polite lies any day.
also – rereading my comment in the context of the larger conversation it sounds a bit like I’m blowing my own horn and trumpeting my (male) ability to be rude. for what it’s worth I’ve never found brutal honesty a particularly effective way of communicating with the world at large, but it has been one that’s been personally satisfying and rewarding within my small circle of friends and especially with my partner since she and I both relate to each other the same way. When she doesn’t like something I do she tells me clearly and in no uncertain terms and vis versa. The benefit to that is that we each always know exactly where we stand with each other and pretty much never argue since we’re not leaving those little naggy annoying things to fester out of fear of saying something that will upset the other person. instead we deal with them as they happen and move on.
My point is that I think it’s great that your friend felt free to stand up and walk out of conversation rather then have it be derailed into something she found uninteresting and great that you found the behavior admirable. I wish more people of both genders had the courage to risk the disapproval of their peers and say what they really think.
“omething she found uninteresting”
Offensive. Offensive. Something she found offensive.
Great article! I don’t think it was Joanne’s responsibility to launch into some treatise in order to educate anyone. There is nothing wrong with assessing a situation, doing a quick pros/cons of delving into a topic, and deciding not to. If she feels passionate about the issue and sees that the other person isn’t either aware/educated/impassioned/what-have-you, she has every right to walk away. She could have rolled her eyes, made a nasty comment, and stormed out. But she didn’t. I think she handled it in a great way that was right for her. If doing what’s right for you makes you “grumpy”, then I am in.