Should Men Be Blamed?
| September 2nd, 2002Antifeminists tend to be very hung up on blame. According to antifeminists, feminists blame men for all their problems, and feminist men are masochists who enjoy guilt.
My personal experience of feminism ain’t at all like that. I’ve met a handful of feminists who blame men for everything; but the vast majority of feminists I’ve met don’t waste their time with that. Which makes perfect sense. Blaming men would be unproductive for feminism, for several reasons:
- It makes some women and many men who might otherwise be indifferent to feminism - or even willing to listen to feminism - defensive and angry. In this way, blame creates enemies and reduces potential converts.
- It wastes time by paralyzing many pro-feminist men in a useless mire of defensiveness and guilt (trust me, there’s nothing as boring as an hour spent with a guilt-ridden feminist man).
- It blurs the distinction between the Alan Johnsons and the Jerry Fawells of the world (not to mention between the Anita Bryants and the Susan Faludis), by assigning people blame according to their genitalia rather than their actions.
- It deflects attention from the real powers-that-be. If we’re going to blame anyone, I think it makes the most sense to blame the real rulers - CEOs, high political mucky-mucks, Network executives. People who have real power to change society. Remember, although the vast majority of society’s ruling class are male, the vast majority of men aren’t in the ruling class.
That isn’t to say that men shouldn’t be blamed for the ways in which they personally perpetuate male dominance (by not treating daughters and sons equally, by abusing wives/lovers, by holding a female coworker to unfairly high standards, by refusing to do a fair share of housework, by telling sexist jokes, etc…). And it’s true that men do these things far more than women do. Still, some individual women do some of the same things, and some individual men do none of them. Any blame cast should be a matter of individual’s actions and not their genitalia.
If we do make blame a matter of genitalia rather than individual action, that significantly reduces the motivation for individual men to reform or change their actions. If they’re equally at fault no matter what they do, what’s the point?
Judging individuals based on their genitalia, rather than their actions, is not just wrong; it’s antifeminist. It would be like beating people up for pacifism.
I don’t feel guilty for being male. What would be the point? My guilt wouldn’t improve anything. Although I’ve benefited from being male in a male-dominated society, that’s not my fault. The system was in place a hundred generations before my birth; how could I be to blame?
So if we don’t have blame, what’s left? I would say, responsibility.
Although not all men perpetuate sexism, virtually all men benefit from sexism. Virtually all men have in some way gotten gains that we don’t deserve, at the expense of women. And that means that even though we’re not to blame, all men have a special responsibility to support feminism and fight sexism - because we owe women for our unjust gains.
(Ditto, by the way, for White people and anti-racism).
Blame is silly and counterproductive: it gets hung up asking “who made this mess?” Responsibility is productive: it says, “time to clean up this mess.”
February 15th, 2005 at 4:13 pm
“Blame is silly and counterproductive: it gets hung up asking “who made this mess?”? Responsibility is productive: it says, “time to clean up this mess.”?
Actually, maybe it’s just me but I’ve found that most “messes” are difficult to clean up without knowing or addressing who made them and through that and other actions, holding them accountable. Racism, sexism, homophobia, aren’t like glasses of milk spilled on the floor. Milk can be cleaned up by any party including felines, and your floor will be pristine as if the milk weren’t there. Life is much more difficult.
The people who most often call blame silly and counterproductive, are people who really don’t want any fingers of blame or even scrutiny, pointed in THEIR direction. It’s a means of diversion by a member of a privilaged class to foist off any ounce of discomfort they might feel at potentially being the target of someone’s blame…It’s also a tactic perfected by politicians but used by many other people as well.
Otherwise, what that pokerspamster dude said….
This comment was written by Radfem.Report this comment to the moderators
February 15th, 2005 at 4:16 pm
I had a brilliant comment. You just erased it….
Anywho, I’ll try again…
“Blame is silly and counterproductive: it gets hung up asking “who made this mess?”? Responsibility is productive: it says, “time to clean up this mess.”?
In real life, “messes” like sexism, racism, etc. are not comparable to someone spilling milk on the floor. And I’ve found through experience, that the people who say blame is counterproductive, are usually members of a privilaged class exercising their “right” to divert any pointed fingers away from themselves and to dispel any discomfort they feel if those who don’t share their privilage scrutinize them.
Politicians love to use this diversionary tactic, as well.
This comment was written by Radfem.Report this comment to the moderators
February 15th, 2005 at 8:29 pm
Funny, that’s the same approach Nick Kristof took over at the NY Times when talking about sex slavery. He was real willing to “buy” two women who were enslaved in order to set them “free”. But he wasn’t at all willing to talk about, oh, I don’t know, male sex tourists — for whom those women were enslaved. I mean let’s not *blame* the johns, let’s do something “real” like “buying” women to set them free! Predictably, one of them is back in the sex industry. Because, guess what? The demand didn’t go away. But Kristof transparently didn’t want to talk about — “blame” — sex tourists, i.e. men buying a plane ticket so they can go to another country to prostitute women. Because he was too busy blaming *feminists* for not doing better at stopping sex slavery.
Yeah, let’s not blame men. They’re not responsible. After all, privilege — you can’t *help* that. The best you can ever do is feel guilty. And who wants to do that?
You know what? Maybe if more of you men *honestly and truly DID* feel guilty for the way men treat women and the way you tolerate it and fail to stop it — maybe then you could rise above this asinine navel-gazing about how you’re not to blame for your privilege, whine whine whine.
Men are johns. Men are pimps. Men are rapists. Men are batterers. And other men — YOU men — let them get away with it. But, hey, don’t feel guilty, we wouldn’t want you to ever feel bad about your complicity with and participation in the system that’s hurting us and killing us.
I mean, we wouldn’t want you to, for example, pass up an opportunity for self promotion on Air America because the way you were picked had everything to do with male privilege and power, and your participation without comment had everything to do with your own complicity with and participation in male power and privilege to the detriment of women. Please. Don’t feel bad. Don’t feel guilty. Don’t feel responsible. It’s all just such wasted emotion, anyway.
This comment was written by Paige.Report this comment to the moderators
February 15th, 2005 at 8:41 pm
Men are johns. Men are pimps. Men are rapists. Men are batterers. And other men ““ YOU men ““ let them get away with it.
Some of us try to stop them.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
February 15th, 2005 at 10:15 pm
I mean let’s not *blame* the johns, let’s do something “real”? like “buying”? women to set them free! Predictably, one of them is back in the sex industry. Because, guess what? The demand didn’t go away.
If the demand went away, wouldn’t that leave her with a drug addiction? Wouldn’t it leave women starving? From the johns’ perspective, this seems better than women dying of AIDS, but wouldn’t a long-term solution include a third alternative? Wouldn’t it, in general, give women the freedom to tell “demand” to go fuck itself?
Incidentally, have you seen this?
This comment was written by Omar K. Ravenhurst.Report this comment to the moderators
February 16th, 2005 at 1:55 am
“If the demand went away, wouldn’t that leave her with a drug addiction? Wouldn’t it leave women starving? From the johns’ perspective, this seems better than women dying of AIDS, but wouldn’t a long-term solution include a third alternative?”
The drugs & starvation elements are being used here as red herrings. Yes, they are the reasons for which many women are forced into the sex industry, but they also exist apart from that industry. Also, am I really reading you wrong, or are you actually suggesting that the johns are providing some sort of charity relief service by buying sex from destitute women? It sounds to me like you’re saying, “Awww, take away sex slavery and these women have nothing else!” Why would you assume any feminist would want to get women out of slavery without providing a better environment for them to go to?
This comment was written by Crys T.Report this comment to the moderators
February 16th, 2005 at 2:19 am
Men are johns. Men are pimps. Men are rapists. Men are batterers. And other men ““ YOU men ““ let them get away with it. But, hey, don’t feel guilty, we wouldn’t want you to ever feel bad about your complicity with and participation in the system that’s hurting us and killing us.
I refuse to take responsibility for something I’ve never participated in, been complicit in, condoned, or even accepted silently.
Yes, blame sex tourists, I do. But I’m not one of them, and your classifying me as such is offensive as the majority of the stuff you’ll find on a Mens Rights board.
After all, privilege ““ you can’t *help* that.
Actually what Amp said is that we should *help* it.
This comment was written by Andrew.Report this comment to the moderators
February 16th, 2005 at 3:27 am
Andrew:
Well, “participated in” is a odd phrase. I think we’re all “participating in” patriarchy just by living in one. Men are, by and large, benefiting from their participation - whether they mean to or not, whether they want to or not.
I’d say that does mean we should “take responsibility” for trying to change things.
Radfem:
You’ve got me. I am uncomfortable being blamed for sex tourism when I’m not a sex tourist.
Is that wrong? Why?.
I’m not saying that men shouldn’t take an uncomfortable look at how they benefit from patriarchy, and how the presence of rape gives us an advantage relative to women. It’s obvious to me that men should. It’s obvious to me that men need to take responsibility for trying to make things better.
But it’s not my fault. I am not a causal agent who makes sex tourism happen. Why would it benefit feminism, or women, if I lied and said “it is my fault that sex tourism happens?”
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
February 16th, 2005 at 4:26 am
I’m not entirely seeing the point in all this. Even if some men put their feet down and fight this, it’s still going to go all. Individual men are not all-powerful and individual women are often all too happy to be complicit with the system if they have a benefit in it. Looking at it as a system rather than a conspiracy isn’t the easy way out–it’s the truth. Do men and women have different reasons for cooperating with the system? Of course, and that’s something that men need to acknowledge.
I mean, when will it be enough? If a man joins with feminists and helps fight the system, does he get to be told he’s “taking responsibility” even when the problems don’t go away? Isn’t it just another form of male privilege to say that only men can fix what’s broken? That’s pretty insulting to me and to other women who have taken on an ugly patriarchy and won victories for ourselves or for other women.
This comment was written by Amanda.Report this comment to the moderators
February 16th, 2005 at 4:31 am
Paige:
You say that’s similar to the approach I advocate here, but in fact it’s just the opposite of what I advocate. My post specifically disavowed the idea “that men shouldn’t be blamed for the ways in which they personally perpetuate male dominance ”
I’m all for blaming male sex tourists, not to mention throwing them in prison.
I’m against judging people by what’s between their legs.
These two positions do not contradict each other.
Actually, I said that men are responsible; in my opinion, men must take responsibility for opposing sexism and male dominance. However, I don’t think that requires assigning collective guilt to all men for sex tourism. I’d rather blame the pimps and johns.
Some men are johns, pimps, rapists, and batterers. Not all men are. To assign collective guilt to all men for the actions of some is unfair.
The truth is, I don’t have the personal power to make all the johns, pimps, rapists and batterers stop. If I did, I would. But I don’t. All I can do is try to do what’s within my tiny power to try and make this a world in which johning, pimping, raping and battering are less acceptable.
Regarding the radio show:
I made my choice. I did my best. Could I have done better? In theory, yes. But I don’t believe going on a feminist woman’s show to talk about how the wage gap is real and women deserve to be paid more is such a terrible sin.
In the end, I don’t think you care what I did; I think that no matter what I had done, you would have found a way to twist it against me. That’s the way your politics - the politics of denunciation - work.
The problem with the politics of denunciation is that it doesn’t get anything done in the real world, apart from setting feminists against each other. All the tedious nit-picking, the searching for rhetorical ammunition, the quest to prove that you’re more feminist than thou - that’s the real waste of time. It’s not about fighting sexism and gender injustice; it’s just about fighting.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
February 16th, 2005 at 5:50 am
You know, what really bugs me is men who go, “Well, I didn’t do this that or the other. I’m therefore not responsible.” Amp actually speaks out about stuff, but my experience over and over again has been with men who just want to bash feminists and deny that they themselves have any responsibility at all.
Men don’t listen to women. Period. When women talk about their lives and their experiences, it’s dismissed. It’s only male experts who matter—or women who kiss those mens’ asses. So, yes, it is men’s job to stand up to sexist men and tell them—rudely and unpleasantly, that they’re out of line. It’s been so rare in my life than I can count the episodes on the fingers one one hand.
I always think about latrines when I think about this. Bear with me. In Baghdad, the latrines are awful, and it was all because of one thing: men were shaking off, not wiping, and leaving puddles everywhere. It was disgusting. There were women-only latrines for a while, then someone went around and ripped down all the signs. They were never replaced, which is very typical of band-aid approaches to sexism, too: make a lame, half-hearted response, then never follow up, ever again.
So say you have two hundred guys using one latrine and maybe twenty women. Amongst those guys are some decent guys, and they wipe. But the first guy who doesn’t clean up after himself, who pisses on the floor, just makes a mess that no other guy wants to clean up—or has to, for that matter. Sometimes they piss all over the seat, too. Even the decent guys refuse to dirty their hands with cleaning that up—it doesn’t affect them, after all. But women have no choice, really. They have to wipe up after these guys. The so-called nice guys leave the clean up for the women, who are genuinely affected by it.
No nice guy, however nice, will clean up after those other guys. But they sure as hell want the credit, while women have to wipe up after these guys. All the women have to show for it is words.
This comment was written by ginmar.Report this comment to the moderators
February 16th, 2005 at 6:22 am
“Some men are johns, pimps, rapists, and batterers. Not all men are. To assign collective guilt to all men for the actions of some is unfair.”
If you aren’t challenging it you are complicit. You benefit from women’s subjection. You didn’t challenge Omar’s nonsense about how removing the demand for prostitution would leave women drug-addicted and destitute. You’re too busy arguing about how *you* arent’ to blame.
“I made my choice. I did my best. Could I have done better? In theory, yes. But I don’t believe going on a feminist woman’s show to talk about how the wage gap is real and women deserve to be paid more is such a terrible sin.”
Actually in practice you could have done better. You could have refused the spot and recommended the name of women feminists instead. You could have gone on the programme and talked about male privilege. Why are you ignoring that your male privilege helped you get that spot?
“In the end, I don’t think you care what I did; I think that no matter what I had done, you would have found a way to twist it against me. That’s the way your politics - the politics of denunciation - work.
The problem with the politics of denunciation is that it doesn’t get anything done in the real world, apart from setting feminists against each other. All the tedious nit-picking, the searching for rhetorical ammunition, the quest to prove that you’re more feminist than thou - that’s the real waste of time. It’s not about fighting sexism and gender injustice; it’s just about fighting.”
Not true. Women have given you specific examples of how you could have dealt with the situation in a more feminist way. If you choose to ignore it it’s up to you but it doesn’t make your actions feminist.
As for this “politics of denunciation” rubbish, is that what you really believe? That it isn’t possible to make a feminist criticism of your actions? That people are really just being big meanies when they do this? How often do you take your male privilege out and examine it Ampersand?
This *don’t blame me for sexism* is what I normally hear from misgoynists, not what I’d expect to hear from a pro-feminist man.
This comment was written by littleviolet.Report this comment to the moderators
February 16th, 2005 at 6:49 am
Well, Amanda, if you ever have someone tell you that you’re part of the problem, and that you’re the one proping up the patriarchy, You are fully allowed to similarly tell them you’re doing your part to get rid of the patriarchy, or taking responsibility, or whatever language you want to use for it.
Everyone who is acting against sex tourism and whatnot is “taking responsibility.” Taking responsibility is only an issue in any situation when you’ve been accused of being irresponisble.
the recent discussion in various threads on male privalege and related concepts has gotten me wondering: what alternative to a position like Amp’s would meet with approval?
Since “men are johns, men are pimps, men are rapists” is it preferred men join with identity politics and side with the position that gives them the most power and advantage?
Should Amp stop drawing on Girlamatic and limit himself and his leftist politics to economic issues, ignoring gender?
is all ANYONE is saying really amount to telling Robert to shove it? the criticisms against Amp seem to be rather sudden. if people did have this opinion before Amp failed to tell Robert to shut up in the recent links thread, I don’t recall seeing them voiced. (may have been. I just don’t recall them)
would telling Robert to shove it be an appropriate auto de fe? Would it prove him a friend to all women?
I’m not just being facecious. This touches upon the actual blogpost. blaming someone who is actually innocent of the crimes of their group is only going to alienate them from wanting to make actual change.
This comment was written by karpad.Report this comment to the moderators
February 16th, 2005 at 7:12 am
And I do challenge it, very frequently. That doesn’t mean that I respond to every single comment I disagree with - especially not ones that have already ably been responded to.
If I had refused the spot, you would now be accusing me of suggesting that publicly speaking out against male privilege is only something women have to do, not something men have to do.
I recommended lots of women feminist bloggers to the producer, by the way.
And I did. (Do you really think the wage gap isn’t about male privilege?)
I’m sure that you turn down every single opportunity in your life that could possibly have to do with your being white, or being educated, or being American, or whatever privileges it is you have. Right? (Or are you saying that you have no privileges at all?)
And I’m sure that you’d be just as quick to criticize any allies of yours who are white, or American, or middle-class, if they ever accept anything good that comes their way, since you consistantly argue that no one with privilege should ever accept fun opportunities they get. Right?
Of course you don’t, and of course you wouldn’t. Part of the politics of personal denunciation is that your standards aren’t applied at all consistantly, but only against those you wish to attack.
There is nothing I get in life that is not to some degree connected to white, straight, male, American privilege. On the other hand, it’s not like these things are just randomly handed out to white men; to some degree, what little I’ve accomplished has come about because I do have some talents and I’ve worked to develop them.
What can I do, given that I’m privileged? Well, I can go live as a hermit (and ignore whatever privileges I have that make such a choice possible), turning down every opportunity for having fun or being honored, however meaningless and slight. Or I can try and live my life in a way so that the privileges I do have, are used to try and argue against privilege.
I’m not required to renounce ever accepting anything good that comes my way, in order to fight patriarchy.
Of course I don’t believe that stuff. Which is why I didn’t say that stuff, or anything like it. Please respond to what I write, not to fiction you make up.
I’m not saying that it’s impossible to make a feminist criticism of me; I’m saying that the particular criticism of me that Paige, and now you, have made is without merit and doesn’t really have much to do with feminism. It’s just about using feminsm as an excuse to declare other people sinners.
I think that a better politics concentrates less on making sure that everyone is Pure enough, and more on trying to change the world.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
February 16th, 2005 at 7:34 am
You know this is getting to be a very unproductive discussion. You don’t appear to be willing to even contemplate that criticisms being made against you and your blog could possibly have any basis either in feminism or in the search for fairness. I’ve said my piece here. I was very suprised to find that you tolerated sexists and misogynists and feminists in this space but now I’ve read your “don’t blame men for sexism” and “patriarchy hurts men too” arguments it seems entirely consistent.
I understand the “not me” attitude. I’ve just been reading Bell Hooks’ “Ain’t I a Woman?” and her criticisms of white feminists and our racism make for very uncomfortable reading. My immediate response is “not me” but that’s the easy route to take. Maybe it helps that I’ve come up against so many men making the same argument against feminism that I know it’s an illegitimate defense mechanism. Nobody wants believe that they aren’t a good person but if you’re going to do the real work of divesting yourself of privilege and prejudice then you (and I) have to start thinking “yes, me as well”.
Should white people be blamed for racism? Yes.
Should men be blamed for sexism? Yes.
This comment was written by littleviolet.Report this comment to the moderators
February 16th, 2005 at 7:50 am
I’m against judging people by what’s between their legs.
Ah, yes, the “feminist” man who believes discussions of gender can proceed perfectly logically without considering gender.
Really, now, HOW many years has this line of yours been in reprise? I had thought that by now you might have progressed beyond the days where you thought it was fine for folks to assume you were speaking about feminism from the perspective of a woman…oh, the naivete!
To assign collective guilt to all men for the actions of some is unfair.
no matter what I had done, you would have found a way to twist it against me. That’s the way your politics - the politics of denunciation - work.
I wonder if you could possibly feel sorrier for yourself.
It’s not about fucking purity, Ampersand, and it sure isn’t about one goddamned incident where you failed to point out how much and how well women blog, and how very little that’s respected.
You use , for YOUR advancement, a social movement for the advancement of women, and women’s networks for the advancement of women. Perhaps this is human nature. Who gives a shit. But you make free with that personal use while spewing pseudofeminist claptrap (for example: this genitalia and not judging bull), and you do it while whining about women who hold men in general responsible for oppression, and you do it while giving men a(nother) platform to launch (polite) antifeminist arguments, and you do it without continually criticizing men as a class for the ways in which they practice dominance, and you most CERTAINLY do it without self-criticism for the ways in which YOU practice dominance.
This comment was written by funnie.Report this comment to the moderators
February 16th, 2005 at 7:55 am
That’s not true - there are some criticisms of me and my blog I take very seriously, and that I think are well-based. I do take the feminist criticism of “civility” seriously, and I’ve been trying to think of alternative approaches. I also take the feminist criticism of my failings as a moderator seriously.
That doesn’t mean that I take every personal attack disguised as a feminist critique - which is a fair description of Paige’s post - seriously. I don’t think being male and a feminist requires being a doormat.
You dodged my question, by the way. I didn’t ask if you blamed yourself, as a white person, for racism. (I don’t blame myself for all of racism - slavery wasn’ t my fault, for instance - but I admit that I am racist, that I benefit from racism, and that I have a special responsibility as a white person to be anti-racism. If you want to pretend that’s all the same as me saying “no, not me,” okay.)
I asked if you think you’re obliged to turn down any good thing that comes your way, since nothing you recieve in our racist culture will every be entirely unconnected to white privilege.
And - second question - if you ever get a public opportunity, offered you by a person of color, to speak out publicly against racism, will you feel obliged to turn it down?
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
February 16th, 2005 at 7:59 am
Actually, the two things are very different. I think gender has to be considered; and at the same time, I think that casting judgements on people based solely on their sex is wrong. There’s no contradiction there.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
February 16th, 2005 at 8:01 am
I think I expressed myself badly. Srey Mom went back to the brothel because of problems in her life which the madam allegedly tries to stop, problems that nevertheless give the madam and johns power to control her. If the brothel did not exist, I still would not consider her free, because — even if those problems don’t let someone else control her, as seems probable — it would have taken events outside her control to prevent her from choosing slavery. If it matters what visitors from some other country want, if they get to determine what you do with your body, then something seems horribly wrong. A solution would involve punishing kidnappers — possibly their sex tourists as well, since they cooperate in kidnapping — but it would also involve giving women the freedom to tell all these people to go to hell, even if we can’t lock them all away.
I don’t know what to think about the accusations against Amp. Some of this involves matters I know little about, but the broad charges don’t fit my perception of Amp or his post.
This comment was written by Omar K. Ravenhurst.Report this comment to the moderators
February 16th, 2005 at 8:02 am
casting judgements on people based solely on their sex is wrong.
That’s a kindergarten-level statement about something that feminists DO NOT practice, and NO feminist in this thread is doing. So if you’re not out to minimize socialized gender difference, why on earth would you bother pointing out something so inane?
This comment was written by funnie.Report this comment to the moderators
February 16th, 2005 at 8:04 am
“You dodged my question, by the way. I didn’t ask if you blamed yourself, as a white person, for racism. (I don’t blame myself for all of racism - slavery wasn’ t my fault, for instance - but I admit that I am racist, that I benefit from racism, and that I have a special responsibility as a white person to be anti-racism. If you want to pretend that’s all the same as me saying “no, not me,”? okay.)”
I didn’t really dodge your question. The Bell Hook’s thing is something that is on my mind at the moment even before this thread. And of course as white people we should accept the blame for racism, who else is going to take the rap, CEO’s? the President? I don’t think so. Anyway it isn’t all down to them.
“I asked if you think you’re obliged to turn down any good thing that comes your way, since nothing you recieve in our racist culture will every be entirely unconnected to white privilege.”
Any good thing no, but if opportunities come my way because of anti-racist work that might be better suited to someone from an ethnic minority I’d have to think long and hard about it. Why should I be taking up any more of my fair share of space than I already do as a white person?
“And - second question - if you ever get a public opportunity, offered you by a person of color, to speak out publicly against racism, will you feel obliged to turn it down?”
If I was being asked to speak as a spokesperson for black power for instance I’d probably ask that person if a member of that group wouldn’t be better suited to the task and if I had extensive contacts within that group I’d probably offer them up. White people speaking on behalf of black people doesn’t sit comfortably with me.
This comment was written by littleviolet.Report this comment to the moderators
February 16th, 2005 at 8:07 am
and you do it while whining about women who hold men in general responsible for oppression
This comment was written by Omar K. Ravenhurst.I though Amp more or less wrote this post to answer antifeminists who whine about blame in feminism.
Report this comment to the moderators
February 16th, 2005 at 8:57 am
If men aren’t responsible for anything, “*I’,m* not a sex tourist! Don’t blame me!” on what basis are they supposed to take responsibility? And what are they supposed to take responsibility *for*? After, all, it’s not *your* fault!
You’re absolutely inconsistent, except as a gesture of noblesse oblige to those poor unfortunate classes. “Well, I’m not to blame for this. Nonetheless, because I feel some personal sense of responsibility for not living in a better world, I will reach out and help you.”
Fuck that. I don’t need your “help” if all it’s based on is noblesse oblige. And since you disavow all responsibility, i.e. “don’t blame me!”, there’s nothing else *for* it to be based on.
“It makes some women and many men who might otherwise be indifferent to feminism - or even willing to listen to feminism - defensive and angry. In this way, blame creates enemies and reduces potential converts. ”
As if men liking us has ever made them allies in the fight against sexism.
“It wastes time by paralyzing many pro-feminist men in a useless mire of defensiveness and guilt.”
What are you men? Fucking *children*? You can’t make a commitment to ending sexism without women taking care of your poor little emotional needs. “I’ll help you because my status as better-off than you demands it in a liberal society. But there is a price. You must never, ever, ever make me feel ‘guilty’ about my status. Even if my status is directly dependent on your oppression. And, if I should happen to feel guilty all on my own, you must lift me from the useless mire of my own creation.” Go someplace else to get your emotional needs of the opressor met. Feminism isn’t your little support club.
“It blurs the distinction between the Alan Johnsons and the Jerry Fawells of the world (not to mention between the Anita Bryants and the Susan Faludis), by assigning people blame according to their genitalia rather than their actions.”
Well if *POWER* weren’t distibuted by genitals, maybe “blame”, i.e. RESPONSIBILITY, wouldn’t have to be either. That’s always been the problem with you. You don’t really give a shit about power. It’s all about “attitudes”. And you seem to think that changing your “attitude is sufficient to answer *any* charges that you continue to benefit from, and continue to fail to work against, male privilege in any concrete form.
“It deflects attention from the real powers-that-be. If we’re going to blame anyone, I think it makes the most sense to blame the real rulers - CEOs, high political mucky-mucks, Network executives. People who have real power to change society. Remember, although the vast majority of society’s ruling class are male, the vast majority of men aren’t in the ruling class.”
Yet, in relation to *women* MEN ARE THE RULING CLASS. Ask a battered woman who was beaten by her husband, not Bill Gates. Who was ignored by her local policeman, not Dan Quayle. Who was counseled to stay in her marriage by her local priest, not the CEO of CBS.
But again, I ask. If men have no power to change anything — for *what* are they supposed to *be* “responsible” — in your words — and *how*? Oh, that’s right. Simply change their “attitudes” about women. How convenient for you. You get to do whatever you want — Air America for example — and when you’re called on your concrete use of male power to get what you want — lots of attention and free publicity for your blog and your career — you get to tell us “that’s okay. I *did* MY feminist work! I changed my attitude!” Power goes unaddressed and unchanged, but, hey! Amp changed his attitude. I get a warm fuzzy feeling just thinking about it.
” Still, some individual women do some of the same things, and some individual men do none of them. Any blame cast should be a matter of individual’s actions and not their genitalia. ”
Again, if POWER were distributed via actions, rather than genitals, you might have a point. Individual women abusing individual men is NOT equivalent to the structure of male power which virtually ensures that 1/3 of women will be battered in their intimate relationships. Nice false equivalence, though.
“If we do make blame a matter of genitalia rather than individual action, that significantly reduces the motivation for individual men to reform or change their actions. If they’re equally at fault no matter what they do, what’s the point?”
And if men aren’t responsible, i.e aren’t “to blame”, what motivation is there to change? Oh, that’s right. *Women* are supposed to provide the motivation to men to change. Women are, once again, supposed to do all your work for you while you leech off of us.
“Although I’ve benefited from being male in a male-dominated society, that’s not my fault. The system was in place a hundred generations before my birth; how could I be to blame?”
You aren’t? You selling women bloggers out on Air America isn’t your own actions? But, I know. It’s so much more feminist for men to sit around complaining about the heavy burden of the trust fund that daddy left them.
This comment was written by Paige.Report this comment to the moderators
February 16th, 2005 at 9:09 am
But the person who asked you - let’s say, an african-american radio host - isn’t asking you to speak for african-americans. You were recommended to the radio host by another african-american who has read your anti-racist writings. They find it interesting that a white person is anti-racist, but they don’t say that makes you a spokesperson for Blacks, and they haven’t invited you to do anything but represent your own anti-racist views.
The show has african-american guests frequently, but not exclusively; but for this one 20 minute segment they think you’d be good to fit in with a bit they’ve planned (let’s say the show’s theme is anti-racist cartoonists who know a lot about the history of the triangle trade, and you happen to fit that description). The african-american host of the show thinks that it’s good when white people speak out against racism, and tells you so.
In this case, your being on the show isn’t blotting out african-american voices - there is an african-american controlling the show, deciding when to turn your mic on or off, and she regularly has african-american guests in addition to herself.
Finally, imagine that you think it’s important that white people appear in public to state anti-racist views, but the media rarely shows white anti-racists.
I’m not saying that you’d come to the same decision I did. I assume you wouldn’t, from what you’ve said. But do you really think that your decision is the only possible reasonable decision, in that circumstance?
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
February 16th, 2005 at 9:12 am
But, the personal is political, and despite the personal nature of your invitation and your viewpoint, there is a larger political arena which *must* be addressed. Some of us feel that you failed to do the latter. It’s not the end of the world, it happens to women all the time.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
February 16th, 2005 at 9:19 am
Posted by Amp:
Funnie, you’re banned. Please stop posting on my blog. Thanks.
This comment was written by funnie.Report this comment to the moderators
February 16th, 2005 at 9:28 am
I’m not saying that it’s the end of the world. Nor am I saying that reasonable people can’t disagree with me on this issue.
I am saying that - even if you look only at the opinions of women feminists - it’s clear that feminists of good faith can disagree on whether or not it’s a bad idea for a man to appear as a guest on a feminist’s radio show to argue that men are unfairly paid more than women. Given that reasonable disagreement exists among feminists, the over-the-top attacks on my sincerity and character and commitment to feminism, based on my appearing on the radio show, seem unsupportable.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
February 16th, 2005 at 9:28 am
“You’ve got me. I am uncomfortable being blamed for sex tourism when I’m not a sex tourist.
Is that wrong? Why?.
I’m not saying that men shouldn’t take an uncomfortable look at how they benefit from patriarchy, and how the presence of rape gives us an advantage relative to women. It’s obvious to me that men should. It’s obvious to me that men need to take responsibility for trying to make things better.
But it’s not my fault. I am not a causal agent who makes sex tourism happen. Why would it benefit feminism, or women, if I lied and said “it is my fault that sex tourism happens?”?
Uncomfortable? Wow, that must REALLY hurt. If that’s the worst it makes you feel, count yourself lucky. Well, okay, we’ll let you address your own lack of willingness to feel uncomfortable with sexism by men, a tippy toe at a time. At that rate, we’ll have pro-feminist men who are actually useful to femism and fighting sexism, by oh, 2080. It’s like the white ministers in the South who told MLK, jr and other civil rights activists to be patient, that change comes slooooowly. To be able to say that with a straight face, is privilage in action.
Being compared to the Men’s News Forum by Andrew is both funny, and old. I think it goes back to what Robert said on the other thread about feminists turning this whole thing into some kind of exercise at burning “nice” feminist men to the stake instead of going after the “real” enemy, which the identity of is of course defined by men.
This comment was written by Radfem.Report this comment to the moderators
February 16th, 2005 at 9:39 am
“Funnie, you’re banned. Please stop posting on my blog. Thanks.”
Nice. Well, I guess that’s what you get for not being “civil”. Wow, no exercise of male power over uppity women, here.
This comment was written by Paige.Report this comment to the moderators
February 16th, 2005 at 9:48 am
“You dodged my question, by the way. I didn’t ask if you blamed yourself, as a white person, for racism. (I don’t blame myself for all of racism - slavery wasn’ t my fault, for instance - but I admit that I am racist, that I benefit from racism, and that I have a special responsibility as a white person to be anti-racism. If you want to pretend that’s all the same as me saying “no, not me,”? okay.)
I asked if you think you’re obliged to turn down any good thing that comes your way, since nothing you recieve in our racist culture will every be entirely unconnected to white privilege.
And - second question - if you ever get a public opportunity, offered you by a person of color, to speak out publicly against racism, will you feel obliged to turn it down? ”
Wow, racial politics gets played here too! LOL.
I hate it when people say slavery had nothing to do with them, or their ancestors. Hate it, hate it, hate it. EVERYONE IN THIS DAMN COUNTRY WHO’S WHITE HAS BENEFITTED FROM SLAVERY. No, you weren’t there, maybe your ancestors weren’t there but that labor built many of our cities and built this country, and who gets the perks for that? The white folks, who then typically turn around and deny it to everyone else.
Since the vast majority of my interactions each day are with people of color, mostly African-American, I’m uncomfortable most of the time because I have priviliage that they don’t. I didn’t ask for it, I didn’t create it, but I have it and that’s what matters, is that you HAVE IT, not how you got there.
Even as I am annoyed as a woman on these threads, I know that as a white women who went to college, I’m among the most priviliaged people in our country. I am second-class when in the company of white men. But hey, that’s a hell of a lot easier than most of the people I interact with, in terms of what they face and once I figured that out(which took a while), things changed. I get my head pulled out of my ass and my foot pulled out of my mouth on a regular basis, and that’s how you grow…through those experiences, not ass stoking exchanges where your comfort level becomes the most important thing, no matter how you deny it and call people crazy or out of touch or as bad as the “real” ENEMY.
It’s taught me not to turn down good offers but to look at them differently than I would have before, at all different angles. Is what is good for me, harmful to others? How does it impact others? It’s not the end of the universe if you just take a closer look at things, with different perspectives that you learn through your experiences with others, usually through hard-learned lessons. But that’s life, and everyone except those who have only known privilage seemed to figure that out pretty early. That’s why a lot of this conversation by men here has mostly just confused me.
This comment was written by Radfem.Report this comment to the moderators
February 16th, 2005 at 9:57 am
I entirely agree, Radfem. I said much the same thing as what you just wrote, on the Ms boards, when the topic came up several years ago.
It’s obvious and (imo) undeniable that all white people benefited from slavery. However, I can accept that I benefit from slavery - and that I’m responsible for trying to oppose white privilege and the effects of slavery - without claiming that I am to blame for slavery.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
February 16th, 2005 at 10:02 am
“And - second question - if you ever get a public opportunity, offered you by a person of color, to speak out publicly against racism, will you feel obliged to turn it down?”?
If I was being asked to speak as a spokesperson for black power for instance I’d probably ask that person if a member of that group wouldn’t be better suited to the task and if I had extensive contacts within that group I’d probably offer them up. White people speaking on behalf of black people doesn’t sit comfortably with me.
But the person who asked you - let’s say, an african-american radio host - isn’t asking you to speak for african-americans. You were recommended to the radio host by another african-american who has read your anti-racist writings. They find it interesting that a white person is anti-racist, but they don’t say that makes you a spokesperson for Blacks, and they haven’t invited you to do anything but represent your own anti-racist views.
The show has african-american guests frequently, but not exclusively; but for this one 20 minute segment they think you’d be good to fit in with a bit they’ve planned (let’s say the show’s theme is anti-racist cartoonists who know a lot about the history of the triangle trade, and you happen to fit that description). The african-american host of the show thinks that it’s good when white people speak out against racism, and tells you so.
In this case, your being on the show isn’t blotting out african-american voices - there is an african-american controlling the show, deciding when to turn your mic on or off, and she regularly has african-american guests in addition to herself.
Finally, imagine that you think it’s important that white people appear in public to state anti-racist views, but the media rarely shows white anti-racists.
I’m not saying that you’d come to the same decision I did. I assume you wouldn’t, from what you’ve said. But do you really think that your decision is the only possible reasonable decision, in that circumstance?”
—————————————————-
Well, don’t worry, I don’t think you’re ever going to be asked to speak for “black power” even by larger society and its media b/c they pigeonhole most racial issues as being only of interest to those racial groups. If you were a white, too interested in black power, you’d be suspect, and disloyal to your own kind. It’s a bad hypothetical. Though it’s true that the media does pigeonhole whites, or polarizes racial issues more than they are already and they don’t include people of color in their own employee rosters. It sells more copies.
Interesting though, that men won’t hestitate to be a spokesperson for feminism and women….hmmmm…..
And it’s not easy being a Black radio host, Tavis Smiley for instance, ran into serious trouble on his show, which at the time was produced by whites, b/c he talked too much about the police killings of Tyisha Miller in my city, and Amadou Diallo in New York City. I do admire the stand he took in those cases.
I’ve done radio shows on racial issues b/c of my work and b/c I know several local hosts very well. I only do it with the understanding that I’m only speaking for myself, even if I’m sharing experiences that I’ve had, and often I recommend people who I’ve worked with to go on the radio and tell their own stories b/c no one owns our experiences like we do.
This comment was written by Radfem.Report this comment to the moderators
February 16th, 2005 at 10:09 am
Radfem -
Do you really think that men who are feminist aren’t considered “suspect, and disloyal to your own kind” by many other men? If so, you’re mistaken. I’m not saying it’s a big deal - it’s not - but it does happen, quite often.
I certainly wouldn’t accept an invitation to be a spokesperson for women!
As for feminism, I don’t think there’s a single, coherant feminist theory to speak for; there are a wide variety of feminisms. I’d never agree to represent “the” feminist viewpoint, as if I could speak for anyone else. I’d certainly be willing to provide my own feminist viewpoint, though.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
February 16th, 2005 at 10:16 am
I never said that doesn’t happen. I’m saying that the same men who say they would feel uncomfortable speaking for people of color, don’t feel the same way when talking about or for women. Hell, I am a woman and I would never feel comfortable speaking for ALL women, b/c gender admittedly is not a big unifer, except during those brief *click* moments when we share a common bond as women that bridge a lot of gorges.
This comment was written by Radfem.Report this comment to the moderators
February 16th, 2005 at 10:21 am
Well, don’t worry, I don’t think you’re ever going to be asked to speak for “black power”? even by larger society and its media b/c they pigeonhole most racial issues as being only of interest to those racial groups. If you were a white, too interested in black power, you’d be suspect, and disloyal to your own kind.[...]Interesting though, that men won’t hestitate to be a spokesperson for feminism and women….hmmmm…..
This comment was written by Omar K. Ravenhurst.Don’t they? Seems like a fairly good analogy to me.
Report this comment to the moderators
February 16th, 2005 at 10:22 am
Oh, and Amp, just a little more food for thought:
Did you read any of Robert’s comments to Molly in that sidetrack about environmentalism ? Did you not see that his “Earth First” crack, for instance, was obvious baiting ? Because it was obvious to me.
I’m also curious if Robert emailed you privately to try and justify his behavior despite the firestorm it kicked up, if he worried that his behavior was compromising your stance on certain issues ? You know, like I did.
Just something to think about next time you’re wondering about the day to day ramifications of this pesky “equality” business.
Also, you keep on talking about how you feel damned if you do and damned if you don’t ? Welcome to my world, Brother.
This comment was written by alsis38.Report this comment to the moderators
February 16th, 2005 at 10:24 am
Radfem said:
Being compared to the Men’s News Forum by Andrew is both funny, and old
It was neither meant to be funny, nor something I’ve heard before, but an example of how ridiculous and offensive Paige’s overgeneralisation was. Most points I could make have been far better made by Ampersand, but this was what I was trying to say:
Yes, I feel guilty about any advantages I may have merely because I’m a man.
No, I probably don’t notice all of them.
Yes, I need to work to help get rid of the system that provides these advantages.
None of these points mean I should admit to doing anything to perpetuate sex tourism, rape, forced prostitution, or domestic violence.
I’m not uncomfortable being told I think rape is okay. I’m as outraged as I would be to be told I was automatically inferior because of my gender.
This comment was written by Andrew.Report this comment to the moderators
February 16th, 2005 at 10:49 am
To the best of my knowledge, the only people who have ever been banned here are spammers, the most outrageous of trolls, and funnie. Posters who are proudly sexist can stay, but funnie is banned for making you feel uncomfortable? Amp, that’s really beyond the pale. Maybe Alsis really *should* be watching her back.
This comment was written by flea.Report this comment to the moderators
February 16th, 2005 at 10:49 am
Amy -
It’s up to Robert to say what he did or didn’t email me. I don’t think private emails sent me are appropriate for me to share. (I know I referred to my apologizing to you, but that was something I sent to you, not you to me.)
“Baiting” is an issue for another day’s discussion. I’m sorry if that seems like a cop-out, but I’m really freaking exhausted here.
Yeah, I see what you mean.
For what it’s worth (I know, this and a dollar will buy you a coffee), I really am horribly sorry that I put you in that position, and that I didn’t treat you as well as you deserve.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
February 16th, 2005 at 10:55 am
Flea -
Actually, Funnie was banned for saying “I couldn’t be less interested in even PRETENDING to dialog with you, you fucking piece of shit remora” to me. And, more importantly, for meaning that, and making it clear in many posts leading up to that one that she meant it.
Alsis is a friend of mine going back 20 years, and will never be banned, even if she calls me a fucking piece of shit remora.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
February 16th, 2005 at 10:57 am
Here’s the only relevant e-mail I’ve sent to Amp. I wasn’t concerned about his agenda, more concerned about the forum and its viability as a community.
“I think I’m going to bow out of commenting on your blog for a bit. It’s obvious that my presence isn’t helpful to a pretty big chunk of your audience, and I’ve said everything I wanted to say and represented my POV about as well as I can represent it.
I’ll continue to read and may post occasionally but won’t be as involved. I’m letting you know this because you’re my friend and I don’t want you to think that a sudden dropoff in commenting meant that I felt unwelcome or anything like that.”
And that’s pretty much what I’m going to do; comment if something really moves me to comment, but I’ve said what I wanted to say, so I’ll shut up and free that bandwidth for other participants.
(Except to note that my comment about protection and paternalistic feelings was not meant as a troll or a provocation; I thought it was interesting that a non-feminist could arrive at the same policy destination (smash porn) as a radical feminist through paternalism rather than through egalitarianism.)
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
February 16th, 2005 at 11:13 am
Yeah, she probably did mean it, and I know this is your space and all, and you have the right to be happy in it. But I have to wonder why you would prefer to surround yourself with posters who think you’re a PoSR but pretend to think otherwise? The thing with Funnie is, she’s coming at you with a sincere dedication to feminism and a commitment to feminist beliefs, which is more than I can say for many posters here, from the open sexists to their female “I am so ASHAMED to be a woman right now!” cheerleaders. I hate to think that on a board that (whether anybody likes it or not) is the highest profile feminist blog around, that sincere feminists are banned and anti-feminists are allowed to be as patronizing and condescending as they can be, giving free reign to their uninformed negative opinions about radical feminism and Catherine A. MacKinnon. If you get rid of all the people who actually know what they’re talking about (which is not me, by the way), what’s left?
I just wish you’d take a walk around the block, cool off a bit, and reconsider.
~flea
This comment was written by flea.Report this comment to the moderators
February 16th, 2005 at 11:14 am
I for one liked Amp’s appearance on the show. For a mainstream audience, even hearing a man speak out on women’s issues is like getting a glass of cold water in their faces. Yes, he was using his male privilege, but there was so much more going on and I’m not going to through the baby out with bathwater. It’s critically important for people to quit viewing feminism as a male vs. female issue, and realize that it’s about women’s oppression, something other women participate in as well as men. It’s a social issue–privilege is extremely important as a concept but it’s not the end all and be all of everything.
Garofalo asked Amp to be on her show–her show, her guests. She had her reasons, which are glaringly obvious to me, and I support her reasons. Not the least of which is putting the notion that men and women can actually get along and support feminist causes together into people’s heads. And I’m suspicious of this zero-sum game mentality–shortly after Amp was on the show, Jessica from Feministing was on there, too. (And she plugged my blog! Woo-hoo!) I would like it if they had more feminist bloggers on Majority Report, of course, but I think with the few episodes they did on bloggers they tried to show that there is a variety of voices out there. Yes, including male voices.
This comment was written by Amanda.Report this comment to the moderators
February 16th, 2005 at 11:16 am
Oh, I forgot to mention that I hope you’re not blaming the Ms. debacle on the radical feminists that posted there. I’m pretty sure we all got pretty muddy on that one.
This comment was written by flea.Report this comment to the moderators
February 16th, 2005 at 11:17 am
God, and I hope I didn’t come of as a “I’m so ashamed to be a woman right now” type.
This comment was written by Amanda.Report this comment to the moderators
February 16th, 2005 at 11:18 am
No, Amanda! For you I have only the love.
This comment was written by flea.Report this comment to the moderators
February 16th, 2005 at 11:23 am
I wasn’t talking about Amp, though I think I recall reading about an appearance about his blog on radio. What I mentioned seems to be a common trend in the discussion of women’s issues, whether considered to be feminist or not, in radio, TV, the annual dreaded “feminism is dead or Ally McBeal” issue of Time magazine. Whereas I doubt some of these same individuals would do the same as white people, if the issue were race.
No conspiracy here. Sorry.
I also mentioned that no one women or group of women is qualified to speak for all women. That’s a stumbling block feminism still doesn’t seem to get, which is frustrating. But if I as a woman am not qualified to speak for all women, why is a man, who’s even further removed?
Yes, women do contribute to sexism. Women make more money bashing it than embracing it and some go for that, b/c just like there’s men who want to make money and be famous, there are women who do that. I personally spare no words with them.
This comment was written by radfem.Report this comment to the moderators
February 16th, 2005 at 12:18 pm
flea,
I don’t doubt that funnie has a sincere commitment to feminism, and that is was part of what she was coming from, but I think she also has a sincere hatred of Amp, and that that was also where she was coming from.
Paige and funnie are very far from being the only people who have harshly criticized Amp here recently. No one else who has harshly criticized Amp has been banned.
It is perfectly possible to criticize someone’s motives, or to criticize the effects they have, or to criticize someone’s commitment to feminism, etc. without being banned. It is perfectly possible to get pissed off at someone being obtuse or offensive and express your fury at their idiocy or their monsterousness without being banned.
The best incident to compare this banning to was the banning of DonP. A ferverent pro-choicer and atheist, he was repeatedly asked to rein in his abuse of other posters (pro-lifers and religious people mostly). Eventually, he seemed to develop a grudge against Amp, and in a discussion related to fat, he began making vicious attacks on Amp on a constant basis. After being warned repeatedly, he was banned. Another poster, who was making the same arguments against tolerance of fat people, but was not making them as thinly veiled personal attacks against Amp, was not banned. He didn’t start out as a troll, and he had many positions that were in line with those of the site (although he was very much one of those people who, when they argue for your side, you really wish would shut up and go away), but once he made it abundantly clear that he had decided that his job here was to personally abuse Amp, he was banned.
funnie has made it clear (by her actions and by her explicit statements) that her purpose here was not to dialog with Amp, but to prove what a piece of shit remora he is. Proving that someone is piece of shit remora is the action of an egregious troll.
Again, proving that someone is a piece of shit remora is not the same thing as proving that they don’t actually support or benefit feminism, or that the actions they take are unjust and support patriarchy. Other people have argued all of those things here about Amp and this site, and none of them have been banned.
This comment was written by Charles.Report this comment to the moderators
February 16th, 2005 at 12:22 pm
Alsis is a friend of mine going back 20 years, and will never be banned, even if she calls me a fucking piece of shit remora.
Ehhh, you know me better than that, Amp. :/
At any rate, funnie has a long history of being very selective about which male’s compromises need to be held under a microscope versus which male’s compromises does not. She played this game with other feminsts as well, over at one of the feminist boards I frequent. It’s pretty damn infuriating to a lot of us who have history here, though I don’t expect every Alas poster to be aware of the history in question. Which is too bad, because funnie is right on a lot of other issues. What can I say ? It’s not a perfect world.
My quarrels with the politics embodied by Garofalo and Air America are legion, so nobody would take me seriously if I questioned why their first thought in setting up a feminist/anti-feminist debate was to cast a male as the former and a female as the latter. At the time, I didn’t think about it all that much. I’ll go out on a limb now and guess that they did it because of the old “man bites dog” school of journalism/commentary. They thought that it looked cooler and, yes, you could argue that their prioritizing of coolness over the perception of sexism was wrong, but– like I said, I’m not gonna’ get into trashing Air America here. ‘Nother topic, ‘nother day.
This comment was written by alsis38.Report this comment to the moderators
February 16th, 2005 at 12:24 pm
Actually, Funnie was banned for saying “I couldn’t be less interested in even PRETENDING to dialog with you, you fucking piece of shit remora”? to me. And, more importantly, for meaning that, and making it clear in many posts leading up to that one that she meant it.
But that was in direct response to your earlier comment to her: “My vision is that “Alas”? will be a place where belligerent small-minded assholes pretend to be interested in dialog while yelling questions at me.”
Which, for you, is (in my experience anyway) about the same thing. If we’re figuring out what people really mean, now.
As you rightly point out, it’s your blog, you create a space where you’re comfortable, that’s normal. But to claim that you’re not a public figure (you are), to claim that you don’t use feminism (you do), is dishonest.
I think Flea’s nailed this one, except that I think it’s also about you not liking Funnie, historically, repeatedly, dependably.
You’re certainly not outright claiming this to be feminist space, and you’ll explain that it’s space where you feel comfortable. But if feminists mistake it for feminist space, you won’t necessarily correct them. And it won’t be until the obviousness of it NOT being feminist space is so glaring that anything changes, and that appears to be okay. I think what’s depressing is that it COULD be feminist space: you have a big enough voice and a big enough soapbox, and you’re a feminist. But it’s still not.
This comment was written by portia.Report this comment to the moderators
February 16th, 2005 at 12:50 pm
[snort]
Life growing dull and flavorless in your usual clubhouse, portia ?
Don’t bother to answer. It’s a rhetorical question. :/
This comment was written by alsis38.Report this comment to the moderators
February 16th, 2005 at 1:51 pm
Yeah, alsis, there is something familiar about all this. Once again, it’s about men, and who’s better than the other: Ampersand or Rich…but if you can’t deal with the misogynist in your yard, what credibility do you have here or anywhere else?
Yawn.
This comment was written by radfem.Report this comment to the moderators
February 16th, 2005 at 2:05 pm
As far as Amp not liking funnie, I dare say it’s mutual. She came, she called him on the carpet on behalf of all feminists, she got banned, she went home and no doubt, is probably processing the whole thing like she’s amazed about it, when she’s really not…to a misogynist she’s totally blind to, who no doubt has had his entire year made by another by-proxy attack on a man he both despises and envies due to his accessibility to mainstream feminism. The only shock would be if anyone at the WB ever called Rich on his crap…but then hell’s inhabitants probably aren’t quite ready to invest in snow tires and mufflers, so won’t happen.
Maybe Rich can break the ice with another tacky racist joke about Asian warbrides and you can all like titter nervously on it, because racist jokes, equal non-PC, equal cool, or something like that.
This comment was written by radfem.Report this comment to the moderators
February 16th, 2005 at 2:15 pm
If it would be of general interest, radfem, would you mind posting a smidge about who these people are/were, for those of us not quite as much in the loop?
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
February 16th, 2005 at 2:32 pm
Look, folks, I’ll never buy that a lack of willingness to be treated hatefully makes me a bad feminist or an anti-feminist.
During this recent mess, it occured to me that there’s a big difference between me and everyone else who posts on “Alas”: Everyone else, if they don’t like what’s going on here - if they feel bruised or sick to their stomoch or head-gamed by what’s going on here - has the option of leaving. I don’t.
So it’s easy for folks to say “well, he should have just kept on engaging people who obviously hold him in contempt for post after post, day after day. It’s no different from us having to deal with people we don’t like in the comments.” But it is different, because you don’t have an 0bligation to keep on engaging with that person if you don’t want to.
Portia, if I’ve made a name for myself, it’s entirely of the small-fish-in-a-tiny-pond variety. I’m happy that many people in the feminist blogging community respect me and “Alas,” of course, but I think it’s a bit weird to act as if running a mid-level poliblog is a big deal. It’s a good blog, but that’ s all it is.
I’m not too worried about if Portia or Rich or Heart or whomever thinks this space is feminist enough. If some feminists find what I do useful or entertaining to read, they’ll read it. If others don’t, they won’t. I trust feminists to decide for themselves if “Alas” is worth their time or not.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
February 16th, 2005 at 2:33 pm
You mean to say you don’t already KNOW, alsis? ;)
It’s geniunely good to see (read) both you and radfem.
This comment was written by portia.Report this comment to the moderators
February 16th, 2005 at 2:44 pm
yes, who the hell is Rich?
[snark] and if s/he/it makes tacky racist joke, does that mean there are non-tacky racist jokes?[/snark]
This comment was written by karpad.Report this comment to the moderators
February 16th, 2005 at 3:12 pm
Good point. Sorry, I meant that the joke was both tacky and racist(and also sexist). Tacky, because it’s being told as a joke(involving a racist sexist sterotype of women) to women who have been hurt by sexism, abeit in a different way. I would have a problem with that.
What I mean is that there’s history between some people here, like happens on the net I suppose. Which is why, I think, is part of what went between funnie and Ampersand, and I don’t think it’s accurate to say it’s just on one side. And I’ve been angry at both of them, at one time or another. But they’re grown ups. The differnce btwn Funnie and Paige is that funnie was looking for a ban to prove a point, and Paige, I think got caught up in that undertow.
But it does show that when men react to women and feel threatened or uncomfortable, the punishment for those feminists is more severe than it is for the men. But, it’s like that in every area of a woman’s life. And that double standard in any form reeks.
I ignored funnie FTMP, for that reason, as I don’t particularly care for her, or her choice in music lyrics for that matter. Though she’s got her network of female friends to support her during her banning so she should come through it just fine.
This comment was written by radfem.Report this comment to the moderators
February 16th, 2005 at 3:28 pm
“But it does show that when men react to women and feel threatened or uncomfortable, the punishment for those feminists is more severe than it is for the men.”
Yup.
” But, it’s like that in every area of a woman’s life. And that double standard in any form reeks.”
Double yup.
As for the business with Funnie (OK, yes, I did have to restrain myself from writing “Funnie business”………yeah, I *know* it’s beyond crap to the point of being embarrassing……….), well, to be honest when I see a message with her name on it, I tend to cruise on by. Not because I don’t think she has anything valuable to say–she often does–but because she & I also have a “history” & I have no intention of getting into it again with her at present. But looking over some of her stuff, I have to say that she was looking for a rise out of Amp……………however, I’d also have to add that that fact, in and of itself, does not mean that along the way she didn’t raise some very good points. Not that those should be an excuse. But I don’t want to give the impression I’m endorsing the dismissal of *everything* she had to say just because she came here with the agenda of needling Amp.
I’m also more than a bit concerned that the fact one or two women were here with slightly shady motives may be used as a blanket excuse for disregarding all the points feminist women have raised over the past few days.
This comment was written by Crys T.Report this comment to the moderators