Feminist Theory & "Women's Issues" Discussion Thread: All Gender Identities Are Encouraged To Participate

certain circumstances = basically all of the circumstances you're likely to experience throughout the rest of your life, yes.

saying men have privilege in a patriarchal society is not essentialist.

i think the discussion you want to have, ryan, about ensuring that men still try to understand these things, is not blocked, but rather facilitated by acknowledging the workings of privilege

no of course. i wasn't try to get rid of the idea of privilege! i apologize if that came across. and trying to see your OWN privilege is always a hard and constant task i think. and yes of course being humble and shutting up sometimes and hearing others is often the best way.

if i rephrase it as a question, i asked: is making this distinction worthwhile? Thread (sensibly) answers no.

i'm not sure if i understand your post. i admit to being a little dissatisfied with discussions of privilege, too; it doesn't seem a full enough rendering of *inequality in the world* or whatever you want to call it. i think it's understood to be shorthand, though, and it's better than anything i can come up with. sometimes discussions about privilege do seem counterproductive to me, but that usually seems to stem from people not understanding what it is and thinking the point of these conversations is that privileged people should stay out of them/stop thinking about economic inequality/racism/sexism.

xp Not in the context of this thread or things we're likely to discuss here, I would venture to say. Because give butthurt dudes on the internet an inch and they'll take over your whole thread tbrr.

haha Laurel that's true. i apologize if i did that in any way.

i don't think there's anything wrong with saying 'i suffered/experienced this (x) too – or one of its analogues - and i want to engage in a substantive discussion about it' that reduces or flattens the experience of the OP or initial topic, even if it is about a gendered experience.

I think it's best for the thread to drop this discussion, but i remembered the essay that got me thinking about this. It's called "The Unquiet Judge" by Barbara Herrnstein Smith. therein she talks about the uses of "Objectivism" for both privileged and oppressed groups.

i've been thinking abt the kyriarchical approach to power relationships discussed upthread. though it arises from feminist thought, approach seems intended to shift the focus from any one specific power imbalance (such as male vs. female) onto a complex system of interconnected power relationship in which most people are simultaneously "the privileged" and "the oppressed".

privileged positions = white, male, heterosexual, cisgender, wealthy, upper or middle class, able-bodied, "attractive"/thin, lots of other positions relative to local culture (think hutu v tutsi).

oppressed positions = nonwhite, female, non-heterosexual, transgender, poor, lower or working class, disabled, "ugly"/fat, old, other positions relative to local culture.

this approach makes good sense to me, and i like the term, but what do we see as the primary implications of this approach?

WCC - I'm not going to respond as in-depth to what you said earlier as I'd like to becasue I feel like I could really only do so on a personal level and don't want to take this in that direction. That said, while I understand why you might think the way you do about the people you've described, it sounds like you're operating under of a lot unfair assumptions about the experiences of what you see as "paragraph 1" women and their "easier or simpler or less complicated" rides through society. I just think it's really important to bear in mind that no woman has it easy in regards to this stuff and just because their experiences in life may not mirror your own it doesn't mean for a second that they've necessarily been any less trying.

Just reading everything itt, and w/r/t WCC's categories:

Those categories you listed are exactly why I am too intimidated to weigh in here. It's like the thread is being constantly weighed and vetted for correctness of thought, and there's no room to just *try* to understand, *try* to discuss, because if you're not on point with terminology references & the "right" experience, you're dismissed, or categorized.

I dunno. It just grated on me. I'm not trying to start something. Just trying to speak as one of the "meek", idk

3) while i'd love to further discuss the impact biological gender has (and/or doesn't have) on human behavior, it seems that this probably isn't the best place for it. aok.

― Little GTFO (contenderizer), Wednesday, 15 February 2012 15:37 (4 hours ago)

If you start a thread on this I will join in with it.

you're operating under of a lot unfair assumptions about the experiences of what you see as "paragraph 1" women and their "easier or simpler or less complicated" rides through society. I just think it's really important to bear in mind that no woman has it easy in regards to this stuff and just because their experiences in life may not mirror your own it doesn't mean for a second that they've necessarily been any less trying.

I'm pretty sure no one wants to do this, but there have definitely been posts by...some people that have taken the tack "I've never experienced misogyny/etc in this way so I don't think the philosophy/theory/substantiated thing you're talking about is true or I don't like how you're talking about it."

That's def putting lived experience over ideas that are an accepted and solid part of the general discourse. If you want to know what the terms, ideas, etc are about, either listen in or ask questions or google things or read up. I'm completely stupid on theory, I don't know shit about shit on transgender ish or anything, but I do notice when logical fallacies are being all flounced around about.

If you start a thread on this I will join in with it.

been thinking about it, tbh. expect it'll just be on gender in general, though (to honor the pattern of gradual widening that's been going on in these threads over the last week or so).

Hey, I am trying to describe my experiences, and why I have emotionally loaded reactions to certain patterns of behaviour. Of course because it is so subjective, it may read as judgemental. I have no right to draw any judgemental conclusions about Paragraph 1, but when it gets into Paragraph 2, those women are *vetting me* for correctness of presentation which is very unpleasant - I'm already feeling how you're describing and my judgement is a reaction against feeling vetted and found wanting.

I'm really being throw by this use of the term "biological gender."

Because my understanding is that the ~biological~ stuff is sex. Like, it's obvious that biological sex has some bearing on gender, but saying "biological gender" is like saying "biological personality." Of course all mental functions are ultimately reducible to biology bcuz we are just chemical bonebags. But it's such a reductive way of looking at what we think of as ~personality~ as to be almost useless.

If you can find some hard science on how biological sex interfaces with gender - by all means, talk about it - that's why I lent you a whole book full of it, Z. I'm just not interested in any more not-backed-up opinions on why "men are the adjective gender because: testosterone."

http://cache2.artprintimages.com/lrg/30/3005/P9GBF00Z.jpg

xpost

Yes WCC, I really appreciate the book loan. I'm through the intro and the 1st chapter and it's completely fascinating. Also I'm really enjoying it because it supports my own most cherished beliefs about the need to sweep away all forms of assumption w/r/t gender whilst at the same time somewhat frightened by the apparent extent of our malleability.

I would love a thread where I can just chew over the topics in that book with people, and hopefully some more books like it, and I think Con's thread will serve nicely?

lol Latham that's an amazing photo what is it!

its Zoe from Dr Who!

I'd love to do a reading group on that book (and also Pink Brain Blue Brain) involving ground up rebuilding from Evidence Based stuff!

ah - my Dr. Who knowledge doesn't go back that far

I would love a thread where I can just chew over the topics in that book with people, and hopefully some more books like it, and I think Con's thread will serve nicely?

― Also unknown as Zora (Surfing At Work), Wednesday, February 15, 2012 12:21 PM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark

as it turns out, i think there's already an appropriate thread for this kind of discussion. i posted in it here. it's a generic "gender" thread, max started it a year ago, and it starts off discussing determinism (in a rather lolzy way, but whatever). open invite to anyone who's interested in talking abt that or any other gender-related stuff there.

I apologize for thread derail to Dr WHo companions

I'm pretty sure no one wants to do this, but there have definitely been posts by...some people that have taken the tack "I've never experienced misogyny/etc in this way so I don't think the philosophy/theory/substantiated thing you're talking about is true or I don't like how you're talking about it."

I think that because these are sensitive topics, posts sometimes get read incorrectly. I know that I am definitely guilty of this myself. I don't know if the ". . . some people" was meant to mean me but if it was then I once again apologize for having done this in the past. Also, if I've said that I haven't experienced misogyny in the way that someone on board was describing, I didn't mean to invalidate their experience but do understand how it can often feel that way. My not sharing a particular experience, however, doesn’t mean that I haven’t battled related issues of my own including harassment, domestic violence, and rape. I mention these things, which I generally don't talk about very much, to emphasize my point earlier about the importance of not making assumptions about people, esp ones that conclude they've had easier rides.

That's def putting lived experience over ideas that are an accepted and solid part of the general discourse

Isn't lived experience pretty damn important when it comes to these discussions? Theory is great and necessary but I'm way more interested in hearing people's actual stories/experiences than listening to people rehash things they've read in a book or learned in a lecture hall. Not that those are crucial or don't have their place, mind. It's just that they're just way less interesting to me than people's actual experiences esp in the context of a thread on a discussion-based message board.

So that other thread is gonna be "I can't be bothered to read thd book but do I ever have PINIONS about what it all means" which is p much my gender theory nightmare.

This is why I don't discuss gender with men any more. Failed experiment, tears before bedtime.

I'm gonna try and make them read the book and if they don't I'm gonna tie them to a chair and feed them the book one piece at a time. Until I get tired. I get that you've been round this course too many times but I haven't - outside of the sociology of gaming at least - and I'm excited about it, at least for now.

I'm not doing this any more. I'm going back to threads about trees and coastline and Cornish grammar and Radiohead records. :-(

idk u got sniffy w me for quoting monique wittig. its like also there is not one single syllabus for doing womens studies. there are feminisms.

I must've missed it: what book are we talking about?

"The 100 Greatest Action Films of All Time"

LOL

I like that this and that are the two threads I have posted on today.

Thom Yorke's hair is really kinda attractive in a so wrong it's right way.

LOLOL.

There's more than one pertinent book but I'm starting with "Delusions of Gender".

<3 Thom Yorke's hair

I haven't looked at the Action Films thread b/c I don't generally like action films.

You don't? What kind of man are you?!

Exactly.

I refuse to read that thread after seeing Con Air anywhere except #1

NO one has the BALLS to mix action films with PR)N!

I come back in here and you're talking about Thom Yorke's hair and I'm not even responsible for it.

Thom Yorke's hair is a constant fascination to me for 18-odd years now. Talk about a guy who has been some interesting places in relation to redefining masculinity. I love Yorke's version of masculinity.

where do you stand on jonny's version

I refuse to read that thread after seeing Con Air anywhere except #1

i did my bit :(

I can't deal w his colour blindness - I always forget that's the deep reason for my disinterest. We're incompatible at a DNA level. (hey maybe my colourblindness is indicative of some deep gender incongruence rather than a double dose of genetic bad luck.)

I'm still feeling really really angry about this, like there is no discussion that men cannot take away, change the parameters of, and then dominate. While insulting you and blaming you for the schism. This is just so enraging. And then you get blamed and demonised for being made angry by it. There is this huge well of anger over this stuff, and every discussion of it that goes this way ends up really reinforcing that anger.

I'd had such a great day, I saw this amazing art show, had a great conversation and then something like this happens to make me feel disempowered. And I know that no one can make you feel this bad without your permission, but, like, as a woman, it's like there's really only one subject that you're ~allowed~ to be an expert on, that is your own womanhood, and they gotta wrench that away from you too.

And now the splainers will turn up to tell me "that's not what happened" but my god, that's what it feels like. This is where that deep rage comes from. And fuck that.

Talk about a guy who has been some interesting places in relation to redefining masculinity. I love Yorke's version of masculinity.

I'm not really aware of any of this! What makes him different from any number of other rock frontmen?

hey WCC. just wanted to talk abt gender, sex and biology in general terms. got the impression that this thread wasn't the place for it. wasn't intending to hijack the discussion, and the other discussion didn't really go where i'd hoped anyway :/

That's a good question but I think I'm actually still too angry and now slightly too drunk to even talk about my favourite subject of Thomosexuality. (my phone recognises Thomosexual as a word?)

I dunno, he's talked a bit in interviews about trying to find ways to express masculinity without lapsing into rock star cliches of aggression. He comes across as someone who lets himself be very vulnerable but in an open way, not an emo way or a wet, weedy way. The finding other ways to be sexy that don't involve thrusting domination. I'm too drunk / angry to be articulate about this.

i just keep thinking how when i read judith butler, judith halberstam and eve sedwick for the first time, it seemed to be about something incredibly important and personal to me. a lesbian, a tranny and probably most shockingly a woman who is married to a man. butler and sedgwick especially went beyond a sensitive deference to the different subjects they wrote about in some of their texts but i'm not the only homo who saw himself and was empowered by epistemology of the closet or bodies that matter. i think it has to go beyond typing about how you feel in ALL CAPS. and also to remind yourself that this idea that "gender is a social construct" is most often attributed to a the chapter in gender studies where she's writing about drag balls. i mean, i think this can be a problem with identity politics in general. to fetishise the subject position. there have to be ways of moving beyond this. undoing the subject position instead of endlessly rewriting it.