I rarely have seen a busy administrator like him producing such a lot of quality topics for discussion; this site contains a lot of serious work and knowledge.

About his moderation policies, I think he did the right step to ban some certain posters. Same opinion or not, pro-feminist or contra-feminist or whoever, some level of politeness is required and is improving the quality and credibility of this site.

Ampersand staunchly defends pro-feminist issues as a man. Why he is doing that? I have no idea. Really remarkable. Feminists, whatever their position might be, can be happy to have him on their side.

I am MRA, of course, I often do not agree to his pro-feminist comments, but this is another matter.

I think it’s fairly safe to say that you fall into the anti-feminist camp. I mean, do you really want us to lower the bar further? How low exactly? Low enough so that guys like you can feel free to backhand feminists and still feel like you’re one of the neutral good guys? Might work in the locker room…

Deduced because of quotation marks? Nice logical trail there…

/shakes head

Mainly because there are apparently only two kinds of people in the world … feminists and anti-feminists; WRA or MRA.

Add your strawman to that tally, and we actually have three kinds. >:

What about the rest of us that aren’t either? It seems that the “intellectual debate” that so many people want to (and some don’t want to) have can only be truly isolated to feminists or MRAs?

I don’t have any clue about any cases about rape because feminism issues are not on the top of my PubSub subscription lists or RSS aggregator. I can’t tell you any “four rule” shit because I never heard of them until reading this blog.

I really appreciate Amps stance on respect and openness because I take mostly the same approach on my own blog. I keep up with this blog because it’s in my feedreader. But I dare not engage any one of you in debate of any sort because if it’s determined that I’m not inline with the “feminist” view then I must be a Men’s Rights Advocate…. huh? I’d like to see that leap in logic spelled out but okay… Then, based on what I’ve seen here, if I’m seen as an MRA (because I’m not a feminist) then I have no place in intelligent discourse.

Yep, there’s a reason I don’t comment often but I couldn’t resist tonight.

I think I’ve figured out a scientific law. I can’t prove it but it came from some comments made at one point by Stowe Boyd. If a person reads twice as much as they normally do and writes half as much as they usually do, he (or she) would become a more well-rounded and balanced individual.

1:45 AM. Bedtime. Until I comment again in 3 months… Peace.

[No problem - paragraph deleted. --Amp.]

alsis39 (comment #32), how seriously do you mean this analogy? Are you assuming that all white people are racist, all non-Jews are anti-semitic and all straight people are homophobic? Because it seems to me that the analogy here is women learning from men, not feminists learning from sexists.

My core point still stands. Even a man with the best will toward women a) has male privilege and b) has drunk from a well poisoned by sexism. How can he help it ?

The same would apply to me as a White woman if we are discussing racism. I don’t think of myself as a racist in the sense that I burn crosses, oppose affirmative action, would rather die than date a Black man,etc. But I enjoy White privilege, and I was born and reared in a racist society. This is something that would give me pause in any discussion in which I thought there was something I could teach a Black man or woman about racism. It doesn’t mean that racism itself is a taboo topic, only that it’s foolish for me to pretend that I come to the table with the same knowledge and perspective as a Black man or woman.

Speaking for myself (if we’re playing the minority card I’m Jewish and bisexual), I really don’t think my ability to learn from others is limited by which groups they identify with. Certainly, I have learnt a great deal from non-Jews and from straight people, in all sorts of ways. I have even learnt about religion from non-Jews, and about sexuality from straight people. However, I don’t think I have much to learn from anti-semites and homophobes, or at least not on any issue where those hatreds are directly relevant. Maybe that’s what you meant by your comment about feminists learning from sexists?

[shrug] Perhaps I was too muddle-headed in my original point. Sorry. :o

I don’t think that it’s just a question of what you learned, but how you learned it, and the degree to which your happiness, your life, or something in between would be affected by your ability to learn it.

I guess that I would ask myself what’s at stake for you, as a Jew or a woman in a same-sex relationship if you DON’T learn about how the majority thinks/lives. Or if you learned through osmosis how the majority thinks ? (And the reverse: Did they learn of your life and thoughts through osmosis, or by going out of there way to do so;By CHOICE ? What would have been at stake for them had they CHOSEN not to do so ? Anything important ?)

A trivial example that happened about the same time that this thread reached a boiling point: I was on another board that prided itself on how un-P.C. it was. Jokes about sex, drugs, violence, etc. were all welcomed and a point of pride. There were literally dozens of Christmas threads there. I didn’t bother to post in them or talk much about Christmas. I’m Jewish and don’t celebrate Christmas and it wasn’t like warm fuzzy holiday feelings were the main reason that I was there in the first place.

Then somebody started a poll asking whether people preferred “Merry Christmas” or “Happy Holidays” as a greeting. I came down in favor of the latter, and got pretty snappish with a couple of Gentile jerks who said some shit that made it clear they knew very little about life as a religious minority. Within a couple of hours, my post had been expunged by a mod. Not the ignorant comments made by the folks I responded to. Just mine. The mod’s explanation was unsatisfactory, and would have pissed me off no matter what s/he said, because I was given no option to change the way I voiced my opinion. Nor were the fuckwits who said the bigoted shit in the first place required to modify their tone. They were left undisturbed.

Furthermore, I had posted in a thread in which someone HAD SPECIFICALLY INVITED comments that COULD include somebody less than thrilled at being told to have a “Merry Christmas.”

A further point: I don’t think that all non-feminists are sexists. Some are, for sure. Again, are you actually holding this view of non-feminists, or am I misreading you?

Again, you can debate until the cows come home as to how often partaking in the goods of a sexist society leads to out-and-out sexism. I don’t think it’s debatable that the very act of exercizing privilege is sexist. Again, to draw a parallel, I doubt that any of the people in the painful little interlude I had on this other board are truly anti-Semitic, but they did behave like ignorant fucks and when I pointed it out, I was the one censored. I am grateful that nobody threw a cinder block through my window at my Menorah last night, but it doesn’t follow that even nice people who are part of the the dominant religion in American culture don’t say ignorant, hurtful things to those who are not.

At least as a woman competing in what was, when I entered it in the early 1970’s, very much a male profession, I appreciated actions which opened doors for us as women lawyers (or at least that didn’t affirmatively close them!) far more than I appreciated pious protestations and/or “correct” language and sentiment. In fact, sometimes I thought that the men in charge were busy purging the language of masculine pronouns and the like in order to look busy, and to avoid solving the real problem.

We battered some of those doors down. Things aren’t perfect yet, but no young woman who enters the profession now will ever hear what I heard, will ever be treated as I and my colleagues were treated. We had to be better than the guys, and we were. Now the playing field is a lot more level. Not perfect. But better.

The questions that interest me are not about theories. I’m far more interested in seeing this society actually move towards equal justice, and furthering that move, than I am in being considered a “radical feminist” or whatever by whoever. So, if I’m not “radical” enough for someone (or everyone) here, or if some don’t think I’m a “feminist” at all, that’s not going to keep me up at night.

I’m going to have to bow out of discussions for a while, but before I do I’d like to make my peace, so far as is compatible with honesty, with anyone irritated by my posts. The “self-proclaimed” feminists does *not* refer to those who would be universally accepted as being feminists on these threads (someone like yourself for example) but people like myself and Susan who might regard themselves as being feminists but would find that assumption challenged here. Just scroll up to the beginning of my correspondence with Lorenzo, and you’ll see that that’s all I meant by it. So it is not a back-handed swipe at you or feminists like you. The reason I put “rape culture” in quotes is that I’m never 100% sure what is meant when various posters here use it. Does it mean: a culture in which rape comes about, and in which it is not taken with sufficient seriousness by many people? Then obviously we do live in such a culture. Does it mean: a culture with a gender power imbalance, of which rape is the natural consequence? I think there may be something in that. Does it mean: a culture whose secret imperative it is that women be raped as a more-or-less conscious method of repression? About that I’m sceptical. I think the definition of “rape culture” varies a good deal from feminists to feminist and therefore felt the need to handle the words with asbestos gloves. It was certainly not a sign that I minimize the importance of rape ““ a horrible, insufficiently punished crime perpetrated almost exclusively by men, and of which women make the vast majority of victims.

As for your being somewhat confused by my posts: that’s because I started debating a practical matter (who is to be regarded as feminist, who not?) with a view to defending as broad a categorization as possible for these threads, and ended up debating a more theoretical one with Lorenzo (should we define the politically aligned according to what they believe and how they behave, or should we define them according to their awareness and methodology). I was a bit concerned that by his “methodological” definition someone like Susan, who, armed only with a sense of natural justice and of her own potential has been doing a lot to fight sexism all her professional life, might not be accepted as being genuinely feminist, while someone like Robert who shares (according to his own post) much of the feminist critique of women’s and society’s problems but proposes non-feminist solutions to them, would be welcomed to the fold.

With the rest of your post I have no quarrel.

Best

Tom Nolan: I’m somewhat confused by your posts. You seem to be backhandedly attacking feminism with your references to “self-proclaimed” feminists and by putting the phrase, rape culture, in quotations. We don’t need to defend the tenants of feminism. Everyone here understands that they are valid, and varied. This thread was meant to lay a framework for those posters who are anti-feminist or anti-female to understand that we aren’t here to reinvent the wheel. If posters wish to argue and debate theorectical and practical nuances of feminism they should go for it; to purport that feminism is bunk, over and over again, is childish and historically, politically, and theoretically inaccurate.

But this notion of “method” you make so much of ““ that how one arrives at a given political stance is crucial to determining whether one is to be identified with that stance ““ is new to me, and somewhat intriguing. Who cares, for example, by what intellectual or emotional route sexists, fascists, racists etc. come to there positions? ““ it is enough for us to know that they have, in fact, adopted those positions when (for example) the question arises as to whether they should be allowed to post on a site like this. You wouldn’t say, would you, that such people were not really sexist, fascist, racist etc just because they had never read or understood the “theory” relating to those aberrations? So I am somewhat bewildered at your making “critical thinking” so crucial a condition to feminism: a feminist, surely, is someone who believes and acts in accordance with certain beliefs ““ the system of analysis by which they came to those beliefs seems to me to be quite irrelevant.

That’s not at all an accurate analogy. As for most of us, we find the core beliefs and views shared by all bigots to be repugnant, thus why would we care as to which strand or faction within each of those headings led to which of the conclusions, all of which we find repugnant?

The issue was how to distinguish views within feminism, beyond the fundamental beliefs that all strains of feminism share.

That a feminist being pro-porn is importantly distinguished by whether they have simply accepted the standard view of porn or have thought about the issue from a feminist perspective. That’s what distinguishes a pro-porn feminist from a pro-porn liberal or whatever else. Of course, this shoudln’t be construed to mean that any position is tenable from a feminist framework. There are many views that are basically incompatible with any of the main viewpoints within feminism.

Which is really too long a way and discussion to try and communicate the simple point that you shouldn’t assume that just because a broad spectrum of feminists agree on something (lets say, for example, pay equity) that this necessarily tells you much about their broader feminist viewpoint and that feminists who disagree on any number of other issues can nontheless still agree on many others. In order to understand the breadth of feminism you need to find out about the core beliefs of different views (i.e. those that distinguish them from other views within feminism), not just assume their similarity because they agree on certain issues. In other words, you have to read up on it to find out what feminists believe and what the different sets of beliefs are that distinguish different strands of feminism.

This should hardly be a shocking thing. Same goes for any other social movement. You have to do your homework to know what the various factions or strands in any social movement believe and why and what distinguishes them from each other.

I thank you for your second definition of radical feminism, which is far richer in content than the first. But I still think your emphasis on “methodology” renders it dubious.

How would you know? Without looking into what the core beliefs shared by radical feminists are yourself, how would you know whether or not my definition was an accurate reflection of those beliefs?

One could do adopt all those beliefs and assumptions (I’m not quite sure why you refer to them as “a broad methodology” ““ is this some specialist use of the word?) and nonetheless decide that the oppression of women, as guarantor of so many other oppressions, served one’s turn, and choose to do nothing to undermine it. It seems to me that mere *analysis* cannot be crucial in identifying feminists (radical or otherwise).

Well, my focus on core beliefs was hardly intended to exclude practice, as feminism (as a social movement) is broadly characterized by an emphasis on practice within all of its strands.

And with that, I think I’m done with this conversation for now. I’ve already spent more time on this than I wanted to and I don’t feel like spending any more time on it. I’m sure, though, that if I *do* participate more frequently here in comments, that we’ll run into each other again.

I’ve just discovered why I was so trigger happy in assuming the two of you to be radical feminists. It’s partly Amerpersand’s fault, who wrote, further up thread (post 54)

Oh, hell. I don’t mind. It’s just funny because I’ve never read anything in the Radical Feminist canon. Not that I can think of offhand, anyway. I think my views of electoral politics are pretty radical compared to most, but that’s not exactly the same.

radfem: I hope your parents went with sea green or punch pink. Those are the best. :D

Such as individual as you mentioned would generally be considered a feminist, provided they had arrived at their positions after thinking critically about them from a feminist perspective rather than accepting them uncritically. Which was the whole point I was making. Its how the conclusions are arrived at that is central, just knowing the conclusions themselves doesn’t tell you very much about how they were arrived at.

Lorenzo

First of all: thank you for counting me in. But this notion of “method” you make so much of ““ that how one arrives at a given political stance is crucial to determining whether one is to be identified with that stance ““ is new to me, and somewhat intriguing. Who cares, for example, by what intellectual or emotional route sexists, fascists, racists etc. come to there positions? ““ it is enough for us to know that they have, in fact, adopted those positions when (for example) the question arises as to whether they should be allowed to post on a site like this. You wouldn’t say, would you, that such people were not really sexist, fascist, racist etc just because they had never read or understood the “theory” relating to those aberrations? So I am somewhat bewildered at your making “critical thinking” so crucial a condition to feminism: a feminist, surely, is someone who believes and acts in accordance with certain beliefs ““ the system of analysis by which they came to those beliefs seems to me to be quite irrelevant.

I thank you for your second definition of radical feminism, which is far richer in content than the first. But I still think your emphasis on “methodology” renders it dubious.

As a broad methodology radical feminism(s) generally share locating gender oppression as the root and model oppression for other oppressions, class analysis on the basis of gendered classes, and a strong focus on trying to locate the central mechanism or basis used to impose and maintain that gendered oppression. Within radical feminism there are essentialist, anti-essentialist and historical materialist (but not Marxist/socialist) strains.

One could do adopt all those beliefs and assumptions (I’m not quite sure why you refer to them as “a broad methodology” ““ is this some specialist use of the word?) and nonetheless decide that the oppression of women, as guarantor of so many other oppressions, served one’s turn, and choose to do nothing to undermine it. It seems to me that mere *analysis* cannot be crucial in identifying feminists (radical or otherwise).

I say that because I don’t see any reason to believe that you will believe me regardless nor that you will actually do the work of finding out about feminism and the various perspectives contained within it.

I’m sorry to read that, because I have been arguing in good faith. And I think this debate is beginning to get interesting. What say you?

And Tom, you are categorizing ginmar’s comments about male feminists dishonestly and incorrectly, and I have a feeling you know it.

Dana

As we are not allowed to discuss G, I can only refer you to her blog and ask you to read the relevant passage. I really do not think my precis misrepresented it; it is, after all, quite hard to misunderstand such direct and forceful prose.

Let me ask you something. If you really think men have to totally renounce their families, their friends, and other men in order to embrace feminism, are you trying to tell us that most of the world is hostile to women’s rights?

No, of course I don’t think that; I do support equality to the fullest extent for women, and I am convinced that discrimination and violence against women is an evil which ought to be brought to an end. And I’ve done my best to act (not to mention vote) in accordance with those beliefs. Embracing women’s rights is one thing, though, and being considered a feminist is another - as the blog we’re talking about makes clear.

What is it about the concept of women having equal rights with men that bothers you?

Nothing at all.

Alsis, Bean:

I’ve just discovered why I was so trigger happy in assuming the two of you to be radical feminists. It’s partly Amerpersand’s fault, who wrote, further up thread (post 54)

For myself, I’m very glad that there are some radfem posters here - I like a lot of posters, don’t get me wrong, but my personal favorites are mostly the radical feminists. I always sit up and take interest when Q Grrl or Radfem or Bean or Alsis posts. (That’s not an exhaustive list, just the first four that came to mind.)

Though I *still* shouldnt’ have been so casual about taking your names in vain.

Thank you.

I think there’s a bit of perhaps inevitable linguistic confusion built into the question, “Is X a feminist?”

Let us take the question, “Is X an American?” This is a question which is fairly easy to answer; indeed, we need not consult X at all. There is an organization, the government of the United States, which keeps track of questions like this, and can tell us whether X is a citizen of the United States or not, indeed, what X’s precise relationship to this country is.

There is no comparable situation as to “feminism.” One does not hold documented citizenship in it, nor, unlike Catholicism, is one baptized into it. Apparently, saying, “I believe that men and women should be treated equally,” does not automatically make one a “feminist”, at least according to some “feminists.” Certainly, merely being a woman doesn’t get you anywhere in and of itself. (I am putting the word in quotes because it is hard for an outsider to tell who qualifies.)

And yet we have been assured here that not just any old position qualifies one as a “feminist.” That seems to answer to common sense. It’s when we get into the details of just what sorts of positions d0 qualify one as a “feminist” (and, according to whom exactly?) that we run into trouble.

Since all this is quite subjective, it is unlikely that we will resolve the definition of “feminism” here (or anywhere else).

Well, obviously, since I am a woman, and since I’ve built my entire professional career on insisting on being treated equally with my male colleagues, sometimes in the teeth of right-up-front in-your-face sexism (sexists were a lot less subtle 30 years ago than they are now) I think women should be treated equally with men. Duh. However, I don’t think most of the “feminists” here think I’m quite good enough to be called a “feminist.” But then again, since the whole thing is subjective, if I think I’m a “feminist”, and since I certainly subscribe to the core belief (equality), I guess I am one anyway.

I don’t see why this kind of reasoning shouldn’t work for Ampersand, by the way. Or Tom. Or anyone else.

(side drift: alsis, you know those really scary toilet seats. My parents actually have one! :x)

Hee! I do love seeing Alsis and myself getting characterized as “radical feminists” equivalent to ginmar. Really, if you only knew the extent of the hilarity that many would find in that classification!!!!! (don’t get me wrong … it’s not an insult, it’s just hilariously untrue)

You’re ruining it for me, bean. :p

We could have a new subcategory for me, I guess: Unlettered Radical Feminists. :D