Toysoldier has a good post up that highlights a double standard in advocacy. In his post he quotes a piece of a larger comment by Joanna Schroeder that attacks men who have been molested or raped by women as boys by demanding to know what concrete help they are giving male DV victims. He points out that this criterion is never applied to those decrying violence against women.
She says in her exasperated comment on this post “6 Things Men Can Do to Help Prevent Violence Against Women”:
“You want to talk more about awareness of women abusing men? Then DO SOMETHING about it other than complain and antagonize in a thread dedicated to a poster that is designed to HELP PEOPLE HELP each other.
When I see you three actually working for domestic abuse organizations, even if you wrote stories for GMP about it (I, myself, publish these pieces with some regularity, I even seek them out) then I’d have more respect for this stuff.
Instead, I see a group of men saying that a group of men who want to help men help women is somehow hurting you.”
Joanna Schroeder is not stupid, so she is being disingenouous when she fails to see that terms such as “violence against women” does actively hurt male victims of DV because it has had the effect of erasing them entirely, at least so far. So far there is no law specifically focused on Violence Against Men, and in fact the law that does exist can itself be used as an instrument of abuse against male partners of men. It is still very difficult to get people to see that women are capable of abusing men. She starts the comment off by saying as much with her business about how a 180 lb/ man can never really be abused by a 100 lb. woman. (see below)
Further up the thread she says this in an exchange:
“Archy:
Women are starting DV more often than men, and that is a huge problem especially when the violence is reciprocal, so some women are actually helping to cause their own victimization.Joanna:
Archy, this smacks of victim-shaming.”
Victim-shaming? Who’s the victim here, the woman who initiates the violence? Well of course she is, at least in Joanna’s mind, because sexist pig that she is, the woman is always the victim, even when she’s victimizing a man and he dares to defend himself.
So along with everything else Joanna is a domestic violence apologist. She thinks it’s fine for a woman to initiate violence against man in that she appears to think he is always wrong for defending himself from. That licenses and enables domestic violence. It’s that simple.
As dungone says “Only a cowardly bully would come up with an idea like that.”
And then she doubles down on this:
“Danny – if a 100lb woman hits a 180 lb man, let’s say she slaps him, is he justified in punching, choking or killing her?
Because that’s the reality we’re talking about. “
What she is saying that no matter what that 100 lb. woman does, and most likely she will be using a weapon; that’s right, how we don’t lie and say she is “slapping him”, that 180 lb. has no right to lift a hand to defend himself.
And these are the feminists that think they are trying to help men. And they wonder where the stereotype of the man-hating feminist comes from.
Oh, and the seventh thing men can do to protect women from DV is to protect them for their girlfriends, because DV in lesbian relationships is at least as common as in straight relationships – and no mention of that anywhere in the article.
- The Woman Card - May 2, 2016
- Frat boy bachelorettes and the invasion of gay bars - April 15, 2016
- “Not my kid….” - February 22, 2016
by 
I want to like the GMP. I really do. When I first heard about it, i thought (perhaps naively) that I had finally found a site where men could discuss being men without all the constant reminders of all the shitty things “men” do. Without the guilt-tripping that is common in feminist spaces, AND that was free from the sometimes overt hostility.
But I’ve come to the conclusion that you can’t have an actual men’s space that isn’t on some level hostile to women. Not because I think men are inherently misogynistic, but because unless a space is made explicitly uncomfortable for women, women will enter into it and demand increasing levels of “accomodation” until it becomes a woman’s space.
Paul, I wonder how much that applies ot men’s spaces in general. i know it certainly is true of women’s spaces and the recption men get there, whether those be feminist spaces of church altar guilds. It’s just a natural and probably not too harmful means of maintiang exclusivity.
Yet there are womemn who move freely in men’s spaces and don’t expect accomodation, who in fact may prefer the rules and customs in these spaces and experience them as more congenial and accomodatiing than any accomodation would be.
Joanna Schroeder is not stupid, so she is being disingenouous when she fails to see that terms such as “violence against women” does actively hurt male victims of DV because it has had the effect of erasing them entirely, at least so far.
Actually I’m of the mind that the term “violence against women” isn’t what hurts male victims. The erasure is being done in the way that term is thrown around so free and has been made synonymous with domestic violence in general.
And I would have been fine with that post (and would have actually tried to get it back on track with making that one post about violence against women) until I saw that sub thread where you quoted me.
I would have been fine with telling Archy and the others that this is not the place for that. I agree. HOWEVER that isn’t the response Archy was met with. No we are basically told that the rules of self defense, engagement, and assault actually change on whether it’s a man attacking a woman or a woman attacking a man.
So to use our resident Typhonblue here (I don’t know if she is married or not though so for this example you shall have a hypothetical husband) if she attacks him he is obliged to take her womanly frail nature into account when responding. If her husband attacks her the limiters come off and she is given a green light to go all out against him with no care as to how badly he can be hurt in her self defense.
THAT is what bothers me.
And by all that is holy that does not mean supporting men, women, or anyone, that assault people or go too far when trying to protect themselves.
Isn’t it funny. Apply the same standards to bother genders and it gets you blasted. It’s almost like they are against equality or something.
(Here’s a fun exercise. Remember when Chris Brown attacked Rihanna? How fast was any implication that she hit him first get struck down? Now go back in time a bit to when Mary Winkler shot her husband, in the back, in the middle of the night, as he slept. How fast were people grasping on her story that he was abusing her and she was protecting herself? And bear in mind that to this day the ONLY evidence of that abuse is her own word. That doesn’t mean she is lying but at the same time history is being written as “She said, he’s dead”.
For the record that is not an attempt to defend Brown. Even if she did strike first what he did was way past protection and he should have been charged for what he did. But isn’t it funny that he was not even given the benefit of the doubt on that while Winkler was able to just say Matthew abused her and most of the world bought it no question?)
The TLDR of it: It seems that when it comes to the lines between “protecting oneself”, “attacking someone”, and “going too far when protecting oneself” are drawn at different places and those places are based on whether you are a man or a woman (but I bet other factors figure into it as well).
Gingko.
That’s true that most “female” spaces tend to be somewhat hostile to men for the same reason. the difference is that society is far more… understanding, let’s say, to female hostility of men than it is the reverse. We live in a culture that doesn’t see “misandry” as a valid concept, but simply disagreeing with a woman can get you labeled a misogynist under the right circumstances.
“Yet there are womemn who move freely in men’s spaces and don’t expect accomodation, who in fact may prefer the rules and customs in these spaces and experience them as more congenial and accomodatiing than any accomodation would be.”
That’s true, and their existence gives me hope that one day men can have a space where we’re allowed to vent our (valid, imo) frustrations with women without the fear of being labeled an inhuman monster.
i don’t think the average woman realizes how often men learn to just let casual insults against them slide. How often men have sat through your bog standard “men are pigs” diatribe with bland smiles on our faces.
To be sure, I’m positive there are women out there who have done the same thing with men, the difference is there are plenty of spaces those women can go to later for a sympathetic ear. For men, those spaces are almost gone, because most people (even many men) now feel that men deserve to sit there and listen to ourselves get slandered. (like the current crop of GMP articles)
It seems like “men” is just the flavor of the GMP’s ideologically validating entertainment.
Speaking of Toysoldier, HeligKo has a great comment about female-on-male DV on his post before that, The politics of violence.
That sight is taking a huge header. I’m apparently banned from even posting on Ozy’s NSWATM threads. My understanding is that he maintains his own separate posting guidelines and can and does censor people at random.
I’ll admit Ozy talks about male pain and the “man box” of limiting behavoir, but he overwhelmingly talks about it from the view *only* that it’s due to internalized “man box” messages of individual men and frames it as a growing experience for individual men.
He totally ignores external forces that restrict men from acting in non-masculine ways. Whether this is being gay, effeminite, shy, afraid to initiate approaches with women, men failing to standup for themselves or other loved ones, or any of dozens of ways men can be seen to not be a “real man”.
The simple fact is there are just as many (if not more) external forces working on men as there are for women to control behavior and to castigate and insult if the behavior is not up to snuff.
John:
You are confusing Ozy with Noah. Ozymandias is a biological female who now identifies as some sort of non-binary person.
Danny – if a 100lb woman hits a 180 lb man, let’s say she slaps him, is he justified in punching, choking or killing her?
One problem with her scenario is the fact that the 100lb woman may be a trained killer and the 180lb male may be a complete pacifist. Her idea is totally based on size and nothing else.
Okay, I’m confusing my gender pronouns, not the people. It definitely is the Ozy posts upon which my replies are never published no matter how politiely I phrase my response.
I’ve actually had posts go through on Noah’s articles about 25% of the time.
@TitforTat: One problem with her scenario is the fact that the 100lb woman may be a trained killer and the 180lb male may be a complete pacifist. Her idea is totally based on size and nothing else.
Never mind that huge muscles (or lots of fat) don’t make slaps hurt less, punches to the head and neck less life threatening, kicks to the groin less debilitating or fingernails less likely to puncture skin.
I also suspect that we’d not be hearing a different story if the woman in the scenario was 6’1″, 170 lbs and the man was 5’8″, 150 lbs.
t4t
It’s also fails because we wouldn’t accept such reasoning in a same-sex scenario. If a 100 lb man came after a man who was 180, no one would seriously suggest that the bigger guy should just stand there and take it or whatever.
It’s interesting that Joanna compared the man/woman relationship with the mother/child relationship. She tries to backpedal a bt at the end, but the fact remains that THAT was the relationship she chose to go with.
I’m just flabbergasted that she sees a man’s request that his wife/girlfriend’s violence not be condoned by society, and the request that men maintain the right to defend ourselves from violence- as men stating we should have the right to punch women.
I also suspect that we’d not be hearing a different story if the woman in the scenario was 6’1″, 170 lbs and the man was 5’8″, 150 lbs.(JDC)
So true………
It’s also fails because we wouldn’t accept such reasoning in a same-sex scenario. If a 100 lb man came after a man who was 180, no one would seriously suggest that the bigger guy should just stand there and take it or whatever.(Paul)
Here’s an irony, when I was 125lb(I know, not quite 100lb) most times the 180lb didnt have much of a choice other than to take it.
“Danny – if a 100lb woman hits a 180 lb man, let’s say she slaps him, is he justified in punching, choking or killing her?”
He’s justified in using reasonable force to defend himself. What a lot of women like Johanna don’t understand is how much force it takes to stop even a 100 lb person who is emotionally hijacked and going all out.
Just to vent a little bit about the “100 pound woman, 180 pound man”: Don’t people like Joanna Schroeder realize how they are throwing women in the, say, 200+ pounds range under the ideological bus when using those size arguments? How they imply that larger women don’t get abused in relationships? Don’t they realize how they are normatizing being underweight (or at least slender) for women (and being muscular/physically imposing for men)? I mean, don’t these people think of themselves as *feminists*?
Guess it shows how easily and stubbornly they fall back upon patriachal narratives of “beastly man victimising frail woman” when thinking about DV – nothing progressive to see there, despite any claims to the contrary.
Titfortat:
“Here’s an irony, when I was 125lb(I know, not quite 100lb) most times the 180lb didnt have much of a choice other than to take it.”
I’m confused a bit, could you expand on it?
@Paul
I was able to beat the 180lb man. There is an old saying, “Its not the size of the dog in the fight but the size of the fight in the dog”
@Shoutybloke: He’s justified in using reasonable force to defend himself. What a lot of women like Johanna don’t understand is how much force it takes to stop even a 100 lb person who is emotionally hijacked and going all out.
Exactly. I think people like Johanna underestimate how even a small person can inflict considerable damage when completely enraged (or even when not, for that matter). As I mentioned before, body weight, whether it be primarily in muscle, fat, or a combination of the two, doesn’t make a fist swung with full force at the head any less dangerous, nor a barrage of punches, slapping or clawing any less painful.
@elementary_watson: Don’t they realize how they are normatizing being underweight (or at least slender) for women (and being muscular/physically imposing for men)?
And from where comes this assumption that the woman is going to be slapping while the man is choking/punching, etc.? I’ve seen women fight, and I don’t think I’ve ever seen the single slap to the face (which is no doubt what people are envisioning in the slap vs choking scenario; thanks, Hollywood) as the go-to form of aggression for them, either with men or other women.
@JDCyran: Right, that’s another “patriarchal default narrative”.
What got to me, though, was that I’ve only ever been with larger women (200+ pounds), and thinking about how this thoughtless size argument denies their vulnerabilities is insulting to them.
That Schroeder’s argument also denies male vulnerability and female ability to be physically dangerous is very problematic, too; but that other one was what got me on a personal level.
edit: this :
should have been
Titfortat:
That’s what I thought you meant, but I figured I should ask rather than assume.
This conversation reminds me of an incident that occurred when I was in eighth grade. A boy and a girl got into a fight, I haven’t a clue what started it, but she was pissed off at him, and kept yelling at him and punching him in the head. He kept trying to walk away, to the point where she resorted to picking up a folding chair and throwing it at his head. At that point he walked over and either pushed her over, or picked her up and threw her away from him (I can’t remember.)
I don’t recall what punishments were meted out, but I remember the class was discussing the incident, the students were almost overwhelmingly on the guy’s side. Our teacher wasn’t. She kept saying it was a shame (and she wasn’t particulalry old either, probably early thrities at the time) that he hit her, and he should have just walked away from the situation. Absolutely wouldn’t listen when we pointed out that A: He did try and B: She *threw a chair at his head*
Of course, the cynical part of me thinks the only reason most of the class was defending him was because he was fairly popular. I have doubts they would have felt the same about, say, me.
I’m just going to wash my hands of the place. It was great while it lasted (back before Noah came aboard and more of those trashy articles came seeping in. Back when Tom et al stood by their principles).
Welp, I think I got myself banned from posting at GMP. My comments aren’t showing up, and I don’t see the “your comment is awaiting moderation” bit either.
Awesome. /eyeroll
Here’s the thing I don’t like about the 100lb/180 lb example.
Basically, Joanna is saying that the women are child-like in the domestic violence arena, while men are adults. Women are incapable of inflicting serious damage through violence.
That’s fine, but if you say that women are incapable in this area, how do you turn around and say that women are capable in the workplace? If you consider women to be child-like in the area of domestic violence, for consistencies sake you have to consider women child-like in business, politics, sport, in the justice system, etc.
You can’t have it both ways. If you don’t have a consistent view that women are capable in all situations (only some situations, when it is to the women’s advantage), then the system is biased against males. Furthermore, reinforcing the notion that women are too weak to inflict damage only enhances stereotypes, and makes it harder for women to gain equality in traditionally male spheres.
Don’t worry, Paul.
It seems we’re going to have to create our own spaces like this one if we’re ever going to be heard. I wish it weren’t the case, but I can only take so much of the Joanna’s and Noah’s before saying “enough is enough.”
I just want a place where my story can be heard without people going “Men rule the world”, “Women have it worse”. But that’s rare and not exactly popular with mainstream.
That’s fine, but if you say that women are incapable in this area, how do you turn around and say that women are capable in the workplace?(gjdj)
Exactly, I dont know how they make those mental gymnastics work. If Im supposed to cross the street because a woman is feeling vulnerable because Im walking up on her at night, how can I then take her seriously for the police or military job she applies for the next morning?
So many thoughts on reading this and the comments…
On Joanna: I get the impression that she’s sincerely well intentioned, but basically _unable_ to grasp the point of female privilege and misandry. She literally can’t see it, even as she tries to listen sympathetically to stories about it. But eventually she gets frustrated as her core feminist programming kicks in and says “No–men do NOT have any problems that aren’t their own fault…. and women’s complaints about men are automatically valid, why aren’t you guys GETTING THAT?”
Paul, On making accommodations for women in men’s spaces: We had an illustration of that in another recent GMP thread on porn. One of the female posters, Erin, often comes into men’s discussions and announces “Reading these comments makes me sad because men are so nasty to women.” (And Joanna often chimes in with “Yes, these complaints men are expressing sound like misogyny to me.”) I asked if this sort of comment shouldn’t be treated as an attempt to silence men from expressing their real and honest thoughts, the stated purpose of the site. And Erin’s response? “If your comments make me sad and depressed, shouldn’t I give MY honest response?” Well, sure… if your goal is to get men to shut up in this supposedly male-friendly space.
Tit for Tat, on paradox feminism: Another good point. How can women be demanding full and equal treatment AND special protections because of their inherent disadvantages that they have no control over? The ability to juggle these two contradictory premises reveals a disconnect at the core of modern gender feminism… and I suspect it’s a large part of why radical feminism had so much recent difficulty in trying to take over atheist/skepticism with the “Atheism Plus” debacle. Too many atheists are too logical to accept the claims of radical feminism without question… and anything less than unquestioning acceptance is intolerable to the radical ideologues of Freethought Blogs.
Paul again, on society’s different levels of acceptance toward expressed gender hostility: Exactly right. Feminism has made it perfectly acceptable for women to express contempt, frustration, and even outright hatred of men. But any man who expresses similar feelings toward women, even on a site for “male discussion of men’s issues”? Well, that’s just pathetic limp-dick misogyny and no one will ever love you, you pathetic basement-dwellling crybaby.
Men who are angry with women = obviously insane.
Women who are angry with men = empowered, fully justified, you go grrl!
Addendum, on the domestic violence scenario: What a shame that comments have been closed on that thread, unlike almost any other.
Because I wanted to answer Joanna’s question: Should a man who’s being attacked by a smaller woman hit back? YES! Definitely. Self-defense is a right available to anyone. A man, regardless of size, who’s being physically assaulted has every right to defend himself physically against his attacker, no matter her size. If I were being attacked by a women, do you know what I’d do? Treat her like a grown-up, responsible, adult human being who’s attacking me! Apparently, for some feminists, that lack of chivalric self-sacrifice is unacceptable, all claims of “equality” be damned.
@Copy
Yes, a while back I called out the so called “feminists” for not applying their equality ideas when one of their sisters called men insane and the sickness is contagious. I then called the person in question insane for making such a blatant all encompassing statement. She then tried to imply that I was attempting to use the “women are emotional/hysterical” tactic. I told her, “Nah, not all women, I just think youre Nuts”. 😉
Copyleft: “Paul again, on society’s different levels of acceptance toward expressed gender hostility: Exactly right. Feminism has made it perfectly acceptable for women to express contempt, frustration, and even outright hatred of men. But any man who expresses similar feelings toward women, even on a site for “male discussion of men’s issues”? Well, that’s just pathetic limp-dick misogyny and no one will ever love you, you pathetic basement-dwellling crybaby.”
Reminds me of the time when I was labeled “Disturbed” for wanting people to see that women and girls do as much damage an individual on a level equivialant to men and boys. The irony: This comment was made on a site for Male Survivors, whom all made similar sentiments.
Thank goodness I still had support behind me. It was only one comment.
Get this, Joanna also once told me in an e-mail “I’m just concenred about how you’re taking it out on women”. I didn’t want to get into a debate with her and simply said “I don’t hate ALL women. Just the ones who can get away with things”.
And it just frustrated me even more. Fuck, I’m sick and tired of it.
Edit: I meant to say, with that site for Male Surviors, there were similar sentiments made SUPPORTING my position compared to that one comment labeling me “Disturbed Individual”.
“What a lot of women like Johanna don’t understand is how much force it takes to stop even a 100 lb person who is emotionally hijacked and going all out.”
Very few pit bulls weigh more than 70 lbs. Small size is not that much of an impediment.
“Never mind that huge muscles (or lots of fat) don’t make slaps hurt less, punches to the head and neck less life threatening, kicks to the groin less debilitating or fingernails less likely to puncture skin.
“I also suspect that we’d not be hearing a different story if the woman in the scenario was 6’1″, 170 lbs and the man was 5’8″, 150 lbs.”
This is the real double standard, this right here. This is where the size differential sudenly douesn’t matter any more.
Because, as gjdj says:
“Basically, Joanna is saying that the women are child-like in the domestic violence arena, while men are adults. Women are incapable of inflicting serious damage through violence.”
Yes. Joanna and everyone who argues this way is showing thier misgyny here.
“That’s fine, but if you say that women are incapable in this area, how do you turn around and say that women are capable in the workplace? If you consider women to be child-like in the area of domestic violence, for consistencies sake you have to consider women child-like in business, politics, sport, in the justice system, etc.
You can’t have it both ways”
In fact as you well nwo gjdj, they have been very, very successful in having iot both ways for about a century now.
And welcome, by the way. Thanks for your contributions.
TFT,
“Yes, a while back I called out the so called “feminists” for not applying their equality ideas when one of their sisters called men insane and the sickness is contagious. I then called the person in question insane for making such a blatant all encompassing statement. She then tried to imply that I was attempting to use the “women are emotional/hysterical” tactic. I told her, “Nah, not all women, I just think youre Nuts”. ;)”
You were arguing with a three-year-old, obviously. What a spoiled child, tho thinks anyone was going to accept that kind of argument. She calls you crazy, and when you object, she accuses you of calling her crazy – she projects her own behavior onto you. Classic BPD, narcissistic behavior.
This power differential never comes into play when everybody is the same sex. I remember about 20 years ago in the Detroit News a story about a man who was 5’8″ and thin who started taunting a guy who was 6’4″ younger and heavily muscled. This was at a peewee hockey game.
I don’t know what the little guys issue was, but apparently he physically accosted the larger guy. The larger guy pushed the little guy who fell over hit his head on concrete and died several days later.
Everybody I talked to had the response: what an idiot the little guy was. It wasn’t necessarily told in terms of the guy deserving it, it was in terms of the little guy should have been aware of the power differential and not go picking a fight.
This shouldn’t change just because gender is involved. If milder feminists why men are coming up with incredibly misogynistic terms like p***y pass, this is it: because even people who claim to know better like Joanna, are exhibiting a very sublime and under the radar form of misandry. Men are getting really sick of this bs.
The power differential isn’t something a stronger defender should have to keep in mind when defending themselves. It’s something the attacker should keep in mind when learning to keep their hands to their damn selves.
Way to ignore female agency in deciding to attack their loved ones.
You know, I think the fact physical violence from women (in general, but more specifically) onto men is acceptable, whereas the reverse, even in self defense, is not is the exact thing that got me the most angry about feminism. I have told my friends from an early age that was bullshit, and if a woman came after me, I would deal with her just like I would deal with a man that came after me. Of course, that wasn’t true when it came down to it, the trope overpowered my self defense instinct (and I don’t really enjoy hitting, to begin with). But I feel like you give up any claim, specious as it may be, that you deserve constant protection when you start attacking people.
This is why I have never understood the alliance between the feminist and gay rights movements. Feminists claim equal or better treatment based on their breasts/wombs, but the vast majority of gay men never benefit from those on anything more than a practical level. Why buy into it? Simply because “the enemy of my enemy is my friend?” Also I’m not sure how straight, cis-gendered men are the “enemy” of the gay rights movement, but that’s another post entirely.
And I would love to ask women in the military whether or not we should not attack a country in response to an attack by that country, if that country has a smaller, weaker military than we do.
She calls you crazy, and when you object, she accuses you of calling her crazy – she projects her own behavior onto you. Classic BPD, narcissistic behavior.(Gingko)
Thanks for articulating exactly what I was thinking. 🙂
First, I recommend not calling jackasses crazy. Its not nice to stigmatize crazy people like that. 🙁
Second, the human body is fragile if it is hit the wrong/right way. A 100lb person can hurt you. Your eyes, throat, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chokehold#Blood_choke yada, yada, are all quite vulnerable. Your jaw is designed to tear through flesh. In general, barring physical disability a person can kill another person if they are competent and the would be victim fails at defending themselves. So arguing that a man somehow isn’t in danger from a smaller lady? High grade misogynistic crap. Come on people women can do violence! We’ve allowed them into the military for how long? This is common knowledge!
Three, only use the minimum force to defend yourself. Sometimes that’s walking away, sometimes that’s a gun shot to the head.
ES,
“Why buy into it? Simply because “the enemy of my enemy is my friend?” Also I’m not sure how straight, cis-gendered men are the “enemy” of the gay rights movement, but that’s another post entirely.”
That captures it. It’s all about gay boys in high school looking for allies somewhere, anywhere, form the shit they are getting from straight boys. They fall for the culture’s victim narrative about females and they’re off and running.
One of the MRMs many right moves has been to be very clear about including gay men. The existence of the MGTOW wing of the MRM demolishes a significant support for homophobia, the meme that a man is not a man unless he has a woman. MGTOW does that just by existing.
Actually even the PUA guys, with their radically cynical approach to heterosexuality, may be eating away at the meme from the other sde, by exposing the moon-in-June romantic pretensions of dating.
Ginko: The existence of the MGTOW wing of the MRM demolishes a significant support for homophobia, the meme that a man is not a man unless he has a woman.
That’s another reason why I was happy to see NFL players supporting gay marriage, and statements from members of the military that the repeal of DADT really didn’t cause any problems. I think in both situations, you have some of the manliest men in the world, in the traditional sense, and they are basically saying, we accept all men, because being gay doesn’t affect how you can tackle or how courageous you are. As a straight man, I sometimes wonder if gay men would be happier if they were just men who had sex with men.
I always wonder when I see people making these blithe assumptions about the harmlessness of female relationship violence: Have they ever actually seen women or adolescent girls fight? When I was in high school, the really brutal fights- the ones where there was blood all over and the combatants seemed like they would have honest-to-God murdered each other if they hadn’t been broken up- were almost always between two girls. If that sort of fury is headed your way, it WILL fuck you up if it isn’t stopped. Merely being able to bench-press more than her isn’t going to stop that.
elementary_watson,
Good point on the assumptions about size disparities. Apparently this sort of thing has been a problem for some victims of domestic violence in lesbian relationships, with police just assuming that whichever woman is larger and/or seems more masculine must be the aggressor.
Copyleft,
“Exactly right. Feminism has made it perfectly acceptable for women to express contempt, frustration, and even outright hatred of men. But any man who expresses similar feelings toward women, even on a site for “male discussion of men’s issues”? Well, that’s just pathetic limp-dick misogyny and no one will ever love you, you pathetic basement-dwellling crybaby. “
The interesting thing is how stereotypically macho feminist men tend to sound on this subject. (Hugo Schwyzer is the archetypal example.) Men are obliged to meekly soak up female anger, insults, contempt, etc. not only because those emotions are presumed to be righteous, but because (due to men’s ostensibly privileged position) men supposedly have less reason to find such hostility hurtful or upsetting or intimidating or simply too obnoxious to put up with.
A proper feminist man, in other words, could never be frightened or intimidated or seriously hurt by a mere woman, unlike gutless men’s rights sissies like me.
” Actually even the PUA guys, with their radically cynical approach to heterosexuality, may be eating away at the meme from the other sde, by exposing the moon-in-June romantic pretensions of dating.”
That’s why I do it, anyway.
Ginkgo
“It’s all about gay boys in high school looking for allies somewhere, anywhere, form the shit they are getting from straight boys. They fall for the culture’s victim narrative about females and they’re off and running.”
I think this is generally true. But, it’s also a dangerous mentality. For one thing, straight girls aren’t magically less likely to be homophobic than their male peers, for another even when they aren’t “outright” homophobic, they can still have dangerous attitudes that aren’t readily apparent.
One of the first people I came out as bi to was a woman I thought I could trust. At first she was generally supportive, but apparently she felt I wasn’t “coming out of the closet” fast enough for her liking. She proceeded to either tell several other people, or manipulate the situation so that I pretty much had no choice but to come out to certain people. (In other words, she would hint heavily enough that even a rock would know what she was getting at) or blackmail me in to telling.
Eventually I got the notion that she wasn’t really all that supportive of me being *bisexual* I think she was just waiting for my “inevitable” admition that I’m actually gay (because male bisexuality is a myth, of course) then, she could have her own pet f*ggot.
Suffice to say, I’m not particularly friendly with her anymore.
Anyway, my point is that yes, a lot of these gay men fall in with straight women because women are friendly to them on the surface, but it’s been my experience that some of these women only stay friendly if you’re willing to play to the “flaming fairy” stereotype.
“That’s why I do it, anyway.”
Shoutybloke, on behalf of gay men everywhere – thank you.
Equil,
“That’s another reason why I was happy to see NFL players supporting gay marriage, and statements from members of the military that the repeal of DADT really didn’t cause any problems.”
This has been huge, huge, both pieces of this. These were like the gold standard in the culture for validating masculinity. And now the military is basically gay-supportive and football is swinging around. It is getting very “old” to be homophobic, and in football, old is career – read “commercial” – death.
It would be interesting to look at the extent of female opposition to the repeal of DADT – Elaine Donnelly is the name that springs to mind – and uncover what the real energy was behind that stance. I suspect it was more of the “no good men anymore” whining about men not marrying.
Paul, that story sucks and I am sure it is not uncommon. She decided to out you out of spite. Well, payback is a motherfucker. If she is still part of your social circle, or you live in someplace small enough where everybody knows everybody, so you all have a common social scene – out here for the way she betrayed your confidence. Aim especially at her female friendships, because that is where she really lives, and because those friends deserve the warning anyway.
Bi people have been treated abominably by LGB!T organizations. Basically they get told that unless they come out as gay, they are enemies.
Women in the military? But how would they defend themselves?
A defender’s size does give him a clear tactical advantage, but that’s not the end of the story. The extent to which an attacker gets hurt during an attack depends on how vicious and relentless the attack is. A defender has no way of knowing just how much damage a wild and crazed attacker is intent on inflicting, might get scared, surprised, or just react instinctively. An attacker is always putting herself in extreme danger when she launches an attack.
For that matter, someone who is not a trained fighter is much more likely to misjudge the amount of force or the best course of action. A man who really doesn’t want to hit a woman might instead try to push her away, but that could make her fall and break a bone, crack a skull, twist an ankle, bruise, etc. It could be worse than fighting back would have been. Joanna Schroeder is particularly clueless about the message that she is sending out to men and women alike. She’s telling violent women that they’re incapable of hurting a man while telling men that they’re abusers if they try to defend themselves. Really, knowing the rate of female-initiated domestic violence, why not create self defense courses for men which are specifically designed teach them how to cope with violent women? There’s plenty of self defense classes just like it designed for women. Or, would that be just a little too taboo?
Such as when she sees a cute shy guy and instead of asking him out herself, she asks him if he’s gay.
interesting article here….
http://www.shrink4men.com/2011/11/29/dr-drew-pinsky-says-kim-kardashian-committed-domestic-violence-against-kris-humphries/
Every time weight is invoked as a measure of criminal culpability in domestic violence situations by cis feminists, I want to hide in a deep dark hole and cry.
@Clarence:
John:
You are confusing Ozy with Noah. Ozymandias is a biological female who now identifies as some sort of non-binary person.
Last time I checked, my body’s pretty goddessdamned biological, and my midbrain’s pretty biological, and the gestational processes that arose both are biological too.
The words you’re looking for, or should be, are Coercively Assigned Female At Birth
Edit: Above should say, “from which both arose” Sorry for the triple-post.
@Dungone Such as when she sees a cute shy guy and instead of asking him out herself, she asks him if he’s gay.
To be sure, I ask if she’s a girl, or at least I would like to more often, because then I could ask her out ^_^; Also, one thing I have learned is to try not to assume gender from morphology, and pay more attention to the subtler, more communicative, aspects of presentation.
I have witnessed a woman, probably a fair bit stronger than the average woman but not all that much, attack several men because she was high on drugs and in some sort of irrational rage she took out on anyone in her vicinity. She knocked down two guys because they only tried to avoid getting punched and did not punch back. It took many punches and kicks before she managed to do so but she did because they where only trying to dodge her hits. She only got stopped when a really, really big guy managed to hold her in a way where she could not punch him. He could have done the same to me and I was much bigger than her. The two guys she knocked down where bigger than her and much stronger than her but unable to defends themselves by pacifying her without doing damage to her. Unless you are really huge or a trained martial artist you run a great risk of trying to restrain a woman attacking you in ways other than quickly punching her out or wrestling her hard to the ground etc. because if she gets in a good punch or three you might be on the floor already and if she gets in good a kick you are fu..ed. I don`t think women understand how powerful a kick from a person that is not especially strong can be. Men also have kneecaps that if kicked will easily break and injure him for life, noses break easily when they are hit directly, a punch that would do little damage on the cheek or forehead can make you unconscious if it hits you with the same power on the chin or the right spot on the side of the head, men also have balls women have been told to aim for their entire lives and women also have a tendency to go for his eyes with their fingers because they try to scratch in his face. WOmen also tend to use objects. A vase, a plate, a pan or whatever can make a weak person highly dangerous. If you are attacked with an object you need to take out the other person completely and fast. Also people don`t seem to understand how a fast chain of punches and kicks works. Even a punch in the face from a fairly weak person startles you and often blurs your vision and makes you unable to react in any way for a few seconds, if you get hit again that prolongs the effect and if you get hit a third time it gets prolonged again and for every hit you go deeper into confusion and closer to unconsciousness. This is key in self defense such as Krav Maga. If the small person can get in the first punch just by being fast enough with the second and third and fourth the small person can take out someone huge because of this effect where you get indisposed for a few seconds with each hit. A woman going bats hit can hit like a hurricane with new punches every few seconds and so take someone much larger, especially if that person has mental difficulties with fighting back against a woman.
I implore you guys to just listen to my play instead.
It’s coming to an end, by the way. At last, I finally did it: Completed something very emotionally draining.
The final episode of “Speak To Me”, I’ll be performing it Saturday, September 15th, 2012 at 10am Pacific Time, 1pm Eastern Time, 6pm UK Time on blogtalkradio.com
Please try to make it as this play has more worth in it for male survivors of male and female abuse than mainstream media won’t even bother giving.
Here’s the link:
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/autistic-people-/2012/09/15/radio-drama-speak-to-me-vii–10am-pst
If you miss it, the link will take you to a podcast instead where it can be downloaded for your personal enjoyment.
Ginko, as soon as I’m done the final episode, I will be sending all the episode links directly to you so you can feature the entire thing here on the site. What’s your e-mail?
Further up Paul wrote:
Well, that kind of mischaracterization is nothing new. Several times when I have argued that men ought to have the same kind of protection against rape in so called date-rape, partner-rape and gray-rape scenarios as they want women to have I’ve been accused of trying to justify rape of women by ridicule.
This is just projection. They are unable to empathize with male victims and frankly seem them as ridiculous – hence the jump to the conclusion that anyone arguing for male victims in reality are trying to ridicule female victims by analogue.
I suspect the same dynamic is at play here. An fundamental underlying inability to realize the existence of men who are violently attacked by their female partners let alone understanding and empathizing with them lead to the conclusion that anyone saying that those men have a right to defend themselves to get out of the violent situation in reality are arguing for a a right to punch women willy-nilly.
John Markley
A guy who I used to work with (who’s sadly no longer with us) used to be a bouncer, and he said that about bar fights. He also bred dogs, and said the same thing about them. Dogs fight to establish dominance, and stop when they’ve won. Bitches fight to protect their pups, in their heads at least, and they don’t stop for anything.
In humans, I gugess it’s a biological tendency that’s reinforced by socialisation. Growing up as a boy, I was expected to get into fights and was taught to be careful, and if I had to fight, to fight fair. Girls are assumed not to get into fights, and so aren’t given any adult guidance.
On the subject of women thinking they can’t hurt us, that applies emotionally as well. It’s a vicious circle. Women think men are emotionally and physically invulnerable, and so don’t accept vulnerable men as men and reject them, so men pretend to be invulnerable to avoid rejection, so women think men are invulnerable…
Valerie:
She used to brag about being a woman and she has all the fucking parts including the womb and two ovaries or at least she’s never claimed any deviation thereof.
I’m sorry, but while people can identify anyway they want, I don’t have to follow them along for the ride.
Clarence:
To “Not follow people alone for the ride,” belies an incredible willful ignorance of neurobiology, something pretty core to a sexually dimorphic sapient species. Genital and gonadal morphology are useful only for determining what a cisnormative society will deem allowable treatment. And yes, almost all trans people identify as cis at one point, that doesn’t make their current identification less legitimate, it is simply an element of coercive birth assignment.
I was beaten for my sex, and they hid behind my CASAB to justify it, which is why I’m very uncool with using someone’s CASAB, or for that matter, their identified (i.e. actual, based on best evidence) sex, to justify brutal treatment.
You’re essentially arguing that a thermometer read by someone taking temperature was read at a forced perspective and the temperature derived from that erroneous forced perspective should modify or delegitimate the temperature taken at what the holder of the thermometer believes to be a superior angle.
Nobody can ‘know’ their neurological sex, but self-reportage, especially in the cases of trans identities, is so very accurate that they can, for dignity’s sake, be assumed the same.
And obviously, that means MOST RECENT self-reportage.
@Valerie Keefe, Ozy doesn’t strike me as someone who genuinely identifies as anything but a woman. Her decision to set herself apart appears to be more of an honorific title she has given herself, sort of the way religious types insist that other people capitalize the word god. It seems to be, quite honestly, an extreme instance of denial, what feminists often refer to as “checking your privilege.” This transition to this honorific title had coincided at a particular time when it was increasingly difficult for her to argue against all the female privilege that was being pointed out to her, after which she began a campaign of banning some of her most vocal visitors to her blog. Her blog has since dropped the ruse of being friendly to men’s voices and doubled down on its feminist credentials, including the continued defense of female privilege. It is difficult to accept her authenticity, then, as it comes off insincere and maybe even exploitative in nature.
Yeah, I get a bit of subversivism in what ze writes too, but still, it won’t kill people to use a third-pronoun, and the underlying problematism of a) the phrase biologically female used to refer to CAFAB people and b) cis people deciding when and where to respect an avowedly trans person’s identified sex, are such that you know… we can be big boys, girls, and otherwise identified people, and not be essentialist while calling Ozy out. It’s not hard to say:
Ze relies on the privileging of CAFAB trans people in queer spaces a great deal for the moral authority to make her, often femmephobic, often subtly transmisogynistic, and often baldly misandristic, arguments.
Not a problem at all. We’re all in this together, and we should pay attention to the way that unidirectional cis feminists treat femme cis men, poor cis men, trans women, CAMAB genderqueer people, trans men, etc. Kyriarchy needs a bit of a bigger Rosetta stone then cis men vs. queer cis women.
*zir not her… sorry, I slipped a pronoun there.
Valerie Keefe:
Just because I now identify as Napoleon Bonaparte , Emperor of the French where as yesterday I did not, does not mean that I really am Napoleon Bonaparte, Emperor of the French.
To me female is:
A. 2 x chromosomes
B. Two ovaries *functional or no*
C. External female genitalia
Regardless of anything else. We could also argue over such things as XXY or otherwise, but if you have A, B, C above, to me you are female.
I also dislike your use of “coercive”. It’s true that forcing people to pick a binary sex is coercive , ASSIGNING a biological sex at birth (that can be changed by the person later in life) is in no ways equivalent to doing something irreversible like genital mutilation.
I acknowledge the existence of people who live outside of or do not fit into the binary. I do not thus become obligated to abandon the fact there are two primary sexes.
Clarence: There a lot of children born with primary and secondary sexual characteristics that are ambiguous between male and Napoleon Bonaparte? Does the midbrain vary between male, female, and Bonaparte archetypes with frequent ambiguous brains characterized as Jacobite? Seriously, grow the fuck up.
And yes, assigned sex is coercive, as any woman who’s had to fight for control over her own endocrinology for months, sometimes years, can tell you, as parents who have to decide between allowing their child to live how they identify or risk their child being taken away can tell you, and as anyone walking down the street while visibly trans can tell you.
Valerie:
You are telling me nothing new, as if you read my comment in a more calm mental state you might have figured out.
Seriously, don’t presume to educate me on the biological realities of intersex (or will you attack me for using a term you don’t approve of? I have no fucking clue what terminology you prefer) people when in my own post I mention XXY, and am very specific into number of ovaries.
As far as it goes:
A. I do not support “transphobia”. People like Heart are haters.
B. I don’t support lots of the crap people with interesex and “gender identity” issues have to deal with such as having to declare a primary sex on their marriage certificates/pass ports, having difficulty accessing government services, getting beaten up etc. What kind of moral monster wants to beat people up for no other crime than that of being different?
C. I’d support the “official ” addition of one or two extra pronouns to make your life easier if you and yours could only agree on what the heck they should be.
D. I’m against genital surgery unless it is for some life threatening issue. The child (most of whom would be some degree of intersex ) should decide when they get older, what, if anything they want done, and how to present themselves.
That’s as far as it goes, and as far as I can go. I’m sorry but I don’t see noting the child’s sex at birth (when it is clear) to be some sort of oppression. Nor do I feel obliged to change my opinion of what constitutes one of the two primary sexes to suit yourself.
P.S:
And I refuse to play along with Ozzies game.
At least you got surgery, if I recall correctly.
“On the subject of women thinking they can’t hurt us, that applies emotionally as well. It’s a vicious circle. Women think men are emotionally and physically invulnerable, and so don’t accept vulnerable men as men and reject them, so men pretend to be invulnerable to avoid rejection, so women think men are invulnerable…”
Yup, and there’s the thing that Joanna Schroeder expects a big, unfeeling man to save her or all the other women. She doesn’t see a weak man as a real man-all men will be weak at some point either due to aging, disability, intoxication, sickness, extreme fatigue/tiredness. There’s a bit of “objectification” going on with these feminist types….
I won’t even go into feminist’s expecting men to initiate sex/relationships while calling them Shroedinger’s rapist and Nice Guys ™ ….
Damned if you do, damned if you don’t….
(and to see the “Damned if you don’t” look at all the hatred that’s put onto MGTOW’s.)
You may not be in favour of trans extermination, like plenty of radfems, but you walk around with a LOT of blatantly cissexist attitudes. I too am against surgical assignment at birth, and provisional assignment isn’t that much of a concern. It’s the ferocity with which assignment is maintained that makes it coercive.
As far as additional pronouns? How hard is it to just use the pronoun people want you to use, in the same way you use the NAME people want you to use. Pronouns and honourifics are a component of naming, clearly.
And finally, my rights are not dependent on my genital morphology and the latter is incredibly irrelevant to this situation. And that you would reference the shape of my bits as a reason for treating me like who I actually am is beyond offensive.
@Valerie, I disagree. Ozy is free to promote the use of an invented gender-neutral pronoun if it pleases her, but she has to use it correctly herself. If she is going to harass other people into using the (ugly) word “zir” when talking about her, she should also use it herself when talking about everyone else, whether they like it or not, and defend that practice as well. Otherwise, she can feel free to use it as often as she’d like but accept the fact that other people won’t.
Valerie:
Language exists to facilitate communication.
That is really all the answer you need about the “pronoun” thing, as you are intelligent and can probably adduce the rest of my argument.
As for the “cis-sexist” stuff, I shrug. Like racism, it’s a term that can be over-used and hence lose its bite, and in my opinion, you over-use it from time to time including now.
P.S. Thank you for giving me credit for not wanting to put you and Ozzy into a Death Camp. I guess I should be happy you hold me in higher regard than you do a Nazi.
@dungone So I should start referring to you with female pronouns and honourifics? This isn’t a gender-neutral pronoun. It’s a non-binary pronoun. It’s not intended to be used for all people, only those who find it a valid and relevant method of referring to themselves.
Clarence: Referring to a trans woman as biologically male is cissexist for reasons I have already gone into, as it essentializes cis interpretations of her body, denying her own experience and clearly contradicting position. Referring to a trans man as female is cissexist. Referring to a genderqueer person as biologically their assigned sex is cissexist. If you can’t agree with that, I don’t know what, quite simply, where to begin.
And cissexism is pretty clearly defined as viewing trans identities as less legitimate as cis identities, either by invalidating them completely or making them subject to conditional approval. It’s pretty blatant to anyone paying attention that that’s what’s going on here.
Valerie:
And shifting the meaning of terms to a purely personal level like “male”, “female”, “lesbian”, etc, doesn’t facilitate communication or good argumentation.
I do not hold other people to a duty to validate everything I decide I might want to self-declare.
And yes, I hate to say it: ALL identities in societal terms are subject to the approval of other people. I can say that I’m the President of the United States but you do not have to believe it.
Once again, I’d gladly remove barriers from you living your life as you want had I the power. But I am not obligated to assume your world-view about cis and non-cis related gender identities.
@Valerie, Ozy is entitled to her own opinions, but not her own facts. Zie had already been established as a gender neutral word before Ozy came along. And there’s no such thing as a non-binary pronoun. There’s either a gender neutral pronoun or a gender specific pronoun. Anything that describes more than one possibility is by sheer definition a gender-neutral word. Again, I must point out, Ozy is not using it as a gender neutral pronoun or even a specific other-than-male-or-female pronoun, she is using it as a “thou-shalt-not-speak-of-my-gender-in-vein” pronoun and applying it to her own instance. It’s preposterous to ask people to butcher the core components of the English language to suit one woman’s hubris.
Wow… it’s like arguing with the MRA version of Cathy Brennan. She too will concede that I’m a woman, but will deny that I’m female or a lesbian, and usually sign off with a reference to genital morphology, “sorry about your dick.”
Again, gender/sex is different from socio-economic status, in that it is solely biologically driven. As well gender/sex is not caused by, merely well-correlated with, genital morphology, as I mentioned the last time you said you identified as a world leader… jackass.
@dungone Ozy’s not a woman. Zie’s a twit, and steeped in cisfeminine-centric social circles, but zie’s not a woman. Know why? Because zie said so!
And I will respect zir pronouns, just like I would if they were shi and hir, or singular they for that matter, (which I agree, sounds the best to the anglophone ear, but words sounding good is not a sufficient reason to deny someone’s identity, for fucksakes), without regard to their previous pedigree.
Basically, I’m saying, even if you think Ozy’s choice of pronoun is a political tactic, don’t do that. I’m asking for on one vector, you to ignore an opportunity to be a jerk to someone you don’t like because of the environment it creates for people who want to like and fight alongside you but won’t have that option if, in your rush to kvetch about Ozy, and attack zir identified sex you degender people like me in the process. And that IS what’s happening here. The reason I’m not comfortable around most cis feminists is that they ignore issues of intersectionality around the CAMAB. To then walk into someone ignoring issues of intersectionality in the exact same way, just for the sake of emotional succor, and some standard of not-too-objective objectivity isn’t just discouraging, it’s invoking all that which my politics is ranged in opposition to.
You can find more valid avenues of argument. I know you can.
When you stoop to calling erst-while allies -people whom in general you would have to agree on your side in terms of politics and policies in terms of non-binary gender issues- “jackass” solely because they do not hold the exact same views of gender philosophy that you do, you risk pushing away many of your allies. Still, though I personally think you are a self-important jerk, you needen’t worry about me changing my mind and going against most policies you support, because I arrived at my opinions after much philosophical and sexual research and I’ve lived my life never attaching my personal antipathies to my support of public policies.
Still, I hope you stay well away from any “public speaking” position in the intersex/trans/genderqueer/whatever communities.
We’re not talking about ‘exact same views’ we’re talking about something a bit more fundamental: The idea that sex is identified on the basis of self-reportage. And yeah, I’ll call anyone who says, “well, I could identify as Napoleon,” a jackass. For a number of reasons, not least of which is the not-so-subtle implication that trans people are delusional. Guess what: Giving someone who says they’re Napoleon a hat and a map of Europe doesn’t have a 98% success rate.
Don’t call yourself an ally if you’re gonna act like that, because you aren’t. You’re a holder of a moderate cissexist position that you hope will seem like a reasonable compromise, save for the fact that it’s utterly incoherent.
Please, whatever you do, don’t police my behavior as if you had any right to or as if I cared. Allow other people to decide for themselves if one unreasonable person is a sufficient reason for learning a make believe language instead of speaking in English. The burden of proof is for Ozy to demonstrate that I am using the English language incorrectly when I ignore her request to have everyone in the whole world talk to her in gibberish that she made up. Also, she has identified as a woman. Many times. I am going by the standard of set precedent. She has to do a lot more than she has in order to set a new precedent for herself. None of her ideas changed, none of her sexual preferences changed, and none of her in-group affiliations have changed. The only thing that changed is her sudden demand for people to not dare call her out on her cis female identity. As long as I believe that this is her sole reason for her campaign, I will not buy into it.
Speaking of personal identity, please be careful not to sink your own argument by contradicting yourself. I have never identified myself as an MRA, but as an anti-feminist, more specifically a skeptic of feminist politics and gender discourse. I also have no idea what this world leader talk comes from.
Valerie:
I disagree 100 percent on the incoherent idea of “sex as self-reportage” and I do not have to believe that all trans people are delusional either. For instance some people have mostly male internal and external organs but a female hormonal profile. This clearly would affect the mind. I’m of the opinion sex is solely a matter of the body. How people choose to identify is of course different, but in my opinion there are only three types of bodies: intersex, female, male.
I don’t see my view having much negative affect on any policies, so other than it being personally offensive to you, I see no incoherence or harm in it.
“Also, she has identified as a woman. Many times. I am going by the standard of set precedent. She has to do a lot more than she has in order to set a new precedent for herself. None of her ideas changed, none of her sexual preferences changed, and none of her in-group affiliations have changed.”
Yeah, you just described my transition. Used to identify as my CASAB, my orientation didn’t change, my outrage over the Death Gap didn’t go away, nor did my anger at erasure of misandry, oh and I’m still gynephillic… so take me to the end of the paragraph: What does that mean for me?
dungone:
Valerie is addressing both of us.
No Clarence, that Second-to-last reply was directed at you alone, not dungone.
@Patrick Brown
“Growing up as a boy, I was expected to get into fights and was taught to be careful, and if I had to fight, to fight fair. Girls are assumed not to get into fights, and so aren’t given any adult guidance.”
That’s an excellent point. Not only are girls *not* taught how to restrain themselves, they are essentially told that they don’t need to. Society tells them that not only are they mostly “incapable” of inflicting actual harm, but even if/when they do, they are completely justified for it. It’s like that jezebel article posted a few years ago about women hitting their boyfriends. Most of the reasons were downright inane and unjustifiable under normal circumstances, but the entire article had a tone of “teehee, aren’t us little girls just so amusing!”
Even if I had been inclined to respect Jezebel (which I wasn’t) that article would have killed it.
Valerie:
I suppose I could have said Valarie is addressing both of us at the same time, thus carrying on two conversations at once. I think if you look at my replies you’ll see I have had no difficulty in discerning when a reply is to me or not; Dungone seems to be confused.
Paul:
If women were somehow magically restricted to only slaps , perhaps that laughing tone at the ladies violent “antics” would be justified. But this is the real world and they are not and the cognitive dissonance is astounding.
Zie, zir….. doubleplusungood.
One can use language however one wants but one may not demand others adopt the same use of language. That is thought reprogramming.
First they came for the cis feminists, then they came for the trans feminists…
Sorry you have to explain such elemental issues about trans politics, Valerie, but now you know how I feel when I argue with dungone and Clarence. As the fundamentalist bumper stickers say: “God said it, I believe it and that settles it.” Just substitute their names for God. 😉 Same vibe. Its about what they believe about gender, not what you are trying to explain. Its the same reason they identify as “anti feminist”–it goes against their BELIEFS; has nothing to do with logic, fairness, politics, equality, goals for the species, any of that quaint stuff.
We are talking religious devotion here.
The two of you have been awful in this thread. Just. Plain. Awful. But now I understand why we never agree. I have been appealing to some concept of “fairness” and neither of you “believe” in any such entity. Or, you might admit the IDEA exists, but you simply have no respect for it.
Took me awhile to get that, but this thread has been pretty educational.
Dies: One can use language however one wants but one may not demand others adopt the same use of language. That is thought reprogramming
Its just called common decency. To call people by the name they choose instead of, you know, “William Faulkner” or some other name not of their own choosing–that is just respect and being a decent fucking human being.
Clearly, the issue is that some people deserve common respect and decency and others do not.
Hmm… I seem to recall having an argument a while back with a particular poster on how I was supposed to identify myself. Heh.
Daisy:
Do I have to explain the birds and the bees to you ?
Drop this bullshit about “goals for the species”, it’s clear you don’t even understand why there are two primary sexes to begin with, and I really doubt you’ve ever thought about any long-term purpose of the human species.
As for the rest, I really wish you’d stop drinking before you post your passive-aggressive backstabbing diatribes. I have more respect for Valerie because Valerie goes head on into the fray.
Let me help you out:
You can explain a fact to someone.
You can explain your philosophical position to someone, the reasons why you hold it.
You, however, cannot explain a philosophical position the same way you do a fact. And unlike a fact, which people do have to concede, philosophical positions by themselves carry no self-evident truth. Sometimes facts and arguments may change one’s mind.
Valerie adduced no new facts in order to convince me to change my mind.
Valeries philosophical position and mine are 100 degrees of separation apart in some ways.
Yet surprisingly, on over 90 percent of the trans stuff that Valerie cares about we are probably on the same page.
Anyway, that’s as much as I could probably explain to a former Maoist. Most of your life seems to have been wandering from political religion to actual religion to political religion again all in search of something in which to believe. What you absolutely never ever seem able to do is figure out how anyone could possibly see the same situation and (with or without more facts than you have) come to a different conclusion. Everyone who disagrees with you is evil or selfish, at least in the parts of philosophy or politics in which they disagree with you. This is what you have always believed, and time has never granted you any wisdom on that score. Regardless, you will not get your wings by dehumanizing me.
This thread is getting pretty nasty. Trans women don’t get all the privileges of being female, but it seems to me that Valerie is assuming the female privilege of expecting others to walk on eggshells around her or face her disapproval, and unfortunately for her has run into two men in Clarence and Dungone who reject the notion that female disapproval is social death.
This is basically the same thing that happened over ElevatorGate, and Kate Beaton taking offence and the male fan who wanted to have her babies, and I think this is a big part of the “red pill”. Women are increasingly, I hope, going to have to argue their positions and convince rather than declare and take offence at disagreement. We’re no longer going to march into machine-gun fire when women hand us white feathers.
dungone:
Ozy identifies as trans, not cis.
We’re not talking about names. Besides, how about the “common decency” to not impose Newspeak on people.
And the judge on who deserves respect and decency is … you?
@Daisy: To call people by the name they choose instead of, you know, “William Faulkner” or some other name not of their own choosing–that is just respect and being a decent fucking human being.
So your threshold for decent human being is whether people, who I’m sure you know develop attachments to language, names, identifiers, etc., that are extremely hard to break, don’t just call someone whatever they want to be called?
I had a roommate in college who decided to change her name (and was very adamant about it) four times during the time that I lived with her. I tried my best to call her by the first name she changed to, but it was difficult after having called her by the original name every day for the year that I had known her. Of course, right after I had gotten used to that name, she decided to change it again.
It was then that I realized that names and labels aren’t just for the people they’re applied to. They’re also the words used to act as identifiers for other people, and, in many ways, belong as much to the individual as they do to people they interact with. That, I think, is one of the reasons why people acquire nicknames – most of which are not something they choose – or have their names shortened, etc. Mental associations that other people have made are not always something that can just be broken and replaced at the whim of the person they’re associated with (and I imagine things like pronouns – which describe entire classes of people and are rooted in some of the first parts developed in certain languages – have even firmer associations).
So when I talked to my roommate after that, I just called her by one of the first two names she used because, in my mind, nothing about her had changed. She was literally still the same person, and her label for herself didn’t make her any more or less who she already was or is, and I, being human, had a little space in my mind where she existed under the labels that were already familiar to me. She argued with me angrily at first, but eventually got over it when she realized I wasn’t being derogatory or trying to trample her identity as opposed to just maintaining my own mental coherence and sense of identification with those around me.
Ironically, after the 3rd change, which was brief, she started to discover problems with changing her name so much. When people who only knew her by the 4th name (the 3rd change) talked about her to people who didn’t know it had changed, they sometimes didn’t even know they were talking about the same person. It was awkward and annoying for just about everyone. She eventually changed her name a 4th time, back to her original name, which, for some reason, she no longer hates and has kept for some time.
Now, of course, that’s a bit of a different scenario than a person who is trying to change their name to match their gender identity, but I think it still makes a fine point. First, I hardly think the definition of a decent fucking human being has anything to do with whether someone has problems (whether with wanting to do it or trying to and failing) calling someone by a name they’ve chosen if it’s different than one they already know and have made a mental association with. Obviously, calling someone by a name they’ve never had and that is derogatory or ridiculous (like, say, William Faulkner) differs, but I doubt many people consider that a fine thing to do.
Secondly, and this isn’t directly related to you, Daisy, I find it to be a little hard to believe that trans or gender queer people can make an argument about being “disrespected” or “dehumanized” when people use the wrong pronoun or don’t use a non-gendered pronoun when addressing them or in general language given what they often claim to know about identity. It smacks of obliviousness to the inherent identity that language gives to each individual whether they’re using it to describe themselves or others, and I think there’s an unrealistic expectation that any given individual is capable of scrubbing their own mental associations or even being able to really change over a long period of time (though some individuals certainly can).
There’s a lot of concern about one’s own identity, and rightly so. But identity doesn’t just end at the skin. It encompasses what people perceive, how they describe things, what they do and a lot more. It seems unreasonable to demand that people change their external identities to match one’s internal identity in the same way that it would be unreasonable to demand that someone else change their internal identity. Certainly the former would be easier, and it may be reasonable to try to nudge them along, but, in a lot of cases, I think those expectations are too high.
@Typhon: One can identify one’s sex, ones orientation, one’s name and appropriate honourifics as a function mostly of the first, but one cannot really identify the social structures surrounding those things. I could not magically ‘self-identify’ away my transness or my lesbianism or my working-class socio-economic status. I cannot identify myself into worrying that I’ll be pregnant, nor could I identify away the year I spent fighting for control of my own endocrinology, nor can I identify away the unique strain of misogyny that comes up again and again in my life.
It’s pretty naturally clear what one can and cannot identify. One cannot identify one’s CASAB, that is well-known and externally applied. One can pretend it doesn’t exist, but it still exists. One can, however, identify one’s sex, and the appropriate forms of address that that sex entails. And anyone who’s paid any attention to transfeminism here will know that Ozy doesn’t free zirself from criticism by identifying as genderqueer while CAFAB.
@dungone
You ignored me last time so I’ll repeat it:
Also, she has identified as a woman. Many times. I am going by the standard of set precedent. She has to do a lot more than she has in order to set a new precedent for herself. None of her ideas changed, none of her sexual preferences changed, and none of her in-group affiliations have changed.
Yeah, you just described my transition. Used to identify as my CASAB, my orientation didn’t change, my outrage over the Death Gap didn’t go away, nor did my anger at erasure of misandry, oh and I’m still gynephillic… so take me to the end of the paragraph: What does that mean for me?
@Patrick Brown
No, Patrick, Elevatorgate, which I’ve teed off on Watson over a couple of times, was about someone who couldn’t take someone taking no for an answer… for an answer. Someone says something unattractive, you ask them to stop, they do, END OF CRISIS. At that point there’s no need to take to the internets to publicly shame the guy in front of a few thousand people, but Watson is, quite simply, very good at engaging in that high-school Alpha-dog bullshit. So, Elevatorgate aside, am I asking people to walk on eggshells?
No, I’m asking them to.
a) Respect someone’s name and identified sex even if they don’t respect the person, otherwise the implication is that my right to transition is dependent only on good behavior.
b) Not adopt genital-essentialist standards of male and female, because they have been shown to be irrelevant by both neuroscience and belied further by the personal narratives of trans people. Talk to me about the importance of zygotes and gametes when we’re not in the middle of an overpopulation crisis.
What’s more is that talk like this degenders all trans people, not just the ones who’re the targets of your rhetorical ire. And if you’re going to oppose the fucked-up parts of feminism, cissexism is a great place to start:
You can take the opportunity to call out cissexism in feminist spaces, how they’ll totally make room for Ozy and zie’s a cool gender-rebel… but CAMAB genderqueers and women?
You, of course, don’t have to. You can do as radfems do, and ignore people and invoke them when politically convenient, but people have a habit of calling that out.
Dieserae: Cut the duckspeak, would you? It diminishes tyranny of language to compare it to using a requested honourific. The trans rights movement has had to popularize many novel words because we operated in an environment where the existing language served to preclude the possibility of our existence! That’s what good and ungood were about, by the way, robbing the people of Oceania of the ability to express their actual feelings about the system in which they lived without sounding comical.
If you’re going to reference Orwell, do it right would you? I get enough of this from the two-legs-good, three-legs-bad, unidirectional feminist crowd.
Valerie & Daisy, I will call you or anyone else “zie” so long as you and everyone else addresses me in the third person royal. You might not know that I am transitioning into a monarch, but rest assured that internally, I am not so sure! Therefore, to recognize the dignity of my inner life which you have no way of seeing for yourself, I insist that you refer to me as His Highness. I will be greatly offended if you don’t address me “by the name they choose.” Also, in each sentence of which I am the subject, I insist that you replace the word “a” with “foo” and the word “the” with “boo” to reflect the grammar of the inner kingdom over which I rule. /s
This is, I believe the third time I have had to offer this specific counter-argument:
Children are not born with genitalia that fits an archetype that we assign male, female, or monarch. There is no biological basis for Your Highness’ decision, Your Highness is just taking some time to be a whiny, privilege-laden, (ooh, I called a person out: emotional manipulation!) child, who’s having a temper tantrum over having to learn three syllables. The brain is not sexually dimorphic between royal and commoner.
Using an atypical non-normative pronoun set doesn’t diminish your rights in any way, save your right to uphold a mythology about a gender binary which does not exist beyond the archetypal.
And you know why genderqueer people haven’t gotten together on a third-gender pronoun? Two reasons:
1. As Western society goes, we barely legally recognize trans people, even in many ‘progressive’ places, recognizing them only so far as they assimilate to cissupremacist standards of how a body must look to be recognized as male or female, and surely nothing else.
2. There are more than three genders! I don’t have to have a non-preponderant gender to understand that. If it helps you to envision it better, gender is essentially a two-party dominant system.
Also, Dungone, you didn’t answer my question.
@ Valerie
It’s not “requested” though. It’s “you use my language or you’re an asshole”.
Creating new words is a wonderful thing. I’m the last person to stand in the way of that. My problem is with the implicit and sometimes explicit desire to destroy existing words (in this case gendered pronouns) and hence my reference to Orwell.
Allow me to quote rather than reference:
“But the special function of certain Newspeak words, of which oldthink was one, was not so much to express meanings as to destroy them. These words, necessarily few in number, had had their meanings extended until they contained within themselves whole batteries of words which, as they were sufficiently covered by a single comprehensive term, could now be scrapped and forgotten.” – Appendix 1984
@Diesirae
I think that bit from the Appendix, which I still remember reading in a blues bar on the South side in 2004, pretty accurately describes the gender binary. We have subsumed wolffian, androgenic, and spermatozoa in the word male, and as a result, buried maleness beneath cissexist ephemera. The same case applies to the word female.
But I still fail to see how: But the special function of certain Newspeak words, of which oldthink was one, was not so much to express meanings as to destroy them.
is sufficiently different from:
The trans rights movement has had to popularize many novel words because we operated in an environment where the existing language served to preclude the possibility of our existence!
Yes, to be accurate while using newspeak is a near-impossiblity and one is marked by the cadence of such attempts. The theme of 1984 is not perfectly contained within the appendix of the same work, just as natural law is not expressed perfectly in Leviticus. It is pedantic at best to use an appendix from a piece of fiction as the sole arbiter of every shade of meaning to be found in that fiction.
What I suggest to those who care about the pronouns their referenced with, is to expand their horizon of what the existing pronouns mean to them. Particularly in this day and age, we can accept that being a “he” does not need to limit you. Take Andrej Pejic for example. Using “he” does not make him any less feminine or beautiful. If anything it makes the message of male emancipation more powerful – men can be who they want without having to stop being men. The MRM should be making him their poster boy.
I think much of the currently popular discussion on gender neutrality is actually reinforcing gender roles – not breaking them. The whole concept of trans requires there to be a border to cross. Without gender roles, it wouldn’t make sense to switch them. There’s a reason why there are virtually no female crossdressers – the modern female gender role is free enough to encompass almost any conceivable expression of fashion. I think many m2f transpeople would benefit a lot from expanding the male gender role rather than rejecting it. This is what feminists have done for women.
There’s a reason why there are virtually no female crossdressers – the modern female gender role is free enough to encompass almost any conceivable expression of fashion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_king
I think many m2f transpeople would benefit a lot from expanding the male gender role rather than rejecting it.
Trans women are not and have never been, male, and guess what: There are plenty of trans men, so expanding female gender roles have proven insufficient there too. I have already had to tell radfems, that even if you don’t believe in gender, it still believes in you. I wear no makeup, sneakers, teeshirts, and slacks, and still, you’re only prying my estrogen from my cold, dead, hands, buddy.
It’s something cis people tell themselves: If there’s less sexism, there’ll be less reason for trans people to transition… tell me, over the last 40 years, as a great deal of gender roles have been partially or completely broken down, what’s happened to prevalence of social transition? It’s gone from estimates of 1 in 30,000 to 1 in 200, with an avowed prevalence of transsexuality of 1 in 100.
Despite what you and Dworkin believe, when sexism goes away there will be MORE transitioners, not less. That’s what the data has shown.
Valerie:
You’re not asking. You’re demanding, on pain of female disapproval. That’s one part of traditional gender roles I want to do away with.
You’re “asking” them, for the sake of avoiding your disapproval, to agree that because a distinction is not absolute but has a small number of exceptions, then it’s completely arbitrary and meaningless. You’re “asking” them to agree that your experience is normative, for everyone and not just for you, or else you’ll get upset. I think “walking on eggshells” is a reasonable shorthand.
@Patrick Brown
Alright, fine, yes, I’m demanding the same respect for trans people’s identities that cis people get, you caught me out on my totes prescriptivist agenda.
And the absolute LOWER BOUND on that small portion of the population is 1%. If neuro-organization has the same efficacy for neurological sex as it does for sexual orientation, a more likely lower bound is something approaching 8%, and rising.
Just so I know for later, at what prevalence are trans people worth considering as part of the natural diversity of the human species? 2%, 5%, the US black population prevalence of 12%?
I’m just a little curious.
@Valerie, I fixed it for you. I hope that eventually you get the point. Arbitrary changes to the basic parts of speech of the English language to suit an individual’s whims is not a good strategy.
Perhaps you don’t understand that I am not in disagreement with you that a new set of pronouns to describe a wider variety of distinctions would be a great idea. I am disagreeing with the immature, pathetic approach being taken in which a few individuals have chosen to unilaterally make such changes by harassing others and demanding immediate special treatment. Also, as a more minor issue, disagreeing with the idea of a “non-binary” pronoun as opposed to a gender-neutral pronoun, where applicable. That’s because of logic – neither he or she would be binary if a third option was there, which would not be “binary” either. So there are only gender specific and gender neutral pronouns, no matter how many you conceive of. Also, far more importantly, the need for a gender neutral pronoun for sentient beings (as opposed to calling them “it”) far outstrips the need for others. You’re not setting us up for a situation where you’re requesting that people have no choice but write convoluted statements such as, “When he or she or zie wants to talk about a person without specifying their gender…” At any rate, Ozy is grossly misusing the very idea of “zie,” and doing so in an arrogant and annoying manner. If you wish to support her on that, and derail entire threads every single time someone mentions her, then you’ll end up being considered a troll.
dungone:
How so? I honestly do not see the problem.
Dungone, there is a perfectly serviceable gender-neutral third person singular pronoun – “they”. English speakers have felt the need for one and created one by borrowing it from the third person plural, and it is widely used and understand. If I ever have need to talk about Ozy in the third person, that’s the pronoun I will use to refer to them.
Valerie, I totally respect your identity. I don’t think it makes you automatically right though. I don’t give cis people that kind of “respect” and I won’t give it to you either.
@Dungone
Ozy is grossly misusing the very idea of “zie,” and doing so in an arrogant and annoying manner. If you wish to support her on that, and derail entire threads every single time someone mentions her, then you’ll end up being considered a troll.
Ironically, I made this post on FTB about fifteen minutes ago:
Troll n. – Person attempting to cause discord by advancing arguments and attacks which they do not believe because they find entertainment in enraging others.
Troll n. (cis feminist) – Person disagreeing vehemently, but in good faith.
Looks like I’m gonna have to expand the latter definition…
Anyway, Dungone, I reiterate, for the third time, take your statements to their logical conclusion and answer this question, and if you can’t, frankly, your argument doesn’t have the courage of its convictions:
Also, she has identified as a woman. Many times. I am going by the standard of set precedent. She has to do a lot more than she has in order to set a new precedent for herself. None of her ideas changed, none of her sexual preferences changed, and none of her in-group affiliations have changed.
Yeah, you just described my transition. Used to identify as my CASAB, my orientation didn’t change, my outrage over the Death Gap didn’t go away, nor did my anger at erasure of misandry, oh and I’m still gynephillic… so take me to the end of the paragraph: What does that mean for me?
I’m waiting.
Do your own research and quote from it. Don’t expect me to do it for you by just pasting links instead of making an argument.
I’m trying but cannot understand what you’re trying to say with that paragraph. “gender believes in you” – what does that even mean? And “you’re only prying my estrogen from my cold ,dead, hands, buddy.” ??? Oh and isn’t “buddy” a gendered term?
I don’t believe gender roles have broken down significantly. Certainly for men they haven’t. And the numbers you mention do not imply causation. Until we actually see male gender roles massively expanded, we cannot assume that it wouldn’t make a difference.
@Patrick, I know, I did mention it up above. “They” has been used as a singular for 500 years, but it is still not accepted as proper grammar, hence the need to recognize it officially. Meanwhile, “zie” is a capricious attempt to frame the debate, the way lapel pins are used by some people to argue about patriotism during a presidential election or holiday greetings to argue about a war against Christmas. It has a similar basis to words such as “womyn” and “herstory.” That’s why I won’t stand for being harassed into using it. Especially by a woman who doesn’t give the same level of respect and recognition to the people who she demands the special treatment from.
@Valerie, why don’t you say something substantive about this blog post? I’m under no obligation to delve into your derails; no one is. I already answered your question, asking me again won’t change what I said. I am going to put it for you in all caps so that you will hopefully not miss the point this time around: YOU SET THE ORIGINAL PRECEDENT AND IT’S UP TO YOU TO CHANGE IT. It’s not my problem if you can’t provide the burden of proof. You’ve provided it as far as I’m concerned, Ozy hasn’t. If you want to jump into Ozy’s boat of anything goes, then you lose your own credibility.
“I don’t believe gender roles have broken down significantly. Certainly for men they haven’t. And the numbers you mention do not imply causation. Until we actually see male gender roles massively expanded, we cannot assume that it wouldn’t make a difference.”
Gender roles might have something to do with certain trans women in Thailand (who represent as much as 20% in school), given we never hear about trans men in Thailand. But here where 1/200 to 1/500 transition socially? Nope, can’t see it.
There might be less people for whom cross-dressing in secret is a compulsion, or their only outlet for expressing artsy looks in clothing (since 99% of male clothing is boring as heck). But people who risk their health by taking hormones for 30, 40, 50 years, who have to change their legal name, probably get crap from their own family, parents, children if they got some, plus crap from the government, plus crap in employment, housing, and more. You think they do it to be allowed to have glitters and like butterflies? You think they do it to not be beaten up when wearing a dress (as if it would help when recognized as trans)?
Do your own research and quote from it. Don’t expect me to do it for you by just pasting links instead of making an argument.
Oh, I’m sorry, I now have to personally retrieve for you the facts that contradict your erroneous tissue of generalizations now? Would you like me to chew your food later?
I don’t believe gender roles have broken down significantly. Certainly for men they haven’t.
Paid paternity leave in most Western countries, fathers actually sort of sometimes winning custody battles, cultural visibility of men who are raped and not just in prison, a reduction in the division of labour, the dismantling of heteronormativity, an expansion of what constitutes acceptable dress (within femmephobic strictures, obviously)
But even if you just think that CAFAB people are the only ones who’ve been in any way liberated by the past four decades, that doesn’t account for the more than 100-fold increase in the prevalence of transmasculine transition.
Your model doesn’t fit the data.
Fascinating at being called an asshole over what “is” , is.
I’m all for expanding vocabulary, not contracting it. “Male” and “Female” are still useful terms both in terms of public health and in terms of reproduction. “Intersex” is a useful term insofar it reminds people that some bodies do not fit within the binary, so is “trans”.
When Valarie adds similarly useful words, I will add them to my vocabulary. But such words have to have a definition, and they have to be useful.
@Patrick & dungone, there have been sites discussing the problems with using they/their/etc. as singular in some cases. Like, what if you’re speaking of one person who is a part of a group, and you say “they”? This site gives a good example, I think:
http://aetherlumina.com/gnp/faq.html#one
There are difficulties, but none that are insurmountable with a little care in the wording – and the examples in that link are pretty contrived. We don’t suffer too badly for the second person pronouns being the same in the singular and the plural.
Learning new nouns or verbs from scratch is straightforward enough because what few inflections they have are likely to be regular, and adjectives and adverbs don’t inflect at all so they’re a doddle. But pronouns have case, and they’re all irregular, so there’s no pattern to apply to a new one, which makes them very difficult to learn. And there are several candidates for gender-neutral pronoun, none of which have actually caught on with English speakers, so they will not be understood by many people even if you do learn and use them. “They” has the advantage of being an actually existing English word whose inflections are familiar to anyone who speaks the language. If the purpose of language is to communicate, rather than, say, to be a political shibboleth, “they” is really the only choice.
Oh, I’m sorry, I now have to personally retrieve for you your erroneous tissue of generalizations that contradict the facts?
Yup. If you want to change somebody’s mind, it’s up to you to actually say something. Technically you didn’t even disagree with me. Perhaps I should assume you pasted that link for the purpose of confirming my view.
@Diesirae
I’ve seen a few drag kings in person when I went at a drag club, in 2004. One was a trans man too. More than a few trans women (not a majority in any sense) have been doing drag, maybe for safety (the trans community isn’t that far from it), and because it can pay for various things (hormones, electrolysis, facial surgery, top surgery, bottom surgery) they might want.
Now, the drag kings didn’t get told “Hey, women can dress like you, so what’s so special?”, because drag shows are a sort of burlesque exaggeration for effect. It’s intentionally over the top, it’s a sort of theater that is more improvised than a play.
Clarence: As for the rest, I really wish you’d stop drinking before you post your passive-aggressive backstabbing diatribes.
This is really insulting. I haven’t had a drink in 30 years, and you know it. This is really unfair and LOW. What is next, calling me a whore or a cocksucker?
Stop the deliberate baiting of the recovering/recovered alcoholic, okay? Grow up please.
Clarence Most of your life seems to have been wandering from political religion to actual religion to political religion again all in search of something in which to believe.
Clarence, (sigh) this comment makes it abundantly clear that you’ve never even read my blog. Stop invoking amateur psychoanalysis and teenybopper insults.
To the mods: Can I ask why this individual is allowed to break the rules? Can I do the same, or will I be banned for insulting him in return?
One thing I have always believed: some people, due to their perpetual nasty behavior and misfit temperaments, always eventually end up totally alone … and they deserve it.
Clarence: get your wings.
Just an aside, is this cultural reference to the Hells Angels, the Air Force or Aerosmith?
Daisy, it’s a reference to “A Wonderful Life”.
If I was you, I wouldn’t invoke the mods here. You will probably find yourself flat out on your ass as you have many other places.
P.S. Thanks for the personal info that you are a recovering alcoholic. I didn’t know that, not hardly ever having read your blog and certainly not on a day to day or even week to week basis, but it does seem I have you “pegged” right.
Dungone: Also, she has identified as a woman. Many times. I am going by the standard of set precedent. She has to do a lot more than she has in order to set a new precedent for herself. None of her ideas changed, none of her sexual preferences changed, and none of her in-group affiliations have changed.
Valerie replies, several times: Yeah, you just described my transition. Used to identify as my CASAB, my orientation didn’t change, my outrage over the Death Gap didn’t go away, nor did my anger at erasure of misandry, oh and I’m still gynephillic… so take me to the end of the paragraph: What does that mean for me?
Dungone, please reply. I am really curious why you won’t answer her question.
What is your reply to this line of thinking?
Clarence: Daisy, it’s a reference to “A Wonderful Life”.
Damn, I missed that one.
If I was you, I wouldn’t invoke the mods here. You will probably find yourself flat out on your ass as you have many other places.
Eh, won’t be the first time. As one of my heroes once sang, its life, and life only.
And believe it or not, I don’t live my whole life online, like some people.
P.S. Thanks for the personal info that you are a recovering alcoholic. I didn’t know that, not hardly ever having read your blog and certainly not on a day to day or even week to week basis, but it does seem I have you “pegged” right.
Uh huh, I mentioned it MANY TIMES during the Hugo follies, so pardon me if I don’t believe you.
But yeah.. I didn’t know recovered addicts/alcoholics were among the many groups you are bigoted against, but it seems I have you pegged right too. 🙂
Careful, you might be offending more people here than just me with that comment.
Bigots always forget that part.
@Daisy:
You said: As the fundamentalist bumper stickers say: “God said it, I believe it and that settles it.” Just substitute their names for God. 😉 Same vibe. Its about what they believe about gender, not what you are trying to explain. Its the same reason they identify as “anti feminist”–it goes against their BELIEFS; has nothing to do with logic, fairness, politics, equality, goals for the species, any of that quaint stuff.
Clarence said: Most of your life seems to have been wandering from political religion to actual religion to political religion again all in search of something in which to believe.
You said: Clarence, (sigh) this comment makes it abundantly clear that you’ve never even read my blog. Stop invoking amateur psychoanalysis and teenybopper insults.
I see no qualitative difference between what you said and the reason you’re angry at Clarence. If you’re going to engage in “teenybopper” insults, telling other people what they believe, associating their arguments with a religious bumper sticker that you know they probably would find offensive, what ground do you have to stand on to suggest he shouldn’t or to demand Mod attention?
Your words were provocative, and now you appear to be upset that someone reacted as if provoked. You made an immature comment, and then told someone to grow up when they responded similarly. You implied that people who don’t do a particular thing aren’t decent fucking human beings when people in this very thread appeared to be doing just that, and now you’re offended by perpetually nasty behavior in others that you exhibit.
I’m not about to suggest that being excessively nasty is okay (I certainly fall victim to it myself at times); people should be able to control themselves. However, you’re being hypocritical and intellectually dishonest and have, I think, no room to talk about nastiness.
I’m not getting involved in the transgender debate for 1 simple reason: if the ability to express your true gender involves years of therapy, hundreds of thousands of dollars of expense, decades of exposure to chemicals that your body doesn’t produce on its own and the efforts of people who trained for tens of thousands of hours, then your gender (whether you like it or not) is nowhere near as fluid as you believe. Fomenting the idea that all it takes to be a “real” man or a “real” woman is personal belief doesn’t eliminate the gender binary (trinary? Polynary?), it just acts as a deleterious subversion (best example, from personal experience? The trans woman under a military doctor’s care who died from metastatised prostate cancer. She was a katooey, had the incomplete surgery in Thailand, married a retired GI, took her medications and never allowed herself to receive a rectal exam. By the time the doctors figured out that their steadily sickening patient wasn’t responding to treatment due to a mistargeted medication regimen, she was too far gone to save.) In (emphasis intended) *my personal view* as one of the people who has to lend his brain power to figure out how to treat physical ailments, people come in three varieties: 49.5% male, 50.1% female, 0.4% neuter (with the neuters being of any melange of gender identities.)
However, their own personal identification does nothing to eliminate the vagaries of genetic expression (as in the above example, in which the woman in question had never received androgen-suppressing drugs. Consequently, her biologically-male adrenal glands continued to produce near-male levels of testosterone, an effect that fed the tumours on her prostate and led directly to the continual spread of cancer throughout her body.) If she had been identified as a transgender, she would have received annual prostate checks (and could’ve subsequently been diagnosed with early-stage prostate cancer) long before showing up in San Antonio with an unofficial “We can’t figure out why our techniques aren’t working with her!?”, stamp. If it wasn’t for the fact that one of my fellow trainees (Filipina, but spoke Japanese) became friendly with a Thai patient on that ward (who also spoke Japanese, and who mentioned to the trainee that “he”, as in that specific cancer patient, had the sickness that affects “some” katooeys), the doctors would never have figured out the original source of her ailment. All of her paperwork identified her as female, she identified as female, her husband knew her as female, etc. So, the doctors continually treated her for recurrent lymphoma without getting rid of the organ that repeatedly transmitted new cancer cells through her system. And this current idea of ignoring genetic evidence and physiological structure at birth to feed the self-image of the person in question ensures that these issues won’t be rectified any time soon (I could tell the story about an intersex and self-identified man who is currently on a donor list for a new liver due to misdiagnosed metastatised breast cancer, but this post has gone on long enough…)
“The trans woman under a military doctor’s care who died from metastatised prostate cancer. She was a katooey, had the incomplete surgery in Thailand, married a retired GI, took her medications and never allowed herself to receive a rectal exam. By the time the doctors figured out that their steadily sickening patient wasn’t responding to treatment due to a mistargeted medication regimen, she was too far gone to save.)”
“If she had been identified as a transgender, she would have received annual prostate checks (and could’ve subsequently been diagnosed with early-stage prostate cancer) long before showing up in San Antonio with an unofficial “We can’t figure out why our techniques aren’t working with her!?””
1) Anti-androgens ARE the cure to androgenic prostate cancers.
2) Many cis men die of prostate cancer without ever being screened.
3) Trans women are LESS likely to get prostate cancer than cis men, due to most getting their balls off, or taking powerful anti-androgens like cyproterone acetate (like me).
“And this current idea of ignoring genetic evidence and physiological structure at birth to feed the self-image of the person in question ensures that these issues won’t be rectified any time soon (I could tell the story about an intersex and self-identified man who is currently on a donor list for a new liver due to misdiagnosed metastatised breast cancer, but this post has gone on long enough…)”
The next time I have a “This can only happen to men” thing I’ll call you. Risks never arriving. Most stuff happens to humans. Doctors should be fucking competent and ask questions. A M or a F on documents of identification DOES NOT CURE YOU. It just makes the staff treat you like a freak of nature.
I’m not getting involved in the transgender debate for 1 simple reason: if the ability to express your true gender involves years of therapy,
A fifty minute consultation that I still object to. But hey, being forced to do tricks to be allowed to transition obviously means that trans people love doing tricks, amirite?
hundreds of thousands of dollars of expense,
A hundred bucks a month.
decades of exposure to chemicals that your body doesn’t produce on its own
It does, just not in the quantities I require. Oh, and it took me about 5 months before I was being gendered appropriately in the same clothes I always wear.
and the efforts of people who trained for tens of thousands of hours,
They cover HRT in like… one day at med school, dude.
then your gender (whether you like it or not)
I like it fine. I hate what people like you want to make it.
is nowhere near as fluid as you believe.
I’m a woman. My gender’s pretty fucking static. It hasn’t changed since at least the 13th week of gestation.
Back on topic: here’s a question that can be used to flummox a large amount of feminists (re: intergender violence)
“If its a fact that women (and men, etc) in times of emotional stress can possess enough anger or fear-fueled strength to do things like lift cars off of their children or break down doors in burning houses, then why should *anyone* immediately dismiss or downplay a woman’s potential threat level when she is under high levels of emotional stress in a less-than-lethal situation?”
Family example: my grandmother was 4’10” and about 95 pounds (until she developed diabetes.) Once, during a kitchen fire, she picked up my (at the time) 60 pound aunt and 75 pound father to get them out of the burning room. And when I say “picked up”, she quite literally grabbed both of my overweight relatives under each arm and carried them off the floor to safety (she didn’t drag or pull them, she put each child under one arm and carried them to safety. For the mathematically challenged, both children together exceeded 50% of her body weight at the time.) If she could marshal enough strength to do so in that type of situation, I’d think that it would be absurd to negate the idea of her doing so if my grandfather had made the mistake of coming home late while smelling of Chanel No.5 or spending the mortgage money at the track, etc.
I mean, that’s the entire *point* of martial arts. You don’t learn forms/technique/strikes and undergo strength/speed training to become “superhuman”, you practice those disciplines to heighten your levels of stamina/pain resistance and to be able to mimic a (hopefully, controlled) state of rage. There’s a reason why experienced martial artists (fighters, weapons masters, etc.), teach avoidance of conflict, doubly so if the aggressor is enraged: because you *don’t know* what the angry person is going to improvise during the attack, at all. As mentioned above, when you’re struck full force on the nose, your brain doesn’t give a Damn whether the assailant is 80’s era Mike Tyson or the girl who’s currently sharing your bed, it registers pain and tells your limbs to remove (yourself from) that situation. And believe me, a woman who is car-lifting mad or door-smashing mad is going to hit like an MMA fighter (not for as long and not as well-aimed, but a punch to the temple is knocking anyone out. Period.)
JD: I see no qualitative difference between what you said and the reason you’re angry at Clarence.
What do you mean? I have proof that trans people exist, I’ve met them before. I am not choosing simply to “believe” or “not believe” in them, like elves or gnomes or magic fairies or UFOs.
Is this what you mean? Not totally getting it.
He is saying that they are somehow not real, or that non-binary people (like Ozy) are not “real enough” to rate a separate pronoun. To me, if you meet them, that proves they are real. (?)
To say they are not real is to deny they are who they have said they are. And why would you do that? I really don’t get that.
True, I assume people who do that are just being contrary or going on “beliefs”–as when fundamentalist Christians (which I have never been, BTW) look at the Grand Canyon and announce that it is 5000 yrs old. That is just preposterous. That is BELIEF, not what they are actually seeing in front of them. It just isn’t possible.
What do you think it is?
FTR, I agree w/Patrick totally, I think “zir” is rather dopey, and I say “their” and “them”–no argument about that from me at all. But I think its the concept itself under debate, isn’t it? Not the word.
Clarification: The mod comment was about Clarence’s alcoholism remark, which I thought was an especially low blow and shows elements of bigotry, as I said. It is no different than the Good Mens Project declaring that nobody is really autistic, so snap out of it.
He still doubled-down on this comment, asserting he can “peg” recovering addicts, apparently by bad behavior? (I know for a fact that his anti-alcoholic comment insults two other regulars here.)
I think comments like that, (i.e. all Mormons are pigs, all recovering addicts are idiots, all autistic men are faking, whatever) are bigoted, and thus, outside of acceptable discourse here. So yes, I asked. I mean, I can insult too, and if its allowed, I can (however foolishly) insult right back, but then again… I also know a trap when I see one. Clarence laid one for me at Feminist Critics and I stepped right in it, so he is threatening me with another one. I am grateful he did, or I likely would have gotten myself banned again. I keep forgetting, different standards for different people! 😉
I know several blogs that would have banned several people on this thread for outright transphobia, with no further discussion allowed…and not just feminist blogs, either.
MaMu: I’m not getting involved in the transgender debate for 1 simple reason: if the ability to express your true gender involves years of therapy, hundreds of thousands of dollars of expense, decades of exposure to chemicals that your body doesn’t produce on its own and the efforts of people who trained for tens of thousands of hours, then your gender (whether you like it or not) is nowhere near as fluid as you believe
But this is another stereotype. The trans woman I worked with didn’t use hormones, no therapy, etc. Was quite fat, and I think that was “feminizing”… she was accepted as a member of a girl-clique at my workplace, which made her seem very ordinary. Deep sexy voice, and was taken as female on the phone too; this was a call-center. She wore only pants, little or no makeup (long hair) and presented totally as female, used our bathroom and so on. I didn’t know she was trans for five years! I found out later.
Again, one size does not always fit all.
She is the person who totally changed my mind about everything. Before knowing her, would have written what you just did.
@Daisy, http://www.genderratic.com/p/2006/double-standards-%e2%80%93-biased-criteria-and-man-hatred/#comment-13539
MaMu, interesting.
I think another point is that so many women have been socialized to be “nice” and not respond to violence with violence, at least, this is a theory that was initially developed by Susan Brownmiller in her book “Against Our Will”…
I know that I am 5’3” and currently at 155 lbs. I have often said some version of “I pity the fool…” etc, because if a man ever attacks me while walking at night or whatever, I will likely kill him with no trouble. I am very strong and always have been. Further, I think that is a major reason no man has attacked me; I think I somehow *radiate* that lack of fear. My daughter, similarly. We just seem “crazy”–or maybe it is something about the way we walk or comport ourselves? On the flip side, I think many women radiate fear and scurry quickly at night, like scared rabbits. They attract predators unknowingly, who look for this fearful style of comportment.
Martial arts would be an intrinsic way to change the “fearful style”–this is something a friend of mine used to say many times: http://www.sunny-graff.homepage.t-online.de/sunnylbenglish.html
She was a founder of several women’s martial arts organizations.
I used to argue with male friends, that Sunny could be as effective and deadly as any man in combat, and they would argue vociferously with me that she was a lil tiny petite woman (she is) and her martial arts training meant nothing against Mike Tyson, et al. Size conquers all. I heard this over and over!
Now I am hearing the opposite from men here, so I consider this progress, actually.
Funny you mention women and martial arts Daisy.
I specifically recall times when feminists have pointed out how unfair it is to think that a woman taking martial arts or some sort of combat training is all she needs and she will be safe in relation to an attacker. Personally I think that it actually is unfair to say that a woman that has training is safe. I don’t care how many arts she knows there is still a chance that she can be attacked.
So my question is this. Knowing that having combat training under her belt will not protect a woman from an attacker why in god’s name is a man’s usual size and strength edge treated as some automatic immunity from being attacked by a woman?
Why aren’t men that are larger and stronger than women not given the same consideration as a woman that is a high level disciple of Judo?
Dungone, I thought that might be the reply, but I don’t understand your meaning.
You wrote: YOU SET THE ORIGINAL PRECEDENT AND IT’S UP TO YOU TO CHANGE IT.
Precedent for what? Gender? Valerie set up the gender standards? Don’t think so.
Not sure I understand what you wrote, so I was just asking again. And I am most assuredly not sure what you mean about Ozy.
You wrote: It’s not my problem if you can’t provide the burden of proof. You’ve provided it as far as I’m concerned, Ozy hasn’t.
What should Ozy “prove”, exactly?
To me, a request to be regarded as neither gender online, or to be called “Ozy” instead of, say, Flo or Mitch or Tallulah or Fred, is just a request, and “proof” is not required to grant this rather meager request. I request to be called Daisy Deadhead instead of, say, Nikita Khrushchev and you request to be called Dungone instead of Nikita Khrushchev… right? Am I missing something?
I am not following these objections at all. I am used to feminist transphobia, the MRA brand is totally new to me. 😉
Oh Christ.
Apparently GMP now has a feature called “Man up Mondays.”
http://goodmenproject.com/ethics-values/why-men-catcall/
And, oh yay, yet another article on catcalling. Do they have a Wheel of Fortune that picks their articles topics? “pegging” “catcalling” “why guys are creepy” “abortion” “raping rapists and their rape”
aaand I’m done. I can’t post there anymore anyway (which is a lot more frustrating than I would have ever realized) And everytime i post there I just end up feeling shitty as hell, so I’m done.
Danny, oh no argument from me, I agree with you.
As I said, I pity the fool! I am 55 years old, and I STILL pity the fool. I will have to get significantly older before I would not be able to really hurt somebody. Meanness, after all, is a factor. 😉
My daughter: http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/399650_10151050856858549_1462516004_n.jpg
Dunno if you can see that or not.
There are men I worry about for being too nice, too.
What should Ozy “prove”, exactly?
She can prove whatever the fuck she wants, or nothing at all. But if she wants me to call her “Zir,” then she better prove that she’s not full of shit instead of heading head first into proving that she is. This will be the last time that I engage in this frivolity.
@Daisy: I’m going to respond using line/paragraph citations, so I can make sure I get everything. I know some people don’t like that style, and I don’t mean for it to be weird.
What do you mean? I have proof that trans people exist, I’ve met them before. I am not choosing simply to “believe” or “not believe” in them, like elves or gnomes or magic fairies or UFOs.
Is this what you mean? Not totally getting it.
I’m not sure what magic fairies or believing in trans people has to do with anything, either from what I said or from anything Clarence said, so I don’t mean that.
Anyway, look at the two statements I quoted; I’m talking about the nature and style of the argument and assertions. In one, you make assertions about Dungone and Clarence’s beliefs, equating them to a “God said it…” bumper sticker. Clarence then made an assertion about what he thinks your belief process seems to be (that quote alone I clipped for brevity. He mentions “what you have always believed” later). Both of those statements have intended derogatory qualities, are attempts to insert beliefs into someone else without them having directly stated those beliefs, and neither assertion has any value in a conversation other than to insult someone. They amount to “you’re a stupid fundamentalist” and “you lack the wisdom to understand your own or others’ beliefs.”
That’s what I mean by them being qualitatively the same. They’re both rude and contribute nothing other than invective to an argument of substance and involve, “amateur psychoanalysis and teenybopper insults,“. And, of course, not all arguments should. But I see a bit of a problem in telling someone to stop doing something that you are doing.
He is saying that they are somehow not real, or that non-binary people (like Ozy) are not “real enough” to rate a separate pronoun. To me, if you meet them, that proves they are real. (?)
I don’t get that from anything he’s said. In fact, he said, “I’d support the “official ” addition of one or two extra pronouns to make your life easier if you and yours could only agree on what the heck they should be.” His stance on Ozy appears to be unrelated to Ozy’s existence.
To say they are not real is to deny they are who they have said they are. And why would you do that? I really don’t get that.
I don’t think Clarence is doing the former, and Dungone has expressed reasons why he thinks there may be reason to suspect Ozy’s not being truthful about it. I can think of plenty of reasons to deny who people say they are; I try to give the benefit of the doubt to people, but Dungone may have reason not to do so (without denying the existence of non-binary gender in general).
True, I assume people who do that are just being contrary or going on “beliefs”–as when fundamentalist Christians (which I have never been, BTW) look at the Grand Canyon and announce that it is 5000 yrs old. That is just preposterous. That is BELIEF, not what they are actually seeing in front of them. It just isn’t possible.
What do you think it is?
From what I’ve read in this thread from them, it looks to be mostly related to language. I’m not sure where you’ve picked up. Even when Clarence was describing what “female” means to him and talking about two primary sexes, he was not asserting that non-binary individuals didn’t exist. I’m not sure where you’re finding “belief.”
FTR, I agree w/Patrick totally, I think “zir” is rather dopey, and I say “their” and “them”–no argument about that from me at all. But I think its the concept itself under debate, isn’t it? Not the word.
I tend to use “he” and “she” alternately or use “he” as non-gendered. “They” was bred out of me in college by angry English professors, and “thon” and other non-gendered pronouns were more trouble than they were worth (too many of them were mistaken as names, people didn’t know what I was talking about, etc).
But no, I don’t think the concept of gender neutrality/non-genderedness is being debated. Or at least, it doesn’t look that way to me, for the most part.
Clarification: The mod comment was about Clarence’s alcoholism remark, which I thought was an especially low blow and shows elements of bigotry, as I said. It is no different than the Good Mens Project declaring that nobody is really autistic, so snap out of it.
He still doubled-down on this comment, asserting he can “peg” recovering addicts, apparently by bad behavior? (I know for a fact that his anti-alcoholic comment insults two other regulars here.)
I think comments like that, (i.e. all Mormons are pigs, all recovering addicts are idiots, all autistic men are faking, whatever) are bigoted, and thus, outside of acceptable discourse here. So yes, I asked. I mean, I can insult too, and if its allowed, I can (however foolishly) insult right back, but then again… I also know a trap when I see one. Clarence laid one for me at Feminist Critics and I stepped right in it, so he is threatening me with another one. I am grateful he did, or I likely would have gotten myself banned again. I keep forgetting, different standards for different people! 😉
You made a comment about fundamentalists, as mentioned above, and associated people in the thread with them. You also implied that some people weren’t decent fucking human beings.
I dislike both the alcohol comment and the ones you made. But I don’t think it’s fair for you to focus on Clarence’s comment when you’ve made comments that are clearly inflammatory. I’m not about to say which is worse or try to draw a line anywhere, since it’s not my blog, nor would I have the inclination to do so if it were. I can’t help but notice when someone throws an insult and then complains about being insulted, though. Insults virtually always escalate, and so do indirect condescension, etc.
I know several blogs that would have banned several people on this thread for outright transphobia, with no further discussion allowed…and not just feminist blogs, either.
If you’re talking about people questioning Ozy and the use of pronouns here, I don’t find those to be particularly transphobic. In that case, I’d be glad GendErratic is not those other blogs. If there’s something else I might have missed or don’t remember (the thread is too long to re-read), perhaps.
@Dungone: So again, trans identities are subject to your approval?
YOU SET THE ORIGINAL PRECEDENT AND IT’S UP TO YOU TO CHANGE IT. It’s not my problem if you can’t provide the burden of proof. You’ve provided it as far as I’m concerned, Ozy hasn’t. If you want to jump into Ozy’s boat of anything goes, then you lose your own credibility.
Good to know your respect for my sex goes as far as my political usefulness to you. I think that’s even more damaging than Clarence’s fetish for chromosomes.
If you’re talking about people questioning Ozy and the use of pronouns here, I don’t find those to be particularly transphobic
No, I took greater umbrage with:
Referring to non-preponderant pronouns as ‘newspeak.’
The idea that because ‘I’m one of the good ones,’ I won’t face the same kind of disrespect for my avowed gender than Ozy, in all zir femmephobic, neurotypicalist glory, faces.
An argument that said I was ‘biologically male’ in ignorance of neurology and a lot of other stuff that goes on with my body and with the bodies of other trans women before milligram one of exogenous estrogen. Degendered without even mentioning my name. Classy.
JD, I see.
My reasons for what I said: I think Clarence has insulted Ozy and Valerie in extreme ways in this thread, so I reacted… particularly with all of that, “Just because I now identify as Napoleon Bonaparte…. ” jabber, and comparing it to being trans… which is exactly like the transphobic “now I want to be a dolphin and I am undergoing transition to being a dolphin” South Park episode… Just plain mean, and very triggering to trans people. (I assume that is why he did it.) It is part of an existing transphobic discourse, and you can’t separate Clarence’s remarks from what people like the South Park writers, Heart, Cathy Brennan, Margaret Jamison and others have said. They are virtually identical remarks, after all. (“Just because I say I am the Queen of England, doesn’t mean I am, bow before me, subjects!”–and all of that bullshit comes straight from AROOO.)
So, yes, I was “white knighting”… I react strongly because I feel partially responsible for some of that discourse. I was part of the 2nd Wave, where ironically, I first heard these kinds of comments, the ones Clarence is making. (Dungone is coming from a rather different perspective, but still seems to be strongly gender-essentialist)
JD: I can think of plenty of reasons to deny who people say they are
JD, true enough. When people’s names repeatedly do not link to anything, I instantly wonder if they are authentic, meaning, the person they present themselves to be on the internet. In my experience, many (most?) are not. I have wasted long periods arguing with (and defending!) people I later discovered were phantoms or composites or total fake inventions. It left me with a lasting skepticism. It is also true these phantoms can therefore be a lot nastier than the rest of us, since they are not held accountable for any ongoing persona that exists outside of this conversation. They can *POOF* just disappear and come back in another form. (and probably do) As for Ozy, I know Ozy’s legal name, and know that Ozy exists. I am fairly sure I know where Ozy attends school due to repeated blog hits, as well as Ozy’s description of the school. But I am not so sure about other people.
As for English professors, I am far too low class to understand why their opinion is supposed to have any importance whatsoever… In fact, if an English professor doesn’t like it, that is reason enough to do it. 😉 Ain’t no thang.
JD:
Let me give you a quick run-down of the history between Daisy Deadhead and I.
I first saw her on Feminist Critics about 4 or 5 years ago. She was an on and off commenter there for maybe 3 years before she got banned for various reasons, some of them involving me, but not all of them involving me. While I occasionally ran across her on other blogs, the next one I saw her on a regular or semi-regular basis was No Seriously What About The Menz before it moved over to being part of the “Good Men Project”. I got banned from there because of something I said in the comments section of an entirely separate blog. When I discovered this blog , created by two long-time Feminist Critics posters that I have had a long term good relationship with, I came right on over. For whatever reason, Daisy eventually followed. And, for the most part, she has behaved herself on here, this thread and maybe 2 others excepted.
But you see, we do have a history, and I know quite a bit about her and how she comments on various blogs. I don’t know *EVERYTHING * about her which is why when I ran into that rant it seemed like the mutterings of a drunk or drugged person. Or possibly someone who just likes to take their anger out online.
I always like the lazy-ass ad hominem attack that is:
“You sound like a drunk.”
Which, when we break it out into subtext means:
“Your argument sounds like you’ve got a mental illness that is in the episode phase due to your having triggered it.”
It was like people who were more satisfied with calling Bush a Dry Drunk than actually calling out his policies when they invoked class warfare and mass death and crimes against humanity.
Fighting oppression with saneism… totes progressive.
“When I use a word,” Daisy Deadhead said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean － neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Clarence, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Torquemada, er, Valerie Keefe, “which is to be the master that’s all.”
This is the whole argument in a nutshell.
Valerie Keefe:
I have never identified as a “Progressive”.
@Val and Schala
Surgeries aren’t “free”, medications aren’t “free”, therapy isn’t “free”. All of those things, regardless of personal cost to yourselves, involved thousands of dollars and hours to be able to reproduce correctly. Despite the relative ease of your own transitions, neither case was undertaken with minimal supervision or intra-professional consultation with other doctors. Unless, of course, you’re trying to tell me that you saw one doctor who immediately bulldozed everyone in his or her path to get you the treatment required without hesitation. No one just woke up one day and said, “Hey, I know exactly how to recreate a vagina and proper hormone levels in a human male, so that I can make him the woman he was supposed to be.” To this day, no doctor or researcher has yet to be able to recreate a “functional” penis (the time is coming, but it isn’t here yet.)
In the case of our patient, she received gender-reassignment surgery in Thailand in the mid-80’s. She received HRT drugs from Thailand, but no androgen-suppression drugs (a set of circumstances that researchers now understand can exacerbate hormonal balance issues in trans persons.) Post-arrival in the U.S., she lived her life as if she had been born as a XX-chromosomal born women. There was no reason for the doctors at that time to question her genetic identity. If she had arrived in the States with documentation that denoted her as “M”, prostate issues would have been taken into advisement. It would be the equivalent of seeing a 6’3″, 250lb bodybuilder with a visible penile bulge in their Speedo at a competition, then walking into an emergency room and seeing that bodybuilder with a lower abdominal gunshot wound and asking, “Do you think that the bullet may have punctured her womb?” There are intersex and hermaphroditic individuals on this planet, some of them are even involved in fitness exhibitions, but the vast majority of people will see rounded breasts and a flat groin along with large muscles and say “A woman”, or see a testicular bulge as well as penile bulge in the Speedo of a slender individual and say, “That’s a guy.” That’s it, it isn’t a form of malice or condemnation for those who aren’t identifying as their genetic gender. As long as 99+% of the human beings on this planet see penis and testicles= (presumably fertile) man and breasts and vagina=(presumably fertile) woman, people aren’t going to want to disrupt the binary. It’s forcing people to ignore their own perceptions to benefit the perceptions of less than 1% of their entire world. If/When our civilisation reaches the advancements as seen in Iain Banks “Culture” series, then I would have no qualms about saying that a person’s sex/gender is mutable. Until that day, knowing as much about a person’s circumstances of birth as possible makes my job easier, makes the jobs of my peers and workplace superiors easier, etc. It’s congruent with the overwhelming tendency of some genetic conditions to be contained in racial/societal lines (sickle-cell anemia for Africans, Tay-Sachs disease among Jews, etc.) If you are treating a person with straight blond hair and bright blue eyes, and they’re displaying symptoms of either disease, and that person denies that there has ever been any insertion of non-Teutonic/Scandinavian blood in his bloodline, you can either call him a liar or continue to find another explanation for his symptoms (and by taking that extra time, your patient will continue to suffer.) If you ignore or delete information from a diagnosis (because it can’t be true and your patient is playing the “Deny, deny, deny.”, game), you can’t give them proper care.
My sex isnt mutable its female. Period. Regardless of my possessing a womb.
Clarence, reminisces: I first saw her on Feminist Critics about 4 or 5 years ago. She was an on and off commenter there for maybe 3 years before she got banned for various reasons, some of them involving me, but not all of them involving me.
If this is true, I have not been advised. I guess the locker room got together and had a private meeting of their own, to which Clarence was invited and I was not. I was informed my argument with Clarence was THE reason, the “last straw”.
I have not been apprised of these other mysterious reasons, as Clarence apparently has been.
For whatever reason, Daisy eventually followed.
My reasons: I was invited by Gingko, in a comment he made on my blog. Xakudo also invited me, in a separate comment on my blog. Links to both comments available upon request.
I did not “follow” Clarence. (rolls eyes) Self-important, much?
But you see, we do have a history, and I know quite a bit about her and how she comments on various blogs.
As Clarence has proudly admitted here, he has never even read my blog. He knows very little about me. He has named two blogs I have commented on besides this one, which is hardly “various” blogs. There are five years of posts on my own blog, which is where you CAN learn about me, but Clarence has decidedly not done that. The sheer narcissism he displays here (claiming to know “quite a bit about me”) after a few mere blogular skirmishes, most quite forgettable, is utterly astounding.
Speaking of sobriety, I think we might therefore assume many of his accounts of other events are similarly skewed.
The only thing I claim to know about Clarence is that he only dates younger women because they have functioning ovaries. A clarifying question on Feminist Critics made it clear that a younger woman WITHOUT functioning ovaries is not good enough for Clarence. (Note to Valerie: the ovary thing IS very important to Clarence, and I am seeing a pattern here.)
I got banned at Feminist Critics for correctly calling this preference ageist and ableist, and asking why this is any different from women demanding men have big wallets or big dicks? (If he is allowed to voice these preferences without criticism, why can’t women voice preferences without criticism?)
Never did get an answer to that one, either. 😉
I’m in favor of letting intersex or transgender people pick their own sex if they wish to associate within the binary, as I figure that while it should not be necessary for someone to do so, it should be a choice that is available. This is one reason I am against “sex assignment” surgery at birth, the person affected should have the choice.
But I will not budge on this: If you are physically and mentally the same biological sex as what you gender identify with one day and the next day without even getting transition surgery you decide it would be nice to “identify” as the opposite sex, I don’t feel obliged to sully the words female or male and give in to your demands.
As long as 99+% of the human beings on this planet see penis and testicles= (presumably fertile) man and breasts and vagina=(presumably fertile) woman, people aren’t going to want to disrupt the binary. It’s forcing people to ignore their own perceptions to benefit the perceptions of less than 1% of their entire world.
There’s so much to respond to but I’ll start with this: Prevalence of transition is 1 in 200… do you really think only 1 in 199 cis people is anti-cissexist? Really?
“If this is true, I have not been advised. I guess the locker room got together and had a private meeting of their own, to which Clarence was invited and I was not. I was informed my argument with Clarence was THE reason, the “last straw”. ”
Do I have to pull up an earlier thread on this blog in which I said you were not banned and you said you were? Clearly, I was not invited to this “locker room” if I didn’t know about your banning until months later. My impressions are my impressions as to why you got banned.
“My reasons: I was invited by Gingko, in a comment he made on my blog. Xakudo also invited me, in a separate comment on my blog. Links to both comments available upon request”
I think it’s obvious I don’t care. And I used “follow” in the sense that you came here after I did.
“As Clarence has proudly admitted here, he has never even read my blog.”
I admitted no such thing and you are either lying or you have forgotten what my post said.
” He knows very little about me. He has named two blogs I have commented on besides this one, which is hardly “various” blogs. There are five years of posts on my own blog, which is where you CAN learn about me, but Clarence has decidedly not done that. The sheer narcissism he displays here (claiming to know “quite a bit about me”) after a few mere blogular skirmishes, most quite forgettable, is utterly astounding.”
Amazing. And yet earlier you were saying you “didn’t believe me” when I said I didn’t know you had a previous alcohol problem in your life. So somehow I know next to nothing about you based on a few *dozen at least* “blog skirmishes” (aka some “skirmishes” and some friendly banter in threads) but I knew you were a recovering alocholic! Okaaaaaay.
Maybe, just maybe you might consider the possibility that I know quite a bit about your political views and political/religious history and how you tend to argue, but not so much about your personal life?
As for the rest, you did not use such nice language when attacking me for my “privilege” in being younger than you and wanting to become a father, but that is neither here nor there nor is your butchering of my position on the “worth” of women.
You must be enjoying yourself.
@DaisyDeadhead
Martial arts are most effective against opponents who fear their own death and possess some sense of value towards human life. If neither of those conditions are met, that is a man or woman who you do not want to fight, for any reason, ever. The first time that I had to actually administer morphine to a patient, he was a Marine (10 years of service, still enlisted). His “victim” (who had been sent to a different hospital to avoid future conflict) was a 6 inches shorter and 60lb lighter transvestite who chose to hit on the wrong man. Our Marine arrived in hospital with a broken wrist, two broken ribs and a scratched forbear, the transvestite (who later admitted that he approached the Marine because of his companions’ attempt as a joke) arrived at his hospital with a dislocated shoulder, his opposite arm broken and a broken jaw. The only reason that the Marine didn’t cause life-threatening injuries was their being in public. The only reason that the transvestite was even able to lay a hand on the Marine was blind rage (rage enough to give a slight-wristed man enough strength to nearly punch through the chest of a trained warrior, because he had just been dumped by a boyfriend and saw the Marines as “laughing at him”.) According to the bartender at the pub (a former neo-Nazi), he had never seen anyone move as fast as the “victim” did on that night. Without anything resembling training or skill, he was able to penetrate an *active duty Marine’s* defensive guard as if the Marine was still a corn-growing farmboy in Iowa. When I pressed for more details, my acquaintance stated that it was like watching Bruce Lee getting sucker punched by a housewife. If the transvestite had reacted in the same manner to a person who *hadn’t* received any sort of training, he would have dealt out more damage and possibly received no damage himself. Which makes you wonder, who’s the victim and who’s the perpetrator (BTW, the Marine avoided a bias crime charge due to video evidence.)
@Valerie
Believe me, I know from experience that the vast majority of cissexual people are trans-negative. I think that you misread my statement. I said that 99% of all people on this planet are (at best) ambivalent about people who deny their gender. Yes, I’m including cultures that have nominally held trans-positive ideas (Japan and Thailand have their “acceptance” of katooey and ‘new-types’, Islamic scholars are more or less accepting if not enthusiastic about people being able to embrace their chosen gender, but the hoi polloi are far less comfortable with the idea.)
Whatever, Clarence.
You must be enjoying yourself.
I’ve been sick, as I wrote. (again, its all on the blog, dude! No secrets!)
And yet earlier you were saying you “didn’t believe me” when I said I didn’t know you had a previous alcohol problem in your life.
(sigh)
Not because of me, though… Only because of the Hugo follies, wherein I came to Hugo’s defense*. This shocked everybody. (Ginmar and me squared off, and I assumed you had a ringside seat for that one. It WAS damned entertaining. She went after me over on Alas and followed me to a couple of other blogs besides.)
My feminist membership card was revoked, but I think Hugo got to keep his, which is really confusing.
*I have serious issues with using drunken behavior against a recovered alcoholic, and I said so. People do not use mentally-unstable behavior against a mentally-disabled person… oh, wait, what am I saying? Of course they do. I pointed out that I considered this the same.
My 30 year anniversary came right after this debacle, and I deleted half of what I had written, all because Hugo scared me right out of it. I am very glad he did. http://daisysdeadair.blogspot.com/2012/01/dead-air-church-30-years.html
This is the only reason I assumed you knew. It was quite a row.
Clarence, I do know I offered a truce on THIS blog some time ago, which you refused in no uncertain terms. Eagle, Patrick and others have been very gracious and kind, and we have buried the hatchet, but you have not. That tells me a lot about you, and that *you* are the one who wants to keep feuding.
All you have to do is say you want to quit, and as I have said about a half-dozen times before, that will be just fine by me.
*Who* is enjoying themselves?
@Daisy: As for English professors, I am far too low class to understand why their opinion is supposed to have any importance whatsoever… In fact, if an English professor doesn’t like it, that is reason enough to do it. 😉 Ain’t no thang.
Their importance is mostly related to writing hideous reams of essays and in having papers accepted for publication in any given field. 🙂 They aren’t authorities in charge of the language, exactly, but it’s hard to break years upon years of responding to having “they” crossed out in red pen or marked in a word processor edit in order to get high marks.
Despite their English professor natures, I grew to respect my former professors a little bit more after having to deal with journal editors instead. For example, I had a climatology paper of mine accepted for publication to a journal in March, and now, six months later, I’m still looking at revised drafts, fixing all of the ridiculous errors that managed to sneak by hundreds of individual eye-passes. The article is only 17 pages long, too.
Heh. Sorry for the random topic diversion.
@MaMu1977
For someone who styles themselves as incredibly knowledgeable about gender issues, you sure do seem to hit the sweet spots in terms of throwing up a bright red flag to piss off trans people. There’s a point at which action establishes intent in and of itself. Just sayin’.
dungone,
You said:
I realize that you have known Ozy for longer than I have, but given that Ozy identifies as trans, not cis, I am honestly not sure what you mean about “cis female identity”.
@RocketFrog
Dungone said: “Ozy doesn’t strike me as someone who genuinely identifies as anything but a woman. Her decision to set herself apart appears to be more of an honorific title she has given herself, sort of the way religious types insist that other people capitalize the word god. It seems to be, quite honestly, an extreme instance of denial, what feminists often refer to as “checking your privilege.” This transition to this honorific title had coincided at a particular time when it was increasingly difficult for her to argue against all the female privilege that was being pointed out to her, after which she began a campaign of banning some of her most vocal visitors to her blog. Her blog has since dropped the ruse of being friendly to men’s voices and doubled down on its feminist credentials, including the continued defense of female privilege. It is difficult to accept her authenticity, then, as it comes off insincere and maybe even exploitative in nature.“
I haven’t been keeping up to date with this thread but there’s something that I’d like to know.
This question goes to all those who are knowledgeable (preferably with personal experience) on the transsexual experience:
What exactly makes transsexuals identify as a specific sex? Or, if you prefer it the other way round: what exactly makes transsexuals feel their legally identified sex is wrong?
If possible, please be specific.
Diesirae,
When you’re sick, how do you know that you feel bad?
When you’re healthy, how do you know that you feel good – at least physically?
When you’re sick, how do you know that recovering will let you feel better?
Marja,
there are many ways one can describe in detail the symptoms of an illness. That is, even today, the most commonly used method of diagnosis.
If you’re going to draw the parallel of transgenderism with an illness then, all the more, will I hope to get something specific in response.
Their alexa traffic ratings have shot right up since they’ve gone back to the original “men are broken, man up for women” model …
@Diesirae
What Marja said. It would be like trying to explain hunger or thirst.
I know that for the first time since about puberty, I feel, well, the lack of a need to get away from myself.
That it’s hard to articulate this particular type of hypothalamic response doesn’t make the efficacy of transition medicine any less. Lifetime suicide prevalence for trans people who don’t transition is 30%. For trans people who do transition? 1%. That’s the observable empirical phenomenon.
Unlike dysmorphic disorders, the patient-reported problem actually is permanently mitigated by transition with an astounding degree of success. This isn’t the case for the people identifying as heads of state or who want perfect six-pack abs and spend three hours a day in the gym and still aren’t satisfied.
As to what makes me identify this way? Well, you could look at the hormonal organization theory, but numerous attempts to articulate that have been met with the aforementioned rejoinder, so one gets the impression that you’re not really arguing in good faith.
Personally I sometimes wish I was trans, because I am a man who struggles with a constant, irrational, sometimes debilitating hatred of men and maleness. But I am male, it “feels” right that I am male, even if I hate men and hate being one. For me, identifying as a woman would not feel right at all, I think it would feel just as wrong as, for instance, a trans woman trying to force herself to identify as a man.
The reason why I am interested in hearing why dungone rejects Ozy’s self-identification as trans is because I have known several trans people, all of whom had long periods of awkwardly and painfully trying to identify with the gender and sex assigned to them on grounds of their genital configuration, until finally realizing why they could never do such a thing, and then coming out as trans. Which is why I do not understand why Ozy having identified as female in the past should necessarily disqualify Ozy from later identifying as trans.
God morning all. I had a lovely weekend.
This thread is why I love thread drift. The trans discussion is worth it. And I don’t know how much it really is thread drift anyway; trans men’s rights are men’s rights, and that includes the trans stuff.
Request: Can we please not re-hash old threads form other blogs. i se ethat that part of the discussion has mostly died out and that’s a god thing.
Note on language, specifically pronouns: In European languages pronouns are a closed class, like verb tenses or number on nouns, unlike the situation in Thai or Japanese, where you can use nouns as pronouns quite readily and the class is open. The last time English added a pronoun was 1,000 years ago – “they” – and that was borrowed in from Norse, and then too it was not really an addition, just a replacement for “se~”.
And if “zie” and “zir” are going to become part of the language, this is what it is going to take: the community of L1 speakers is going to have to adopt these forms, and this will not be a conscious decision that you can talk or browbeat them into, they will be imtiating other speakers, and that’s a pretty hard dynamic to get started. That’s how language change works. Now it’s not that big a deal with nouns or verbs; we add those all the time, but again, those are open classes, unlike pronouns. and remember, with a language like English we are talking about something like a half a billion L1 speakers. That’s a hell of a lot of inertia to covercome, and it’s not just two new lexical items but a structural change. Unlikely to happen.
And on insisting that people start using this or that form has a rather ugly history in English. The development of domninace of standard Englisih was a tool the rising bourgeoisie used to gain cultural and social respectability at first and then dominnance, and it has been widely condemned in modern times as an elitist tool to keep disprivileged people down. It’s a hot button issue. The time for language policing is passing.
Valerie, I don’t have a problem if a group of people wanting to use the power of language to ensure that their very existence is acknowledged by society. But I would have a problem if someone who was not part of their group disingenuously used that same language to deflect criticisms of that person’s work because of some assumption that the group of people in question were immune to specific biases that the “wolf in sheep’s clothing” exhibits in their work.
As an analogy, I would be upset with a person who identified as white decided that they would henceforth identify as black, because black people are “immune to being racist against hispanic people”, and this white/black person has been criticized in the past for that.
Or, to put it more plainly, I would be upset if this Ozy person was claiming identity as a trans, or perhaps post-gendered person for the reason that Ozy’s work has been criticized as misandristic/whatever (not sure what the accusations really are), and of course, trans or post-gendered people are immune to being biased against whomever.
The problems I have with that, in case it isn’t obvious, is that it assumes that a group of people are immune to bias and repression. That is the same kind of argument put forth by some feminists regarding women (here meant as the binary definition), which, as we on this blog know, is absolutely untrue. In addition, it cheapens the experience of people whose lives have been transformed by their identity as trans-gendered. I would argue that people here are arguing you are not “one of the good ones”, but rather, that you are “one of the normal ones” or “one of the ones”, and this Ozy person is in fact, trying to subvert and exploit the identity, experience and (wrongly assumed) immunity to bias.
Please understand that I don’t know if I believe what they are arguing is true, I don’t read work by Ozy, I don’t know them, and I withhold judgement, because its simply outside my experience. I’m also not saying that the point I am trying to illuminate is the *only* thing that has been said in this comment thread regarding trans gendered and trans sexual people. And, like you, I don’t agree with the argument that “Well I can call myself (insert historical figure here)”, for some of the same reasons you do. But do you see the parallel between race and gender here? If I were to claim that I belonged to a racial group that was counter to my skin color, facial construction, genetic markers, etc., I would be laughed out of town, _unless I could show some kind of counter evidence_. I understand that the counter-evidence transgendered people provide, on a sociological scale, is very strong, and I am convinced. I am convinced that you are who you say you are, *as a group*. But if and *individual* makes these claims, and stands to gain something, while losing nothing (Remember this is the internet, Ozy can walk away from this is they want to.), I become more skeptical of that *individual*, and I hope and believe that doesn’t take anything away from that group.
But once again, I don’t really know much about Ozy, so I reserve judgement. I read one of their articles, and it sucked on a non-ideological level, so I never went back.
P.S. For an example of someone claiming racial group identity, look no further than our very own President Barak Obama. He is, genetically speaking, half white and half black. It is very easy for him to claim the black racial identity, since in this country, if you even look remotely black, you are generally treated as such. However, there were more than a few scoffs launched his way when he went to Ireland to visit the town of his great great grandpa or whomever. Although there would have been a lot more scoffs if his g-g-gpa was of any other race than white, since in this country there is seen to be so little that makes up the white racial identity, i.e. it is cheap. You pay for other racial identities with the abuse and discrimination you experience in your life, but you get to be white if you claim it at all. I only scoffed because, in this country, Irish is the default (claimed) racial background of white people who want some kind of connection to a history other than that of “white guy”.
@Gingko It’s not about a form of language, such as the Italian Facists’ attempt to drop Loi. It’s recognizing pronouns as a component of naming, just like basic (i.e. non-titular, excluding such honourifics as Lord, Sir, Major, and others that signify a given social standing.) honourifics, and the declining validity granted to the identities of cis people, trans people who identify with a preponderant gender, and trans people who do not identify with a preponderant gender.
I personally prefer singular they, as a gender-neutral pronoun, but I’m not the one walking around in Ozy’s skin. I don’t get that decision to make that decision for zir. And frankly, waiting until the world’s dropped the idea of the gender binary is not a practicable suggestion.
More importantly, Gingko, I find, is the refusal not just to use non-binary pronouns, but the refusal to accept a myriad of trans identities.
“Just because I now identify as Napoleon Bonaparte…” Frankly, if Ozy had declared zirself to be a man, but one who wasn’t going to seek out androgen therapy (I know of a pretty good local singer who dealt with his transition that way) then the theoretical he would still have his gender identity disrespected, partly because of cissexist attitudes, and partly because many people here, me included, don’t like Ozy.
Pronouns, like washrooms, are a convenient pretext to deny trans people full participation in society on a fundamental level.
Also for anyone troubling over the grammatical difficulty of using zie and zir, you use it where you’d use she and her. If you can manage a discussion on your iPhone or your Razr, where you lol with your bff and you at one point are shocked by the demand of trans people for new pronouns that you tell ‘ur’ friend, ZOMG, but then you realize u got 2 go, then, quite frankly, you can manage change in the lexicon quite handily at the moment, and there’s no need to be niggardly about your willingness to accept an evolving language with many dialects.
And for anyone interested:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender-neutral_pronoun#Summary
Here too, I don’t see the connection. Everybody can experience hunger and thirst so there is no need to describe it. Nonetheless, one can make an attempt to describe how hunger and thirst manifest themselves. More importantly, explaining their cause is very straightforward.
What are you talking about, this is the first time I read hormonal organization theory here?
I consider it bad form, lazy and even condescending to just paste a link without even a comment with the expectation that others read it and stop disagreeing with me. That’s not arguing in bad faith, it’s being consistent as I hold myself to the same standard and never do that. And given that the title of the article was “Drag King” I saw even less reason to follow it as it has very little to do with anything I said.
“@Gingko It’s not about a form of language, such as the Italian Facists’ attempt to drop Loi. It’s recognizing pronouns as a component of naming, just like basic (i.e. non-titular, excluding such honourifics as Lord, Sir, Major, and others that signify a given social standing.) honourifics, and the declining validity granted to the identities of cis people, trans people who identify with a preponderant gender, and trans people who do not identify with a preponderant gender.”
Except that dropping “loi” had the same social justice rationale behind it as the Swedish “du reform” and as adding what I think are needed non-gendered third person pronouns. Those are not what I was cautioning against when I referred to the stabdard English hegemony, BTW. I was just saying that it is very, very difficult to pull off in a language like English.
Oh, and while we’re at it, the forms I prefer are “te” and “tir”. Native Englsih words don’t start with “z”, so that’s an impediment anyway, whereas mine actually look like real loanwords from a real langauge that English speakers might actually borrow from, Mandarin.
“I personally prefer singular they, as a gender-neutral pronoun,”
This one is established in the language and has been for centuries, peevologist’s ignorant objections notwithstanding. this is what I use too, for now.
“Pronouns, like washrooms, are a convenient pretext to deny trans people full participation in society on a fundamental level.”
Yes, and it’s especially insidious because it’s just the inertia I referred to above. And language is as structural as it can get in a society. It’s a whole matrix – restrooms, changing rooms, set aside programs, on and on and on.
@Valerie
Did I bill myself as being knowledgeable about gender issues? If so, let me disabuse you (personally) of that notion. Everything that I take into consideration re: gender issues, is from my own experiences. I’m no scholar or researcher, savant of curious provocateur. My avocation/passion is medicine. I have a tendency to see everything through that veil, because a mistake on our end tends to cause a person’s death or disability. It’s the reason why I used the example of the Thai transgender. *At that time* her endocrine levels were (just barely) consistent with female norms. If her doctors had known that she had undergone surgery to change her status, they wouldn’t have been led on a snipe hunt to save her life, they would have offered her the prostate removal surgery ASAP. In fact, her case and cases like it are a major reason for some advances in gender-reassignment surgery and follow up care.
And *that’s* the problem that I have with the fervour that some transsexuals have with gender streamlining. If we lived in “the Culture” (a world in which gender reassignment could be done at the molecular level), then I honestly wouldn’t care about whatever set of genitalia a person possessed on the day of birth. I wouldn’t have to worry about people screaming down my throat about how they need their pills. I wouldn’t have to worry about HIPPA preventing me from asking “uncomfortable” questions, or having an “impossible” diagnosis because she’s had all of her documentation changed to match her true gender. I wouldn’t have to see my peers standing around the surviving family members and telling them that we did our best. And last, but not least, I wouldn’t have to wonder about the when’s on lawsuits (because I live in America, the most litigious society in the world), because of the tendency of some patients to see us as “gods” who should just “know” things.
It’s just the way that I see things. I’m a realist, not an optimist. If we have a patient with a small phallus, a labial opening and internal testicles who wants to look like a “real” man, we will take care of it. If the patient is a “sexy” woman who wants to be a man, we will take care of it. If the patient is a slight-framed young man with a serviceable pair of 32A breasts and a microphallus who wants to become her true gender, we will take care of if. But the erasure of that person’s birth gender (even today, with thousands of case studies to draw upon) adds roadblocks to future health care. For you, a woman who turns out to be estrogen-resistant or who develops cancer in her breasts is a shame; for us, its a catastrophe (my last professor had to deal with that case, a “successful” transition who happened to be carrying the genetic markers for breast cancer. Her male body would have been fine, her hormone-saturated female body ate the androgen suppressors like candy.) For you, a man whose liver gets toxified by exposure to depo-testosterone may just be something that “happens”; for us, even with the counseling process, its a career-ending lawsuit (because medical work can be like dealing with rad-Fems or hardcore MRAs: when they’re right, they’re right. When they’re wrong, they’re still somehow right. And there have been successful lawsuits in America levied against doctors by patients who swore that they “didn’t understand the risks” inherent in transitioning.) You’re looking at it from a “personal satisfaction” perspective, I’m looking at if from a “risk prevention” perspective.
And once again, if transitioning was as easy and risk-proof as this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3U8SKJwMNA8
I wouldn’t care about what a person had between their legs when they slid from between their mother’s. But, it isn’t. Things go wrong, things don’t work as expected, issues pop up that wouldn’t have been issues if the patient hadn’t changed bodies, and we’re the people who get handed a sick patient and an unofficial “Make this person better or we’ll sue you til you’re too poor to live anywhere but Florida.”, sticker. You only hear or read about our failures, we have to sit there and watch (and dream about them, sometimes on a loop.) IIRC, you live in Canada. I don’t, and I don’t have the protections that your country possesses. Therefore, even if it hurts her feelings, even if it takes him back to the bad old days, I need to know. Otherwise, I’m a step above flying blind at my job, and blinded pilots fly into things. Fatally.
“If you are treating a person with straight blond hair and bright blue eyes, and they’re displaying symptoms of either disease, and that person denies that there has ever been any insertion of non-Teutonic/Scandinavian blood in his bloodline,..”
Ironies of ironies – after all the agony over whether or not Obama is “truly black” as in having the same background experiences, it turns out that he is indeed descended from slaves – through his *mother*, that white woman. So you really can’t read someone’s ancestry on his face or tir sex on tir crotch.
@MaMu1977
Yes, when you dismiss entire lives with a condescending air of authority, yes, you invoke expertise in as many words.
As to transition medicine: Talk incidence, prevalence, per capita risk, and you better include the health benefits of anti-androgens on a cardiovascular level and as a prophylactic treatment for androgen-driven cancers, not to mention the massive drop in the risk of self-harm. Do that or shut the fuck up with your anecdotal evidence. I bet you could make hyperalkemia sound very very frightening too, never mind it kills one or two spironolactone users a year, which, even at the most wildly low estimate of prevalence of usage, would still be laughably low compared to low-dose aspirin.
I’ve lost an aunt to breast cancer at the age of 40, don’t tell me what I think about breast cancer.
And you know, MaMu1977, why people are reluctant to be out to doctors? Gee, I don’t think your continual degendering of people and their bodies, because you can’t be bothered to learn the words Mullerian and Wolffian might have anything to do with it, do ya?
The name Tyra Hunter ring a bell? Trans people are routinely denied life-saving medicine not because it’s oh so hard to figure out to treat trans people, but apparently it’s oh so hard for people like you to decide if you actually want to treat trans people in the first fucking place.
I was attempting to access spironolactone, took five months before they’d put me with a psychiatrist, which I did not need, which prolonged a period of stress and emotional crisis that had reached the point where it was life-threatening, which is why I had decided to attempt transition and generally let my body do the talking as to whether or not it helped.
I had a blood pressure of 155 over 95 and the GP laughed me out of the room when I asked for spironolactone. 155 over 95. I wasn’t pregnant. I had no gastric bleeding or history of gastric bleeding if you’re reaching for reasons to say no. I had no compromised immune system. So your exhortations about how goddessdamned concerned those in the medical profession are about the lives of trans people ring really fucking hollow, because I battled doctors for months for pretty basic medicine.
Parts of this conversation remind me of this:
Today I went to McDonalds with my genderqueer non-binary friend. I had a Big Mac, strawberry milkshake and fries and xi had a salad and a water because xi is watching xir weight. We were sitting eating and shooting the shit and we overheard a little kid talking to his/her brother/sister (sorry I don’t know these kids’ gender identities – their mom called them boys but you can never be too sure, and considering the cissexist bullshit that was about to come out of this woman’s mouth, i wouldn’t be surprised if they were girls)
Kid B (the younger one) says to Kid A, “you’re a lesbian!” and quick as a flash, their mother says, “Boys can’t be lesbians, eat your hamburger.”
I MEAN WHAT THE FUCK?! This is so problematic! I almost jumped over the table and punched that bitch in the ear. I mean SO MANY THINGS WRONG with what she said to the poor kid. Boys CAN be lesbians if they identify as lesbians. I have a number of cis male lesbian friends. She was erasing their entire lived experiences with such a small statement. I couldn’t believe what I was hearing. The kid was like five years old. How does she know that the kid wouldn’t grow up to identify as a lesbian! Scumbags like this are why I firmly believe cis scum bitches should keep their legs closed and quit breeding. Fuck the cis hetero patriarchy!
http://triggerwarningcissexism.tumblr.com/post/29161850369/today-i-went-to-mcdonalds-with-my-genderqueer
1. Boys can’t be lesbians. But CAMAB kids can easily not be boys. So really, just the one inaccurate thing.
2. When did you decide to start up imeatingblueberriesthereforeimtransphobic.wordpress.com ?
3. That’s right, you sound like a radfem. That should be a pretty good indication you’re doing something wrong.
Valerie:
I don’t have a tumbler nor do I tweet. I have a blog I haven’t added to in nearly 2 years.
I just thought it was so over-the-top it had to be some sort of sarcastic humor.
I just thought it was so over-the-top it had to be some sort of sarcastic humor.
Well, you’re right on two out of three counts.
Yeah, Clarence, that site is pretty clearly run by a radfem. So, yeah. I hope you like who you’re standing beside on this one and why.
Valerie:
It may be run by a radfem – never been there before – but I no more support all of the radfem positions on trans because I find this funny than you support “punching that bitch in the ear” just because you partly agree with the fictional narrator.
Would that the worst oppression in the world consisted of mothers telling their small boys that “boys can’t be lesbians”.
Valerie, I don’t think he is standing by anyone. I think he is saying it is silly, and the argument on here is silly.
@EquilibriumShift And he’s dismissing being called on cissexism in the same way that radfem is, because it would be politically inconvenient for their pet theories to include a significant proportion of the population.
Trans, by the way, is an adjective.
@Patrick Brown
I never did get an answer on what proportion of the population the trans community must reach to merit your willingness to include us in your models as more than the exception that proves the rule.
No, Valerie:
I’m refusing to let someone with nothing but self-interest define a term, esp. when most of your problems with me or nothing but etymological in nature.
I don’t grovel to your “lived experience” anymore than I do that of a radfem’s. And extreme types of language policing – such as your apparent desire to remove the very terms female and male (even if proceded by the adjective “biological” for christssake) from our vocabulary or redefine them in such a way as to render them meaningless – do not get my assent either.
@Clarence
Actually, it’s the use of biologically X as a stand-in for ‘assigned X at birth’ that I take umbrage to, as I explained to you earlier, as it once again asserts that trans people and trans bodies are not what they say they are. It is an attempt to place trans people as their assigned sex.
But whatever, tell it to the breasts I grew in highschool.
Valerie:
No, and you wouldn’t get one if you asked me if I’d stopped beating my wife either.
Valerie: Perhaps , then (without your normal 600 insults) you could explain what “assigned x at birth ” means to you other than what I take to be some doctor noting that internal genotype matches external phenotype and placing a “m” or an “f” on some birth document. You could say they shouldn’t document sex at all, but that has health implications. I’m sure we both agree there should be a third option for the interesexed who share parts of both sexes geno or phenotypes.
Valerie to Clarence: That’s right, you sound like a radfem. That should be a pretty good indication you’re doing something wrong
(((((((((squeals and hoots in abject delight))))))))
I know, right?
(((((gasps for breath, grabs ribcage, rolls on floor in hilarity))))))
I would ordinarily say Heart had hijacked Clarence’s account, but I know Heart is so lacking in humor she doesn’t even ATTEMPT to be funny.
Cathy Brennan, is that you? The goofy-ass anti-trans humor is exactly the same.
((((squeals again)))) Amazing! I have been listening to Clarence trash radfems since forever, and now he is reading their scripts without any editing whatsoever. And all without irony, apparently.
(((((grabs ribcage again–AIYEEEEEEHAHAHAHAHAHA ))))
Clarence: I don’t grovel to your “lived experience” anymore than I do that of a radfem’s.
Of course you are. If not, why are you sounding like one and stealing their comedy routines? Their lived experienced of blogging appears to have made quite an impression on you. The Writers Guild would rule that you plagiarized and make you pay up.
If you really do believe what Cathy Brennan believes, to the extent that you make her same jokes?
Doesn’t that worry you even a teensy bit?
@Patrick Brown
Given:
You’re “asking” them, for the sake of avoiding your disapproval, to agree that because a distinction is not absolute but has a small number of exceptions[emphasis mine], then it’s completely arbitrary and meaningless. You’re “asking” them to agree that your experience is normative, for everyone and not just for you, or else you’ll get upset. I think “walking on eggshells” is a reasonable shorthand.
as an evidentiary standard, I think I’ll ask when you’ve stopped beating your wife when I see photos of you beating your wife thank you. Feel free to answer the question, or not. My point’s been made.
@Clarence
They don’t test for genotype or karyotype at birth. Have you had a karyotype test done?
But yes, I have no problem with saying, “this child has so-and-so genital morphology, they’re probably going to identify as X when given a chance, and unchecked, those gonads are probably going to produce this kind of puberty.” Yes, sex is assigned at birth based on genital morphology, and the exceptions? Well, for every 100,000 exceptions you ignore, for every year their treatment is delayed, even if they’re just convinced by cultural messaging that they will never be seen as their identified sex so why bother, you lose about 461.5 people to suicide each year. That’s not counting the additional substance abuse deaths, depression morbidity, etc. So maybe we should be really careful about making it easy for those exceptions to be normalized, because on an actuarial level, a year of gender dysphoria is about as dangerous as a year of heroin, or nine months of smoking.
If your concern is about health, then your defense of cissexist standards is really inefficient.
@DaisyDeadhead
Yeah, it feels like I’m debating Cathy Brennan, except they’re a dude who doesn’t know science… so pretty much exactly like debating Cathy Brennan.
Daisy Deadhead:
I was seriously considering your question to me earlier about burying the hatchet and such.
Being a fool, I figured it might have been made in good faith.
Then I read your last three posts. You just can’t help yourself can you?
Since you aren’t serious, carry on.
P.S. No, I never saw the argument between you and ginmar until you mentioned it last night. I then googled ginmar and Daisy Deadhead and landed on , I think Lalubu (former feministe contributers page).
Short of something like “the sky is blue” I have never agreed with ginmar before, but she was giving you the exact same criticism as to your argument style (insult someone then whine if they insult you back) you have received on here, feminist critics, and other places. Congratulations, Daisy! You act to bring people together in mutual understanding.
The thread drift has drifted off of the interesting drift, at least for me. Does anything have anything to say about Joanna’s dismissal of attempts to talk about victimized males?
Clarence, if you want to bury the hatchet, I am still game.
I am serious, though, about how you sound.
I can turn from sarcastic about that, to dead serious, in a shot.
As you reminded everyone earlier, I was once a Maoist and I learned how. 🙂
When you agree with Ginmar, Heart and Cathy Brennan all in one thread, I am actually somewhat worried about you. You seem to be in what we used to call a “political crisis”– you might want to do some studying and regroup. It may be that your gender politics are changing and/or are in “flux”–this is a good thing, not a bad thing. It is only bad if you allow the arguing to create politics in “reaction”–this is the root of the word “reactionary”. You want to be proactive, not reactionary. Otherwise, you do nothing but react. This means your political opposition is calling the shots and making *you* dance to *their* tune.
Of all people on this particular blog, the most proactive voice is Gingko’s, he does not allow his politics to be “reactionary” in the Maoist sense of that word. He “takes control” of his discourse and does not allow it to be shaped by others. I hope to get to that point myself, but I still have far to go. You are correct that I allow people like Ginmar to make me “react” and therefore become “reactionary” and that is why I have stopped arguing with them. (This blog is mostly free of that kind of thing. But I do see you engaging in that right now.)
I had to regroup about a decade or so ago, when I realized that the radfem line on trans is THE SAME as the fundamentalist Christians, whom I had already decided were destroying the country….. then I discovered (see comment earlier in thread) that someone I had worked with was trans, and I had never known for five solid years. She was in the bathroom with us and did not attack and rape us, etc. I realized much of what I had learned was total crap. THEN I remembered something Andrea Dworkin had said about trans people being in a “state of emergency”… this was political language that I could understand. It is exactly what Valerie is describing here.
Since I remembered reading this Dworkin passage back in the feminist Pleistocene era, I had a helluva time finding it. I couldn’t remember which of her books or essays it was in. Notably, when I asked other radfems, they universally denied she had said it. And that is interesting, since they would quote from (what I remembered as) the same passage, only leave out the introductory passages “setting it up”… it drove me berserk… it was like the Soviet memory hole! This had everything to do with me deciding not to identify with them any longer… not JUST their pigheadedness, but their willingness to engage in revisionism of someone they considered a patron saint… or as they would say,… matron saint.
After going to libraries and bookstores and investigating literally FOR YEARS, I found the passage. I blogged it VERBATIM so there could be no revisionism about it… and it still gets lots of hits from both radfems and trans activists in debate:
http://daisysdeadair.blogspot.com/2009/08/andrea-dworkin-on-transgender.html
Anyway, that was the final straw, and I was formally disowned by the remaining radfems who were still speaking to me (with the exception of Joan Kelly, whom I bond with in space and time due to our shared histories as ex Catholics/addicts/alcoholics/feminists and Other Things I will not get into here.) Due to the Dworkin piece being so widely linked, I have read literally REAMS of copy from trans activists. (Some of them thought Dworkin should fuck off, too, it was not all positive. Some of those people commented on the thread, too.) But it forced me to learn, and I have. I am very proud to be part of the discourse, the ex Catholic in me appreciates the chance to do penance, as the recovered alcoholic in me appreciates the chance to make amends.
Anyway, I am worried to hear you sound like this. When you agree with people you regard as enemies, its is time to interrogate your politics, as I had to do. I say this in earnest and without sarcasm, my best little ex Maoist self commenting.
If you want to bury the hatchet, I am still game. But please consider what I have said here, and I mean it sincerely and without rancor.
PS: Ginmar believes as many as six impossible things before breakfast.
I always assumed that “biological” was a stand in for “phenotypical”. Granted, I have heard arguments from trans people BOTH ways about how to label their bodies. A group of trans men I follow on tumblr (who dislike their medical condition being used as a fun way to identify by those who state they lack dysphoria and do not need to transition) state that that their bodies are female sexed and that they are men. There are different trans* people that use different kinds of definitions, it’s not the same across all trans* people.
(Neurological sex is iffy to me because having seen the scientific papers, the math isn’t terribly connvincing and there’s lots of overlap in the part of the midbrain studied, and also it doesn’t leave room for people like me, who lack neurological gender and would be happy in a male body or female body, but are technically cis, as well as excluding non-binaries).
So it’s a matter of who you follow when it comes to terminology. Some prefer talking of their transexualism as medical, others insist that their transgender status is not medical. Some use terms like “biologically X”, some do not. There’s a lack of consistent terminology across all trans* people, and there probably will never be, because trans* people aren’t really a unified group and will never be. (Not any more than all blond people or all ASD people will be unified groups).
That’s also why you have problems with non-binary pronouns – I’ve gone through tumblr and found a lot of people that literally make up their own (I’ve seen “shovel” used as a pronoun), and that apply solely to them. There is also a list that has been passed around with over fifty different pronouns, each with different states (i.e. he, him, his, himself) – It’s a LOT to take in. Likewise, some use CASAB, DSAB, ASAB, SAAB, etc. (I personally use DSAB because CASAB has been noted by intersex people to be sort of inappropriate to use for non-intersex people).
However, I will note that jargon (Not using jargon in a pejorative sense here, but as language used specifically by a certain group) does not always reach everyone – Most science will still probably use “phenotypically X” or “biologically X” in relation to assigned birth sex. (Phenotype meaning “outward appearance”, if I’m just too wrapped up in my biology jargon).
But as someone who deals with a lot of jargon and my field, (Carrying Capacity is the phrase of the day), I know I have to change my language to best communicate with other people. I can’t get mad at people for not having the same education as me if they use “carnivore” instead of “carnivoran”, even though it annoys me. And that’s even when terminology is consistent and agreed upon across the group. I know it’s hard to have patience as an oppressed person (and you have every right to be angry), but in my experience anger and frustration begets anger and frustration.
@Daisy & Valerie: Cathy Brennan, is that you?
so pretty much exactly like debating Cathy Brennan.
Huh. It feels like I’m in high school again. I think I’ll be reading a little more selectively in the future. This shit is getting old.
@Gingko: Does anything have anything to say about Joanna’s dismissal of attempts to talk about victimized males?
Which particular instance are you asking about? I saw a couple of posts Joanna in the open thread; is it related to that?
No, the one I talk about in the post. No harm; I can see how you might have not seen it in all this discussion.
@Me: I saw a couple of posts Joanna in the open thread; is it related to that?
About. About Joanna!
@Skidd: But as someone who deals with a lot of jargon and my field, (Carrying Capacity is the phrase of the day), I know I have to change my language to best communicate with other people. I can’t get mad at people for not having the same education as me if they use “carnivore” instead of “carnivoran”, even though it annoys me.
I’m with you on the topic of jargon. If someone uses just a little bit of jargon, especially if I haven’t encountered it before, I’ll try my best to parse the meaning and learn from it and then respond appropriately. However, if someone uses too much (in a conversation that wasn’t technical or already jargon-based), my eyes tend to glaze over, and I begin to suspect that the person using it is trying to hide behind the jargon rather than trying to have a conversation where they intend for the other person/people to actually understand and engage them back.
Well, what I seriously don’t understand is why certain people can’t work their issues into the general context of this thread. How does Joanna’s dismissal affect trans people, etc.? Any relation, a different set of problems, or what? Valerie’s initial comment about weight was a promising start. I know all kinds of feminists who are both body image activists but hold tradcon views of DV. They see absolutely no contradiction. But Valerie she never explained what “cis feminists” had to do with it versus other types of feminists. It came off as a desperate attempt at tie this issue into trans activism and I failed to see the connection.
@Ginkgo: No, the one I talk about in the post. No harm; I can see how you might have not seen it in all this discussion.
Oh, you mean the post topic! I actually hadn’t missed that, but I’d forgotten about it in the long cascade of comments.
Yikes! That’s a trifle embarrassing.
I’m referring to the (not universal) tendency of cis feminists to be unidirectionalists when it comes to their understanding of relations between cis straight men and cis straight women.
“Archy: Women are starting DV more often than men, and that is a huge problem especially when the violence is reciprocal, so some women are actually helping to cause their own victimization.
Joanna:
Archy, this smacks of victim-shaming.”
I don’t like that Archy chose to use the words “cause their own victimization” here. When a criminal decides to rob a bank, we don’t consider that the criminal “caused their own victimization” if she is shot by police while trying to escape or if someone in the bank tackles her to try to stop the robbery. The criminal is indeed a victim in the broad sense of the word, as in, someone who was injured or suffered the consequences of something, but “victimization” and “victim” in the common senses suggest that the person the labels are attached to are in some way innocent or not responsible.
Not that I think Joanna would have responded differently if Archy had used a different term, but there is that.
@ JDCyran
So what you’re saying is that women being responsible for their own ‘victimization’ by initiating violence first is shaming male victims of domestic violence.
I agree.
I don’t think Joanne would understand that though.
If women are (apparently) incapable of harming someone in a DV scenario, how then can we justify allowing women into combat? If women aren’t strong enough to cause harm when actively attempting to do so, how can we justify allowing them into positions where physical strength may mean the difference between life and death- such as rescue workers?
And the thing is, Joanna herself made the comparison: A woman hitting a man is like a child hitting her parent. Women are, according to Joanna, children compared to men. Except when they don’t want to be, then they need to be considered full adults.
I think the phrasing of Archy BORDERS on victim blaming, but the way Joanna responds refuses to acknowledge that all parties in play in a situation like that are both victim and perpetrator, and that bothers me just as much, if not more. If you hit someone, it doesn’t cancel out your aggressor status if they hit you back. Likewise, him hitting back doesn’t cancel out his victim status.
I also find her comments on size matters to be kind of silly. The vast majority of women are NOT 100 lbs. I’m fit, but with a bit of a belly, 5’8″ and weigh in at around 200lbs (Thanks, viking ancestors). My boyfriend weighs less (though is two inches taller), and I am currently in martial arts training. It’s not like this is ridiculously unheard of. And it reaffirms the sexist presumption that guilt falls on the larger, presumed-to-be-more-capable-of-violence party. Humans are not incredibly sturdy, either. Anyone can nigh incapacitate people with testicles with a swift knee to the groin. A chopping motion to the neck with sufficient power behind it (And this doesn’t just mean muscular power – anyone can use momentum to their advantage in a fight).
The presumption of women as physically incapable of physical offense is the problem, I think. We can have 145 women doing Judo in seven weight classes at the Olympics, but women still can’t actually hurt men, apparently.
“I’m referring to the (not universal) tendency of cis feminists to be unidirectionalists when it comes to their understanding of relations between cis straight men and cis straight women.”
Valerie, I have been meaning to ask you a question on socialization.
I see this unidirectionality as a reflection of a need to always see women as the victim in any interaction with men, and I see that need as a reflection of toxic femininity. Presuming you were socialized as a boy, did you escape this enculturation?
“I think the phrasing of Archy BORDERS on victim blaming, but the way Joanna responds refuses to acknowledge that all parties in play in a situation like that are both victim and perpetrator, and that bothers me just as much, if not more..”
Skidd, what victim is he blaming? The actual victim, the man who is being attacked? That’s not how I see his statement. of course Joanna sees him victim-blaming on the person who is not the victim.
Ginko: “The thread drift has drifted off of the interesting drift, at least for me. Does anything have anything to say about Joanna’s dismissal of attempts to talk about victimized males?”
What’s there to say except Joanna has really dropped the ball with her self-righteous “What are you doing for male victims?” (not exactly phrased that way, but still) that I’m not even going to bother engaging with Good Men Project anymore.
I have my “Speak To Me” play and intend to post it here in its entirety. I’ve already given the episodes to Toy Soldier and he’s in the process of producing a post on his blog with the links.
In short, I’m doing something for male survivors.
Ginko what’s your e-mail address?
Dungone: tradcon views of DV
Dungone, could you elaborate on this? In fact, I am not used to the term “tradcon”–in the American left we usually specify neocon, paleocon or Religious Right. Are these all the same as “tradcon”? (i.e. would neocon views of DV be the same as tradcon views of DV?)
Could I get a working definition of “tradcon”? And then, what are those DV views? Because the radical feminist old-school (from whence I come) would likely assume that “tradcons” ignore DV. (Specifically, though, paleocons would ignore it, RR adheres to religious definitions of DV, and neocons would take DV ‘seriously’.)
Sorry for the wonky question.
Tradcon view of DV are those on-par with traditionalist views of male and female roles.
Males are evil perps who have beastly urges to rape women, and who dominate women with their fists, because male power.
Females are hapless victims who have no agency, no power, no way of not being a victim. If they think they are not, they’re deluding themselves. They cannot hurt men, they cannot hurt children. They cannot ever use sex as a weapon (ie, rape anyone).
Schala, traditionally, spanking your wife if she got out of hand, as John Wayne spanked Maureen OHara in the movie “McClintock”–was totally acceptable and okay. If you remember the movie, at the end, he spanked her in front of a large crowd who applauded and cheered him on. The spanking was celebrated on the movie poster, they must have believed it would bring in the box office receipts: http://www.impawards.com/1963/posters/mclintock_xlg.jpg
It doesn’t get any more traditional than John Wayne, does it?
That’s why I asked. “Tradcon” views of DV, in my mind, means ignoring it as normal male/female relations. Certainly, I was raised to believe it was.
Until very recently, some religious authorities sanctioned
@Daisy, the term “traditional conservative,” has a particular political definition that refers to certain societal views held by WASP men, but I think that’s an unfair limitation – every group has it’s own traditional conservative point of view, especially in the gender sphere where it’s feminists who are increasingly the reactionary counterrevolutionaries. These views of DV being a prime example. I would count the radfem feminist old-school view of DV as something that is ignored, whether or not it is to be completely in line with a tradcon DV view. Remember, even the radfem feminist old-school women who thought that DV was ignored where themselves ignoring the vastly greater prevalence of victimized men.
Sorry, hit send too fast.
Until very recently, some religious authorities sanctioned women being disciplined, and some still do. This is due to scriptures being read literally:
Men are in charge of women by [right of] what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend [for maintenance] from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in [the husband’s] absence what Allah would have them guard. But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance – [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them. But if they obey you [once more], seek no means against them. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted and Grand. –Koran 4:34
The [promiscuous] woman must be taken to the door of her father’s home, and there the men of the town must stone her to death, for she has committed a disgraceful crime in Israel by being promiscuous while living in her parents’ home. In this way, you will purge this evil from among you. — Deuteronomy 22:21
Some people really do take these things seriously, you know.
Dungone, I would say it was ALL ignored. It was all considered people’s “private business”… with the exception of religiously-based “discipline” of the wife by the husband (or grown daughter by father–the Old Testament verse above applied to the boyfriend discovering his girlfriend was unfaithful, he was not to discipline himself, but take her to her father to do it).
The discipline of women on religious grounds, was publicly sanctioned and until very recently, totally acceptable.
@DaisyDeadhead, your special pleading flies right past the point I made – that men have always been more frequent victims of violence. That’s why yours is a tradcon view. The view that violence against women is somehow special and deserves special treatment no matter how much worse everyone has it is exactly what has evolved into Joanna’s point of view (which is very common, btw).
Yes, men are more frequent victims of violence, but not religiously-based-discipline-as DV, which is what I was focusing on as “trad”–to me, trad means religion. In fact, in Catholicism, the term is “trad” or “traddie” rather than fundamentalist, if one is “seriously” following the rules, going by the book and all that.
I started this question as about the term “tradcon”–not questioning your point about DV.
I just did a show (radio) about the differing factions of conservatism, so this is very fresh in my mind, and that is why I asked. I would drop the term “tradcon” since I find that incorrect and confusing. But hey, just trying to clarify. If you prefer confusing your allies, that’s your call. (?)
I would even be specific and say “neocon”–since I think it is. Heavy feminist influence in the neocons, which they try to deny.
“Skidd, what victim is he blaming? The actual victim, the man who is being attacked? That’s not how I see his statement. of course Joanna sees him victim-blaming on the person who is not the victim.”
It borders on “It’s her fault she got hit because she started a fight”. Soooo, eh, I’m iffy, but I don’t think it’s a horrific breach or anything – just a wording that could easily be twisted to fit several narratives. I’m not sure how to word it another way, but I think there was some clarity lost. Does that make sense? I don’t disagree with him, and obviously Joanna made an uncharitable reading and was reactionary, but it’s a possible interpretation, if you’re a sexist who thinks victimized women trump victimized men every time and that women cannot cause pain to men.
I’m not sure if it was elsewhere on the thread or maybe somewhere else on GMP, but I saw a comment somewhere that said something along the lines that it was cheapening the word “abuse” to apply it to emotional abuse of men by women. Might have been the article on withholding sex is not a joke?
Valerie, I have been meaning to ask you a question on socialization.
I see this unidirectionality as a reflection of a need to always see women as the victim in any interaction with men, and I see that need as a reflection of toxic femininity. Presuming you were socialized as a boy, did you escape this enculturation?
That is a big and inaccurate assumption, though it is something of a standard starting point for analysis. Trans people largely get the messages intended for their actual sex, not their CASAB. I wouldn’t find a keen ability to take note of when someone is harmed or in other ways diminished by certain socializations and institutions to be toxic in any way… Frankly, I think as a society we suffer from too much indifference to the marginalized, not enough, and that includes indifference to a lot of straight cis men.
The difference between the way I explain my feminism and a cis feminist might, was, that I didn’t get any political cachet from pointing out injustice, but I did get the misogyny they tell anecdotes about. I was told to shut up, my body was expected to be on display, people tried to dictate my mood, oh, and that one sexual assault, not that that doesn’t happen to men, but given where they found the humour and what they did, it’s kinda clear that that was a misogynistic act, just one they could get away with because while I was exposed to misogyny, I did not enjoy the more explicit aspects of being gendered female. I didn’t get solidarity or even something so problematic, but in that case as helpful, as damselling… I just got silence. When it came to coming in for abuse, then my gender was recognized. When it came time to deny me basic human rights, then my CASAB was invoked.
So having gone through life as a case study that someone who is explicitly gendered male doesn’t necessarily benefit from sexism, and being a very empirical person, I was receptive to seeing statistics that unidirectionalists don’t want to see. Statistics that demonstrate that we’re not a society with men on top and women on bottom, but rather, with both on bottom, in their uniquely bad ways. Which is not, I must repeat, an exhortation to stop fighting sexism, but rather, to recognize that this war’s got another front.
My problem is that the political argument the unidirectionalists make, at its most inclusive, only accepts the avowedly trans. For most of my life I was not, and a good deal of that was because at every turn, left or right, I was slotted and explicitly told I was my CASAB, and punished because on some level they knew that wasn’t true. I do not and will not entertain the argument that a trans woman had male privilege until she went to the doctor’s office, or that she would in perpetuity if she had not, or for that matter, that because we’re dealing with such a tiny proportion of the population that we can just discard being concerned for them. Small segments of the population is where kyriarchy eats.
Schroeder invokes weight as a method of invoking sexism. She doesn’t even need to talk about strength and often she’s not. She’s just being a Mean Girl. She’s invoking size because we hate fat people, because the tall gangly girl who could never fit the dress off the rack was never one of her circle. My fiance was 190 pounds. Does that mean that if she dates a cis girl she’s a domestic violence threat? If I gain 20 pounds of fat would that make me more dangerous? It’s a method of marginalizing the dumpy so that size 4s can complain about how Cosmo makes them feel like they’re worthless if they’re size 2s, never mind the size 14s, they haven’t got that privilege to protect, but hey, surely that’s far more sexist than silicosis, amirite?
So, since this has turned into a trans* issues thread, may I throw in a link I just saw today that shows pretty plainly that even trans men can be called misogynists for following gender roles that sometimes they need to follow in order to pass as men?
http://senor-bizarro.tumblr.com/post/31627458535/is-it-weird-that-im-just-really-excited-to-be
If you ask me, as a woman, I don’t think that the original story was at ALL sexist, and actually was really sweet – a lot about reaching his dreams. But because the slightest hint of gender roles were part of his fantasy (And he said later that he would NEVER enforce these upon his wife [And he is in a relationship], and would even be a stay at home dad), he is labelled a sexist pig, an awful person, and an “extreme misogynist”. I see a lot of trans men labelled “dude bros” and the like. “Transbros” sometimes.
I’ve also seen one EGREGIOUS case where a trans woman on reddit tore into a trans man about his genitals and talked about his “teeny baby dick” and how he wasn’t a real man because of it. (He had been discussing how “tr*nny” had been used against him as a slur, and apparently others did not believe his lived experiences in this matter).
Most of the time in the gendersphere, I hear of trans women, but rarely of trans men (outside of tumblr, where there is the inverse for some odd reason, though not many adult trans men). I would like to discuss trans men in egalitarian terms, but there aren’t any that have found their way onto this blog yet. Trans men, in my experience, have been largely made invisible by the society at large, and if there has been discussion about/with them in the gender sphere, I haven’t seen it. (Though I have oddly seen claims that trans men “take up all the space”). DFABs have a rather different set of issues than DMABs.
“So, since this has turned into a trans* issues thread”
It hasn’t, Skidd. And we were making real progress toward steering it back to the original topic, so if you could comment on that instead of Ozy’s bizarre war on pronouns….
“That is a big and inaccurate assumption, though it is something of a standard starting point for analysis. Trans people largely get the messages intended for their actual sex, not their CASAB.”
This makes sense. I rad this too mena you absorbed the socialization that fit you, a girl, and the socialization to be a boy bounced off. Am I getting that right?
The way I formulated the question has a grammatical error or ambiguity due to the structure of English – it asks if the boy-socialization was successful as opposed to just asking about the effort to socialize you to one or another gender.
VK, I hadn’t even caught the mean girl aspect of that size argument. That’s definitely all there too.
Skidd, trans men seem not to get as much attention, and that may be my blind spot – they don’t much attention in feminst spaces and that’s what I monitor. And I suspect they surely do not come in for the same vilification as trans women by radfrems.
@Daisy deadhead regarding mc-clintock.
My parents used to watch a lot of john wayne movies (I was never much into westerns, much preferring sci-fi before it was popular).
Wasn’t the point of McClintock that his wife was being a bitch? In other words I don’t think that John Wayne’s character GW’s spanking was considered normal so much as it was an extraordinary response to his wife’s extraordinary bitchiness.
This exactly resembles what I and others were trying to tell Joanna on the tgmp thread: when women exercise their agency to be horrible people and physically attack men, any power differential is not the responsibility of the defending man to oversee. Rather the power differential should have been a common sense reason for the woman not to have attacked in the first place.
The point is that the movie underscores the female character to harass and harrangue the male character. Then the male character uses his agency to embarrass her in public.
I don’t think either characters actions were seen as “normal” (remember the setting of this period was the 1800’s), but both characters were acting in extraordinary fashion.
Daisy:
I’ll consider it when you take back your comparisons of me to people that don’t believe trans people should have rights.
Way back in 1991 or thereabouts I read “The Way Things Ought to Be” by Rush Limbaugh. I agreed with maybe 25 percent of it. I’ve listened to his radio show maybe 3 whole times since. Does that 25 percent (presumably less now, this was pre-internet and I’ve moved more “liberal” for the most part) mean I’m a Dittohead?
I don’t even know what Ginmar’s stance on trans people is, as I’ve had plenty to disagree with her about concerning feminism. But I agreed with her about your argumative style. I suppose now I should “friend” ginmar on Facebook or something, amiright?
Hey, I thought the Nazi uniforms were cool as shit, does that mean I’m a Nazi?
Seriously , if you never agree with your ideological enemies on ANYTHING chances are you have some blinders on yourself. We all live in the same world and we all sometimes encounter things that don’t easily fit into our current political lens.
Heck, I even agree with you from time to time, esp about that Bob Jones University stuff. Clearly I’m a DD groupie.
Sigh.
Most of the spankings in old John Wayne movies were at least semi-consensual and widely deemed by the movie audience and other characters in the movies to be well-deserved. They also weren’t brutal spankings, let alone beatings with something like a cane or whip to the back. Half the time they are played off at least partly as humoress too.
Meanwhile, we’ve gone so far in the “taking domestic violence seriously” direction that a shoulder grab can be considered grounds for a restraining order, even against the “victims” wishes:
http://www.mercurynews.com/bay-area-news/ci_21545217/suspended-s-f-sheriff-ross-mirkarimi-reunited-wife
@John D, Daisy Deadhead is using a fictional comedy to try to convince us that the public generally held those values and then points us to fictional texts that were written more than 2,000 years ago as if they say more about our recent past than they do about our present. The Bible still says all of the same exact stuff that Daisy points out, but it’s women who are the majority of churchgoers today.
@Daisy, I can’t seem to gather your point about religiously-based discipline. It doesn’t do your argument any favors, given that religious institutions have also sanctioned violence against men at rates that outstrip violence against women. Religiously sanctioned practices are not domestic matters and the failure to make a distinction muddies the water for what constitutes domestic violence. These rationalizations can only be appealing if you’re trying to make the radfem argument that DV is the means by which societies enforce patriarchal domination of women (the church has been far more oppressive of men, which is why men have been leaving it in droves).
The radfem argument has always relied on the tradcon view of women as being innocent, having no agency, and always being the victim. It has always relied on women being weaker and needing protection by men, with other men doing the protecting. Hence all the special pleading, the erasing of violence against men to focus solely on violence against women. This is the same exact view of women held by traditional conservatives on the political right and therefore it’s a tradcon view.
Schala understood what I meant. I think most people here will understand it. Quite frankly, there are so many parallels between between radical feminists and conservatives that it’s more confusing not to point them out. Rather than the neocons borrowing feminist ideas, I see feminism following along with traditional conservatives. The Women’s Christian Temperance Union, the sex-negative feminists of the 60’s and 70’s, and various other aspects of feminist views point to its roots in traditional conservationism.
P.S. I made some further remarks about about your comment in another thread: http://www.genderratic.com/p/2027/misogyny-%e2%80%93the-religious-right-and-military-medicine-rape-and-the-military-abortion-ban-2/#comment-13816
I’m wondering about something:
When it comes to DV , both the states AND radfems are often perfectly fine with letting the state compel testimony or take the case without the alleged victims consent.
When it comes to rape, this consensus breaks down. Totally. To the point that even suggested that a little shaming of women who fail to report rapists (and thus protect themselves and other women) is considered a form of victim blaming.
Why the difference, esp. since I can’t believe any women would believe a shoulder grab is worse than a rape?
Gingko:
Since one can see the direction the GMP is being steered is there any reason to think Joanna is open to legitimate criticism?
Rather the power differential should have been a common sense reason for the woman not to have attacked in the first place.(John D)
This reminds me of a buddy of ours back in the day. He had this tendency to get into fights with guys who were obviously more dominant than him. Initially we took it upon ourselves to take care of him by taking care of the other guy. Eventually we would just continue drinking while remarking “The dumb shit never seems to learn that lesson”. Funny thing is, the beatings didnt seem to matter in regards to changing his behaviour. I guess our “dumb shit” comment is victim blaming, right? lol. 😉
John D: Wasn’t the point of McClintock that his wife was being a bitch? In other words I don’t think that John Wayne’s character GW’s spanking was considered normal so much as it was an extraordinary response to his wife’s extraordinary bitchiness.
Do you remember that Stefanie Powers (who played John Wayne’s daughter) is also spanked in the movie? Her boyfriend spanks her when she is uppity (not bitchy, but “sasses” him) and John Wayne chuckles delightedly.
This would suggest this is a (possible erotic?) preference of the screenwriter or director, since these are two spankings of two very different female characters in the same movie. Powers, being young, is more “bratty”–while Maureen O’Hara is bitchy.
I think we all know that IRL (as if a John Wayne character could ever be “real life”–but you know what I mean), that a masculine military man of that era would NOT put up with his daughter being spanked by a man who is not yet her husband. And yet, he seems to think its cute.
Dungone: Daisy Deadhead is using a fictional comedy to try to convince us that the public generally held those values
Are you serious? You have never seen that?
I once saw a man spank his wife after a church meeting. It was an act of humiliating her and “disciplining” her, not to “hurt” her… but it was not uncommon at all.
How old are all of you, that I am speaking to? What religious backgrounds do you come from? Need to know who I am talking to.
I sometimes feel that I talking across a very wide cultural abyss.
Dungone: Daisy, I can’t seem to gather your point about religiously-based discipline.
I am just now formulating my ideas about these things, so these ideas are still “in the rough”–so to speak.
I think religiously-based DV (“discipline”) needs to be put in another category than the other kinds. I think “Quiverfull” homes and the like, need to be looked at differently. Admittedly, stole this idea from advocates working on child abuse in places like Hephzibah House… unfortunately the enshrining of religion in law means that those places, being (ha!) “schools”–have the right to “discipline” children however they see fit. What would be child abuse anywhere else, like foster care, is not considered child abuse there.
Likewise, DV is not separated into differing categories of “regular” couples, in which there is a strong likelihood of reciprocal violence, and traditional “patriarchal” couples, in which the woman is under the husband’s discipline and can be cut off from her family, social network and means of support, if she does not knuckle under. They are different, but have been conflated by advocates to be the same. I want to separate what I consider “patriarchal abuse” from these other (majority of) DV cases… right now, religion gets free reign and women in religious unions are seen as freely submitting, when lots of times they are not. Ditto the girls in Hephzibah House and other “schools”…
I think this would be a good PR move also, highlighting the fact of reciprocal abuse. Also, highlighting the Quiverfull/FLDS/Shiite-type of abuses. Win-win.
Religiously sanctioned practices are not domestic matters and the failure to make a distinction muddies the water for what constitutes domestic violence.
Exactly. And they are different. Totally different. I would like to highlight this in some way, not too sure how we could do it.
Religious abuse is the way patriarchal practices hang on in our culture, this is the last refuge of the patriarch.
The radfem argument has always relied on the tradcon view of women as being innocent, having no agency, and always being the victim
I have never heard this view in any patriarchal religions I have studied. Woman is evil, she tempted Adam. Vanity, thy name is woman. That is why I would appreciate you not using the “tradcon” term for chivalry (which is class-based), since I see “trad”as being abusive and patriarchal, but thats your call. I am trying to be precise in my language.
Dungone, how much do you know about traditional religions (as being practiced now) and women’s roles in them? You sound like you know nothing at all. (I already know Schala doesn’t, since when I mentioned Pentecostals in another thread, she seemed unaware that there are extremely few in Canada or what their specific practices and beliefs are… I doubt she has been to a Pentecostal church or even knows any. Didn’t stop her from pontificating at length like an expert anyway, of course.) I have noticed that, oddly enough, many atheists know very little about the damage of religion, even though they appeal to this damage in their arguments. They really need to educate themselves about how various religions “work” in real life. This will strengthen their arguments in the end.
the sex-negative feminists of the 60′s and 70′s,
All feminists of the 60s and 70s (such as the Furies) were not sex-negative (raises hand)… please stop the stereotyping. I have been through all of this before on this blog, and we see you obviously skipped the comprehensive historic posts that I provided. This makes me think you really are not interested in dialogue, but simply in maintaining your views. I think they call that, arguing in bad faith. 😉
Also, it should be noted that this statement is a bit heterosexist… being “sex-negative” about sex with men, as the les-fem faction was, is not tantamount to being “sex negative” about sex with women. Your history of feminism is as spotty as your history of religions. (I would tell you to read, but I already wrote all that stuff here months ago, and you didn’t bother… so I see you have little interest in learning.)
Again, what I asked a few weeks ago, why are you so instantly hostile to everything I say?
Clarence: Clearly I’m a DD groupie.
This is good enough for me.
Clarence, simply put: before you come out with something like “I can call myself Napoleon Bonaparte, doesn’t mean I am”… please understand that this is something radfems have said over and over and over again (as well as South Park, et. al.) and saying this kind of thing will instantly class you with “haters” like them.
I have certainly been told the same thing on blogs like this one, when I have said triggering things to men that are already considered part of an existing anti-male discourse, even if “I didn’t mean it like that.” No, I did NOT mean it like that, but that IS the way other feminists meant it, so I need to find different ways to say things that I mean– that do not echo triggering, offensive, bigoted and/or just plain GROSS language.
I am asking you to familiarize with trans activists’ ideas before you write about these ideas again, unless you don’t care if you sound like Cathy Brennan or Heart. Deal? Give a little, dude. That’s all.
On my radio show and on another forum (arguing with an Ayn Rand freak, saints preserve us), I gave the example of a white guidance counselor who called some black students “baboons” in my junior high school, and nearly started a race riot. (NOTE: this was a very racially-incendiary time, for instance, in an atmosphere of 100%-white teachers in a 50%-black public school, and so forth) To this day, not so sure she “meant it like that”–she meant they were noisy. I think she may well have called white boys “baboons” on occasion… but that is NOT how the black students took it, and nothing she could ever say, would ever convince them of that. The atmosphere was already one of a powder keg, and she lit the dynamite. In gender politics, trans politics often have this same effect.
If you SOUND like other haters have sounded, and you do not want to be taken as one of them, you have to change how you sound. If the Ayn Randians really are not making “useless eaters” genocidal arguments, as they SOUND like they often are, they need to rephrase and find other ways to make their points, or get ready for the obvious comparisons to be made.
And me too. Me too! I have to learn this over and over, in nearly every (political or religious) forum/blog I visit… which is all of them. 🙂
The vast majority of churchgoers are women. Now I know why they like it so much. /s
Religious practices have nothing to do with secular culture. The baseline for what we consider our culture needs to exclude religion the same way it excludes S&M dungeons. Apparently, for much of the same reasons. I really couldn’t care less about what’s troubling people who insist on going there. I stopped, so can they. Now it’s just a complete waste of my time having to even hear about it. Anybody who wants to can also stop wasting their time at church and live a live that’s not… weird.
I said “the sex-negative feminists of the 60′s and 70′s,” which isn’t no closer in meaning to “all feminists were sex negative” than “feminists only existed in the 60’s and 70’s.” My statement was a qualifier intended to convey that those particular type of feminists held ideas rooted in tradcon views. At any rate the Furies were lesbian separatists… I take it that you meant that as an example of the sex negative ones.
well, maybe someone stated this above, I just skimmed the thread, but if your going to talk about the wrongs of the church-there was the crusades, the children’s crusades, the inquisition, priests raping boys-don’t let anyone tell you otherwise, Christianity is a religion of the sword….
anyways, I’m no atheist-there was a great metal band called Atheist but after that whole elevatorgate thing, the godless click is one I won’t be in. Critical thinking makes you a heretic to the owners of Truth and Justice ™ –Yeah, can’t say anything to make PZ Myers or Amanda Marcotte mad. Maybe Agnostic, and yeah there’s a band called Agnostic Front. I’ve learned a ton listening to metal and hardcore…
if you want to see some icons having some fun, click here:
http://www.theonion.com/articles/no-one-murdered-because-of-this-image,29553/?ref=auto
Rock On!
Best Regards,
Your Heretical Pervert Iconoclast
Stoner With a Boner
Dungone, apparently still lacking reading comprehension and missing several lines from my last post: At any rate the Furies were lesbian separatists… I take it that you meant that as an example of the sex negative ones.
Lesbians have sex too, of course… the Furies has LOTS and in fact, made it something of a priority.
Sex CAN happen without men, did you know that?
Dungone, showing the deep sensitivity and insight I have come to value in his posts: I really couldn’t care less about what’s troubling people who insist on going there.
This is why people get the creeps from certain atheists, they don’t seem to have any compassion for people unlike themselves. But please, keep talking and confirm all those nasty stereotypes about MRAs, soldiers, atheists, etc. You are doing a fantastic job!
Like most people, its always comforting to have my prejudices confirmed instead of challenged.
SWAB: Yeah, can’t say anything to make PZ Myers or Amanda Marcotte mad.
What???? Trouble in paradise? I thought yall liked PZ Myers, big Scientific atheist Man on Campus, who hangs out with Dawkins and posts photos of obscure microbes and shit.
Clearly, I am out of the loop!
(Amanda is an atheist too.)
hehe, you think I like this?
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/05/06/for-the-boys-with-boo-boos/
This guy is just as condescending as Shwyzer….
and for the record, boys have died during circumcision-it’s not a non-issue…
http://www.circumstitions.com/death.html
“It hasn’t, Skidd. And we were making real progress toward steering it back to the original topic, so if you could comment on that instead of Ozy’s bizarre war on pronouns….”
I had tried to make progress on that and felt like it was going nowhere, so I tried to open up conversation on a trans subject that has, in my views, been totally shoved under the table and ignored by eglatarians, masculists and feminists alike. Sorry bout that, though I’ve attempted to kind of soothe nerves and the like. I thought I saw Ginkgo state earlier he was fine with the trans talk on the thread, and I assumed his word is law for his own threads.
(Ginkgo said: “This thread is why I love thread drift. The trans discussion is worth it. And I don’t know how much it really is thread drift anyway; trans men’s rights are men’s rights, and that includes the trans stuff.” – Hence why I think it’s important to talk about trans men who are kind of just not discussed in these kind of environments. We talk of men’s issues and men’s rights, but exclude a whole category of men who may have to stick to the man box more tightly than anyone in order to have their identity affirmed.)
I’ve weighed in on the original topic without any reference to trans issues as well – I tend to think a thread can be used for more than one ongoing conversation. So it kind of feels out of the blue to be chided for not participating in that discussion when I did? I also pointed out misandristic flaws characterizing the abuse of men as not the same level as abuse of women in a trans space (Denying men’s experiences that say they were called slurs and then using REALLY transphobic language to demean them for percieved transmisogyny and push them into dysphoria. I’m pretty sure that’s an awful kind of abuse of men).
—
“I have never heard this view in any patriarchal religions I have studied. Woman is evil, she tempted Adam. Vanity, thy name is woman. That is why I would appreciate you not using the “tradcon” term for chivalry (which is class-based), since I see “trad”as being abusive and patriarchal, but thats your call. I am trying to be precise in my language.”
As someone who was raised heavily in a fairly patriarchal church – LDS/Mormonism, I can attest that women are the purity class and men are the defiled ones. However, Mormons make a point that the original sin was a double-standard and nobody and certainly not all women are accountable for the original sin. As I’ve attested before, the church women are considered the most morally upstanding, and that men will fall into base instinct if not for the teachings and purity and modestly clothed women. This isn’t a view incompatible with gynocentric feminism. This is “Women are the gatekeepers of morality”.
I’ve never heard in all my conservative religious upbringing that women are evil because of Eve. If anything, women are inherently good, as opposed to the carnal, sinful man. Hence why priesthood has to be conferred on those who are worthy and motherhood is not (In Mormon theology, they are thought of as “seperate but equal creative forces”). So, as someone who was raised in a fairly patriarchal religion, I can feel fairly sure in saying that women were protected, not treated as evil temptresses, though there ARE obviously temptresses in the theology, it works as a dichotomy of the virgin/mother or the temptress. Unless shown to be temptresses through behavior, women are presumed to be virgin or mother, thus pure beings of caring and softness. (And as such, are incapable of inflicting harm to anyone, tying in neatly with the Joanna’s posts)
I think tradcon in reference to feminists in this case for femininity as ideal and pure and pristine fits. Traditional can be divorced from religion. My boyfriends parents are irreligious, hard-core rockers and motorcycle lovers, and they threw a FIT at him when they learned that I paid equally for our dates and chewed him out for not doing “his duty” to pay for things. You can be traditional without being religious, if that makes sense?
—
…Perhaps I am just too young at only 23, but I find it more likely the McLintock scenes were more about light S&M “teasing” than actual subjugation? And that spanking was thought of as flirtatious? But maybe that’s because spanking (and pretending to not like to be spanked) is a really fun game my boyfriend and I play consensually. Spanking erotica goes back centuries, so I find it hard to believe it was invented sometime after 1963. (Actually, I’ve read Victorian spank erotica, so I KNOW it wasn’t). That may be a little bold for old western movies, though, but I’m thinking it was used as a draw for sex appeal (hence the poster), not as “This is what men do to women who sass”.
—
“What???? Trouble in paradise? I thought yall liked PZ Myers, big Scientific atheist Man on Campus, who hangs out with Dawkins and posts photos of obscure microbes and shit.”
If there’s anything I’ve learned in science, it’s that scientists can absolutely loathe the shit out of each other. Glaring daggers at conferences, writing reactionary papers, etc. People’s pet theories are precious and thus a lot of fight happens. (As a staunch sociobiology and E.O. Wilson fan, I think Stephen Jay Gould is a poop [debunking ‘adaptationism’, my ass]. Dawkins is okay as a sociobiology advocate, but is a poop for other reasons.) Infighting is a big scientific pastime, constantly agreeing echo-chamber is the opposite of what hard science is.
If everyone agreed, we wouldn’t get anywhere. A big part of science is pointing out other people’s flaws of logic. And that is necessary for science to progress and for scientists to better refine hypothesis and theories to get a more accurate picture of our universe. I think social science needs to work the same way to be productive. Disagreeing is an important part of our toolkit for how we perceive and how to fix problems. I HATE echo-chambers, quite honestly, they’re rarely productive.
/end-rant-on-science
@Daisy:
I thought yall liked PZ Myers, big Scientific atheist Man on Campus, who hangs out with Dawkins and posts photos of obscure microbes and shit.
Oh man, I hope he and his drama crew never show up here. I would need an entire, huge box of chocolates to relieve me of the misery.
A thought I had on Adam, Eve and the Fall. Although Eve sinned first and then caused Adam to sin, it’s Adam’s sin, not Eve’s, that damns humanity. In a culture that bends over backwards to absolve women of responsibility for their actions, that’s interesting. The alternative reading, that the Fall represents not the origins of sin but growing up and becoming moral decision-makers, would seem to make Eve the first adult.
Right, so they were sex negative, but you think they were sex positive. I thought as much.
Because you don’t like the answer, Daisy? If a kid sticks their finger into boiling water, what do you tell him? That’s the extent of the religious question. It’s downright preposterous that you would impose upon an atheist to fix whatever weird ideas that churchgoers have with spanking their wives in public so that these ladies can continue going to that church. There’s a reason why people abandon religion – because it’s nonsense. No matter how many times you ask me what the solution is, the answer will still be the same. I’m not going to allow you to legitimize people’s personally held beliefs by blaming it on male oppression and the Patriarchy.
dungone,
Why do you consider lesbian separatists to be necessarily sex-negative?
SWAB,
The fact that some atheists have weird political views and weird interpretations of biology (like the SkepChicks declaring that men are failed women with damaged brains) honestly does not factor into my consideration about whether or not some god rules the universe.
Conflating those two issues seems bizarre to me, like rejecting the theory of gravity because Newton had problematic political views.
Patrick, there’s a lot of that kind of erasure going on in that story. For one thing, the story insists that humanity is descended frorm Adam, when simple observation of the species would suggest Eve was fucking the snake. (And since the snake is really a symbol of the old mother-based religion, it’s really F-onF sex. Woo-hooo!)
Then since Adam has to be the ancestor, he has to be the main sinner, regardless of that actual story line. And they’re off.
Note what the sin was – the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Presuming to make moral judgments is the basic sin, and this chimes with Jesus’ attitude towards justice – he disdains it every time someone brings up the subject. He gets right to the root when some young guy comes up and addresses him as “Good teacher”. Jesus shuts that down right then before even starting in on the guy’s question. Then there’s Jesus embracing the ultimate injustice, the crucifixion. Interesting how that little detail gets edited out of the religion.
The desire to create a system of meaning for life, a system of justice, is the path to hell.
Rocketfrog:
“Why do you consider lesbian separatists to be necessarily sex-negative?”
I am not dungone, but I was also confused by Daisy’s claim:
“Also, it should be noted that this statement is a bit heterosexist… being “sex-negative” about sex with men, as the les-fem faction was, is not tantamount to being “sex negative” about sex with women. “
This doesn’t seem to make any sense to me. I thought “sex negative” is usually seen as the opposite of “sex positive”. Now to my knowledge “sex positive” means you are for sexual freedom, the right of people to live their sexual desires, as long as it doesn’t limit somebody else’s sexual autonomy. Most women are heterosexual, hence they desire sex with men. Shaming this desire or the acting on this desire is by definition sex negative.
Because I recognize that sex negative feminism is strictly restricted to hatred of men and men’s sexuality. Lesbian separatists just took sex negative ideas to their logical conclusion. Remember, many of these women were completely heterosexual people who joined an anti-male political movement to express their hatred of men. Many of them grew out of their radicalism and sought out doting husbands once they decided to have babies. Others still clung to their convictions and spent the remainder of their lives devoid of love and friendship. Mark my words, we’re entering a couple of years where it won’t be uncommon for us to read stories of 2nd wave feminists whose bodies don’t get found for weeks or even months after they’ve passed away, just like Shulamith Firestone.
About the post:
I think one should give Joanna some credit to put her opinions out there, and actually discuss it with people of different opinions, on a forum whose moderation, while imperfect, still allows disagreement and discussion (well, most of the time). The fact that her problematic opinion was voiced in this context, helps enabling the discussion about toxic attitudes regarding men.
Joanna:
“Danny – if a 100lb woman hits a 180 lb man, let’s say she slaps him, is he justified in punching, choking or killing her?
Because that’s the reality we’re talking about. “
This is a central problem with some feminists, the expectation that because men are big and strong, they can take it, it is OK to expect them to suffer some abuse to protect women. It starts with abusive language like calling men “creep” or “rapist”, but obviously it goes further. One has to ask oneself: What is the formula, how much male suffering is OK to prevent how much female suffering.
Btw I don’t have a problem with being chivalrous towards a concrete woman I care about, but as it is a gift from me to her, I don’t want to be bullied into it.
dungone,
I used to know several people who were self-identified “political lesbians”, who had decided to eschew heterosexual sex for political reasons (and I know that at least one would later marry a man and have several children) – but even those I would not label “sex-negative”. If anything they were very focused on sex, and would have long rants about the emancipatory power of the female orgasm, how patriarchy is oppressing women by denying them orgasms, sometimes assigning strangely quasi-religious significance to their genitalia. Honestly I thought it sounded like a bunch of nonsense, but this was in my early 20’s, and at that time I was convinced that whenever feminist positions sounded like nonsense, it was because my primitive male brain was unable to truly grasp it.
They would also talk at length about the various specific sex acts they engaged in. To label people like that “sex-negative” seems bizarre to me, although they most certainly were “sex-with-men-negative” – and advocated that other women should abandon heterosexuality because political lesbianism would allow them to be more free of patriarchal oppression.
In other words, I do not really think that “sex-with-men-negative” is the same as “sex-negative”.
I think the MGTOW movement (as I understand it) is actually more sex-negative. They share the basic premise that a perceived (whether actual or imaginary) injustice perpetrated by the other sex (patriarchal oppression vs. women making ridiculous demands of men, respectively) is sufficient reason to avoid getting sexually or romantically involved with its members (or, in some cases, getting involved in any way with its members), but where lesbian separatists then choose to engage only in homosexual sex, MGTOW usually do not practice homosexuality, and thus give up on sex altogether.
That’s nonsense Daisy, but before I get to why, let’s get back to the original point. I’ll remind you of what I have already said about this matter:
Remember, your original proposition was that even though you yourself admit that men are more often the victims of violence in our society, we must nevertheless focus on the lesser violence against women because of some special (Patriarchal?) reasons that you admit to not having thought through yet. This is special pleading, by the way – that’s what the phrase means.
Now getting back to your current argument. Want to know why “Patriarchal” versus “reciprocal” DV a downright harmful notion? Because the first is sanctioned by a religious institution that sanctions worse violence against men, because it is by it’s very nature religious violence. I’m going to quote you from the other thread to consolidate this conversation:
So, tell that to the victims of religious pogroms. It’s typically religions who tell people to stop dancing. What a great irony for you to have made that comparison. You say that, but when you see a man spanking his wife outside of a church due to that church’s teachings, you shift blame away from this church that is supposedly the source of pleasure and bliss. Clearly it’s much easier just to blame the men and continue rationalizing belief in these fairy tales which are supposedly such a source of comfort for women, even if you do have to ignore the fact that the church has sanctioned far more violence against men. Pray may I ask, how do you explain the fact that men have left religion in droves while women still cling to it?
RF-
I never knew they thought I was a failed woman with a damaged brain…
Anyways, I “get” your point that I shouldn’t let looney’s determine my views…
I was just expressing that that’s another “click” I’ll never be a part of….
It’s my humor-either you get it or you don’t-and you ain’t missing much if you don’t…
It’s kind of like my discussion on politics-
Well y’know I can’t vote Republican-I’m not white enough or rich enough and I don’t bow down to Jesus….
I can’t vote Democrat because after all I do like guns and pick-up trucks, I have a pair of testes and, uh, I didn’t graduate from the “right” school….
(hehe, maybe I’ll get called an A-hole by both Dungone and Daisy for this one 😉 )
By the way, Daisy, don’t think that I haven’t noticed the thick layering of shaming language and ad hominem attacks you strung together in the following statement:
Irony of ironies, of you to say that atheists have no compassion for other people. It is compassion for other people which makes atheists furious when they see people defending unreasonable, harmful beliefs. But even more interestingly, right after we just got done talking about soldiers getting labeled as “baby killers,” you decide to take a little dig at them, anyway, to say that it’s really true! This after you yourself pointed out that pro-choice activists are also labeled baby killers. It’s amazing that I just said to JDCyran how the crazy far left lefties tend to hide their true colors until they get a little pissed off. and here you are!
I’ve got a lot of comparisons for you, Daisy, but they’re not fit for polite company. Religion is among the primary forces that causes violence in this world and necessitates the existence of military forces. How about we abolish the military after we abolish religion and dogma? But wait – we won’t even have to. Once we get rid of religion, we’ll have world peace either way.
@SWAB
This goes back a long way, though. You’ve never heard of the SCUM Manifesto?
How about another intellectual feat of feminism, Testosterone Poisoning? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Testosterone_poisoning
This is what really rubs me the wrong way about the Skepchick panel where a few speakers parroted tired insults and then tried to write it off as just a little joke. It really rubs me the wrong way because of the way so many men in the atheist/skeptic/scientific community defends feminism and writes off this bigotry as an unfortunate choice of words even as they are forced to debunk the pseudoscientific drivel: http://debunkingdenialism.com/2012/07/22/some-falsehoods-about-the-y-chromosome-and-male-brains/
“Religion is among the primary forces that causes violence in this world…”
dungone, I would amend that to:
“Dogmatic belief and social solidarity are the primary forces causing violence in the world…”
Religion is the social response to spiritual or supernatural experiences or insights, we are told, an it’s true. The rest of it is that religion is a cocial phenomenon and it tends towards comformity and re-inforcing social norms – which is where it starts to fall away from spirituality.
And this tendency toward dogmatism and conformity does have to be based on any kind of theism at all. Non-theistic religions are common as dirt – a lot of revolutionary and social jsutice movements are essentially religious.
@Gingko, it is true that religion does not always require invisible gods. Sometimes, a “living god” suffices for the task. The Romans, Phaorahs, Stalinists, Maoists, and countless other groups cultivated emperor worship among their subjects. Christianity itself is nothing more than veiled emperor worship, as the life and deeds of Jesus Christ match that of Titus Flavius’s siege of Jerusalem. That said, the proper method of dealing with spiritual and supernatural experiences a healthy dose of skepticism. It is precisely the act of incorporating these experiences into a religion or dogma which is the cause of all of the subsequent problems. It is a tired old myth that atheists seek to squash happiness by taking away all of the things that people value most. Too often, we are presented with situations where someone will whine and moan about women getting spanked in church or Jews getting gassed in concentration camps, but when you bring up that maybe they should be a little less tolerant of unsubstantiated, dogmatic beliefs, they lash out at you and accuse you of trying to destroy all the most wonderful things in life.
“Well y’know I can’t vote Republican-I’m not white enough or rich enough and I don’t bow down to Jesus….
I can’t vote Democrat because after all I do like guns and pick-up trucks, I have a pair of testes and, uh, I didn’t graduate from the “right” school….”
Well, SWAB, if you’re part of the 47% or feel insulted by that remark, hold your nose and vore for who you were always going to vote for anayway.
“This goes back a long way, though. You’ve never heard of the SCUM Manifesto?”
Dungone, that was the lady who shot Warhol, right? I think I saw that bigot Futrelle try to compare the Swedes doing the SCUM Manifesto to Metallica’s “Kill ‘Em All”-difference being I don’t think Jaymz or Larz shot anyone…
“Well, SWAB, if you’re part of the 47% or feel insulted by that remark, hold your nose and vore for who you were always going to vote for anayway.”
Ginko-I think I’ll just pick whatever green party weirdo if I even bother to vote cause I can’t stand O’Bummer or RMoney…
I think I saw that bigot Futrelle try to compare the Swedes doing the SCUM Manifesto to Metallica’s “Kill ‘Em All”
The difference is that Metallica often parodies ideologies that the songwriter opposes (specifically songs written by Dave Mustaine). In order to be analogous, the SCUM Manifesto would have to be written and performed by people who oppose feminism. Indeed, it’s author wrote about her murderous tendencies and hatred of men, and then she tried to kill Andy Warhol – yet feminists think of it as some sort of lighthearted joke.
“That said, the proper method of dealing with spiritual and supernatural experiences a healthy dose of skepticism. ”
That is Madhyamika Buddhism the school that led to Mahayana. Nagarjuna was called a nihilist for insisting on radical scepticism, but he countered by saying scepticism was the sword that cut the ego apart, that is was the most effectual form of Buddhist practice.
@Gingko, the Buddhist question is moderately interesting to me. Sam Harris criticizes people who consider Buddhism to be a religion, whereas people who are religiously-minded often like to hold it up as if it were a valid counter-example to atheist criticism. Stalemate? Maybe, although I side with the idea that it’s a religion and as such, not much better than any others. I admit to have gone to a UU church for a summer with a girlfriend and thoroughly enjoyed the talks given by the Buddhist minister they had; many of them were humorous exposes of American Christianity. But I don’t find a single aspect of Buddhism to be necessary for that. I thought that there was nothing of value to offer that an atheist couldn’t fulfill just as well. When it came to some of the group meditation/chanting sessions that we attended, I found them downright campy and frivolous at best, pseudo-scientific quackery at worst. Anyway, I would spend more time worrying about Buddhism if it wasn’t a fading practice. Atheists do have plenty of things to criticize Buddhism about, such as here http://atheism.about.com/b/2009/05/28/whats-wrong-with-buddhism.htm
Maybe this has been posted in the past. Sorry.
http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/killing-the-buddha/
““Kill the Buddha,” says the old koan. “Kill Buddhism,” says Sam Harris, author of The End of Faith, who argues that Buddhism’s philosophy, insight, and practices would benefit more people if they were not presented as a religion.”
dungone,
The first question comes down to a definition of religion. I go back to the scoial aspect of religion, adn the requirement that imposes for dogmatic beliefs.
” But I don’t find a single aspect of Buddhism to be necessary for that. I thought that there was nothing of value to offer that an atheist couldn’t fulfill just as well. ”
And speaking of dogmatic beliefs, and this is where Buddhism comes in. The dogamtic belief and it is dogmatic, since it cannot be proven – in the ultimate and independent reality of one’s own existence as an independent being is itself a dogma, does itslef constitute a religious belief, and does indeed bedevil a lot of atheists. They are not real atheists since they simply make a god of themsleves.
Only Christianity and Buddhism offer a method for cutting through that aprticualr dogma – Buddhism explicitly, and Christianity only implicitly because it is clogged and fouled with so much Abrahamic and Hellenistic mythic and conceptual overburden.
http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-ADM/keenan.htm
http://nirc.nanzan-u.ac.jp/publications/jjrs/pdf/363.pdf
http://sjapc.net/sites/default/files/asian_christology.pdf
These only hint at what I am saying; it’s not obvious how this endeavor is sceptical in nature, but if you look into Nagarjuna specifically and then what followed from his worrk, you see how radically he refuses to take anything for granted.
debaser, Harris may say that, but then he has to explain why people developed a religion around the Buddha’s teachings and thier own meditation practice, why they went from the supposed solution to the supposed porblem. Could it have to do with some inhernet flaw in humans? Oh noes!!! What atheist is going to deny human infallibility? Only a rigorous one.
@Gingko, this has too much of a circular and unfalsifiable feel for my liking. I don’t know of any atheists who are bedeviled by this, it’s more likely that religious adherents wish for that to be the case. Atheists don’t believe in a god, so they aren’t bound to a mindset that necessitates in appoint something to act as one. It’s null and void, the kind of thing that a Buddhist might say is a stupid question (http://buddhism.about.com/b/2009/02/19/is-the-dalai-lama-an-atheist.htm).
It’s not circular to claim that people reify themselves and threat themselves as if they are real, permanent, ongoing entities. That’s just observable fact deducible frorm thiier behavior – defensiveness, patterns of attachment and distress and parting, etc. Treating something as Absolute is the essence of worship and of making a god of it. By the way, this is why Biblical literalism is a blasphemous form of idolatry. That’s all I am saying.
Isn’t Satanism basically the religion of putting yourself first in your endeavors and being somewhat more selfish? (not anything about kidnapping rituals or some hysterics)
Skidd: I’ve never heard in all my conservative religious upbringing that women are evil because of Eve.
But you were raised Mormon, yes? Totally different concepts of satan and evil. Actually rather progressive which is why I think they are so good at self-government in terms of not needing outside (govt) welfare for their poor.
It annoys me that because of the sexual politics, the right wing has co-opted the Mormons, who have so many progressive tendencies. Just like they have the south, agrarian movements, populists, etc.
Don’t get me started, but I do talk about that stuff at length on my radio show.
Me: Sex CAN happen without men, did you know that?
Dungone: Right, so they were sex negative, but you think they were sex positive. I thought as much.
I think they were “sex positive lesbians”–which of course is what they called themselves.
Dungone, you regard lesbianism as “sex negative”? Wow!
I think that’s called homophobia.
Dungone: If a kid sticks their finger into boiling water, what do you tell him?
I gather YOUR answer is, toughen up kid! There is no god but the USMC, man up, bitch and stop crying!
Right? 🙂
Such a nice guy. Hold me back, I might swoon or faint.
Dungone: I’m not going to allow you to legitimize people’s personally held beliefs by blaming it on male oppression and the Patriarchy.
Um, wow. (Reading comprehension, its a good thing.)
My point was actually the opposite, that if we get rid of the beliefs, the patriarchy might go away too.
ATTENTION EVERYONE: This is what I mean! Deliberately ascribing OPPOSITE beliefs to me, to have a reason to attack me.
Why?
Dungone; whose bodies don’t get found for weeks or even months after they’ve passed away, just like Shulamith Firestone.
Lets not get ableist while we are here… Firestone was schizophrenic, had been tortured by electroshock and was a shell of her former self. That comment really isn’t fair.
Likewise, Valerie Solanas was crazy as a bedbug and a very damaged person.
Once we get rid of religion, we’ll have world peace either way.
Not if people like you are around, manufacturing outrage with people who already agree with you. Some people INVENT reasons to fight.
Glad you caught the insults… I think the military poisons certain people (not the majority by any means; my grandfather was a wonderful man!) and brings out their malignant meanness. It totally ruins them for non-military life and nobody can get along with them forever after. And believe me, I know what *I* am talking about.
Dungone: I’ve got a lot of comparisons for you, Daisy, but they’re not fit for polite company.
Again, once more with feeling, why are you SO hostile? What is this constant attacking of my every single comment about? Are you so unaware of your own motives that you are unable to answer me, or are you just being cagey and doing psywar on the resident feminist? (I notice Gingko can discuss religion, and you are respectful of whatever HE says.)
Explain, please. As in your deliberate misreadings of my comments… why?
History lessons, continued.
All lesbians feminists were not former hets. This is bogus.
They were an interesting mix… some had left husbands and such, true, but many were newly-politicized lesbians like Karla Jay or Charlotte Bunch, who suddenly saw a political component to lesbianism and their own experience in having been bullied for being tomboys and so on. As some have written, they saw OPPORTUNITY!!! (giggle) And here come the ladies, oh goodie. Susie Bright has humorously described this period as a flood of sexual opportunities coming (pardon expression) her way.
Many of the lifelong lesbians were actually not as anti-male as the heterosexual women were, and would shake their heads in amazement when they heard that stuff. Then again, many lesbians were tired of their treatment by gay men within the movement, and the joke was that they had to leave or get bursitis from the continual cranking of mimeograph machines (look it up, kids)… lesbians were reduced to secretarial duties within the gay rights movement, which was funny, since many of the gay men typed far better than they could. In the movie “Milk”–this rift rates a mention… lots of gay men were uncomfortable when lesbians entered the gay rights movement in large numbers, no different than any other mostly-male preserve. Lots of these women also became lesbian separatists.
For some fun reading (novels are more fun, aren’t they) check out the neocon novel “The Truth about Lorin Jones”–which is anti feminist enough to keep most of you interested.
http://www.nytimes.com/books/97/09/14/reviews/9518.html
There is a great prototype in that novel, the kind of feminist who tried to be lesbian and really was not.
In many instances (Carol Anne Douglas) women who had never enjoyed sex with men were suddenly turned on by their new women-oriented social environment… the whole women’s movement was electrifying and exciting and they were suddenly in bed with women and loved it. They never went back. Some did. (raises hand) Then again, I also believe that most of us who did were bisexual (no denying we enjoyed what we did during that period) and it is simply easier to meet men and more “rewarded” (like, by your mother) and so on. (I think this is also true for many bisexual men; it is just easier to do what the majority does, and there are far more opportunities, statistically.)
The Furies and other groups (especially some of the “back to the land “communes) , were lesbian separatist, meaning, they did not even talk about men. Therefore, they couldn’t be “anti”–they wanted to be self-sufficient in all ways, living off the grid, fixing their own roofs and farming their own food and so on. (A couple of novels that describe this period very well, if in passing, Marge Piercy’s novels VIDA and THE HIGH COST OF LIVING.) This was the genesis of the Michigan Womyns Music Festival, and other such events. Later, Michfest would turn into just another music festival and as it was turned over to new “owners” (rather than run by a collective, as it initially was) — got all fixated on the idiosyncratic and oppressive politics of the specific owners.
Lesbian separatism convinced women that we really could support ourselves, and in many ways had an overall positive effect. Not sleeping with men was a secondary thing (the “lesbian” part), and not the overall focus of the groups that stayed for the (reasonably) long haul. The separatism was as much about separating from all of society (like hippies) as it was about men. Places like Camp Sister Spirit always allowed sons, maybe even adult men, for all I know.
The argument was; men have always been able to be self-sufficient and live without women, now WE need to be able to accomplish the same. Or we are not “free”… you can argue with the idea, but I think many of the motivations were good and right. I think women fixing roofs and cars is a great idea. I have long been annoyed by women who rant against men and then depend on one to fix their shit and carry the heavy stuff.
The lesbian seps actually did this stuff, they proved it could be done.
The concept of lesbian separatism was deeply and irreparably compromised by annoying assholes like Julia Penelope and the awful Bev Jo (with whom I had a run-in once) –who seem to think they can be real lesbian separatists while watching movies made by men and not being able to tell a carburetor from a hole in the ground. They pay men rent, they get electricity from men, they work for men. This was not what it meant originally, but I can see why certain women like to think they are lesbian separatists while not adhering the actual standards, because those are some hard-assed standards. For Godsake, Heart was married to a man (might still be?) while she was saying she was a lesbian separatist. Its now a political thing to SAY, but it was once a political thing to DO.
(/end lesbian feminist history)
Seriously? Haven’t you actually had a kid of your own? Don’t you know that when a kid sticks their finger into boiling water for the very first time, they learn their lesson and never do it again? And if they don’t, and the whine about it, the only possible response is to tell the kid, “stop doing it.”
“All lesbians feminists were not former hets.”
I’m sure you must have strained yourself to come up with that wording and the argument.
“Many of the lifelong lesbians were actually not as anti-male as the heterosexual women were, and would shake their heads in amazement when they heard that stuff. ”
That stands to reason. The reverse is probably the reason so many gay men consider themselves feminist.
Lesbian separatism reminds me of the MGTOW movement, which gets a lot of backlash form people like Joanna Schroeder, with a dose of gendercide thrown in by the crazies whole smeared the movement by claiming to belong to it.
Gingko: Lesbian separatism reminds me of the MGTOW movement, which gets a lot of backlash form people like Joanna Schroeder, with a dose of gendercide thrown in by the crazies whole smeared the movement by claiming to belong to it.
Great comparison, and I had never thought of it that way!
Its also become popular at about the same point in the MRM’s age, as it did for the women’s movement. (sorry about that grammar, Dungone. I am doing lots of things at once… you know what they say… a woman’s work is never done)
A necessary step, then; a place a lot of men will make a pit stop. Some will stay, some will move on and do other things.
It reminds me of that, too. Politically, though, it’s like comparing trickle down theory to social safety nets.
Dungone: Indeed, it’s author wrote about her murderous tendencies and hatred of men, and then she tried to kill Andy Warhol – yet feminists think of it as some sort of lighthearted joke.
Really? I guess you never saw the movie “I shot Andy Warhol”–not presented as a joke at all. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Shot_Andy_Warhol
Great movie, highly recommended to those who have never seen it. Jared Harris (Lane on MAD MEN) does a great Warhol, and Lili Taylor is a great Solanas. Best yet, Yo La Tengo plays the Velvet Underground, if you are quick enough to catch em! (fangirl shriek on several levels)
Another thread on this topic up on Reddit
http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/10b6yh/female_in_males_face_for_2_minutes_then_hits_him/
Predictably there’s more than enough people playing the “men should never hit women!” Card.
At this point, I’m just going to assume that everyone who feels this way is also against women in the military or doing any job that requires physcial strength.
And I find it hilarious that the people advocting for equal treatment are being called “misogynists”
Wow, awesome blog structure! How long have you been blogging for? you made blogging look easy. The total glance of your site is excellent, let alone the content material!