Offensive. Offensive. Something she found offensive.

My point is that I think it’s great that your friend felt free to stand up and walk out of conversation rather then have it be derailed into something she found uninteresting and great that you found the behavior admirable. I wish more people of both genders had the courage to risk the disapproval of their peers and say what they really think.

nowadays I make a conscious effort to say exactly what I mean and mean exactly what I say. Sure it’s cost me friends, but then those aren’t the kind of folks I want to be friends with anyway. that said, I can see your point about office politics requiring some degree of self-effacement. frankly, that sort of garbage is why I’m self employed. being financially independent means I don’t have to give a damn about what bosses or even co-workers think of me. As long as I deliver god work for my clients I’m good to go.

anyway, I’ve wandered off topic a bit. the point is I value bluntness and honesty and people who don’t hide behind politeness. I’d much rather deal with honest rudeness then polite lies any day.

I’ve said this isn’t an appropriate place for this discussion. So, stop now. Thanks.

The rhetoric of equalism is good in one way. We do indeed want equality for the sexes.

However, at the moment, women are at a pervasive, world-wide disadvantage. Therefore, to say that “sexes should be equal” is to sweep under the rug the fact that it’s women’s oppression that needs to be addressed.

Imagine, in the US of 1890, a position that said, “Hey, stop referring to slaves as being black. It’s not about freeing black people. It’s about freeing people people.”

Yeah, sure, but you’re ignoring the dynamics of race and sex that facilitate systemic oppression. And in doing so, you ultimately create a situation that will perpetuate those systems of oppression, and keep women (people of color, gay people, transpeople, etc.) at heel.

Anyway — this isn’t the thread for that discussion. However, here’s some more information, and a place where people will be happy to have that particular discussion with you. Why feminism and not just humanism or equalism? Isn’t saying you’re a feminist exclusionary? Be sure to check out the articles they have linked.

Perhaps because that’s exactly what “one” is doing, if “one” pretends that both men and women are the victims of honor killings in roughly equal numers, e.g.

You’re right, I haven’t studied feminist analysis of conversational dynamics between men and women, but without implying anything about the validity of such analysis I have noted that such thing can be used as a “weapon” to silence opposing views and thus such analysis may itself become a part of the conversational dynamics between men and women.

I am a proponent of equality between the sexes (all n of them) and have looked towards feminists and feminist discursion (blogs, feminist public figures who have written in newspapers, magazines or been on TV) as I from an early age was told that feminists fight for equality between the sexes. I have discovered that there are many different feminists.
“Equal pay for equal work” is my kind of slogan. “More pay to women” not so much. “Stop all genitalia mutilation on children” more than “Stop female genitalia mutilation”. “Stop all honour killings” more than “Stop the honour killings of women”. But as soon as one make this argument one is accused of not really meaning that women should be payed just as much as men for the same work, accused of minimizing the harm done to female rape victims, female honour killing victims and so on.
I can see the argument that expanding the scope of one cause (ie. to include male victims in discussion on the fight against honour killings) could be seen to lessen the issue of female honour killings. But I don’t agree with that position. A too tight focus on a issue will limit the number of people joining in on fighting the cause. Widening the scope a bit will tend to make more people willing to fight for the cause and thus in my view heighten the chance of improving the situation/making headway with the cause/even winning the cause.

This of course only goes for causes which can in some way be said to encompass all sexes (even though one may be more affected than the others). I think honour killing, rape, domestic battering, genitalia mutilation are included as they all also have (although to a lesser degree) male victims.
The fight for abortion rights is one cause which clearly isn’t of this nature.

Well, I’m off for a week long vacation, but will check for any responses (and reply if any) when I return.

Your analysis seems to come off without an understanding of feminist analysis of conversational dynamics in re: men and women.

“Am I the only one who desn’t think those two statements are the same?”

No, they’re not the same. However, which one did he really say? Both are reported from me, neh? Also, the body language was clearly reading annoyance with the conversation.

Do you accept that it is common for men to enter spaces where women are centered, and attempt to recenter men? Do you understand why that’s a problem? If you don’t get those two things, then it would be clear why you don’t think it’s a problem here.

If you do, then you just don’t believe me that this is what’s going on. Well, fine. I was there; you weren’t; and sad to say, my writing isn’t a transcript. I don’t really mind if you disagree with what I said about a specific dynamic which has been modified & paraphrased & otherwise edited to end up in personal essay form. If we agree on the larger point, so be it.

If we don’t agree on the larger point, that it is a problem for men to constantly attempt to reassert control of feminist-only spaces — well, it would certainly explain why you dig your heels in rather than engage with my analysis.

Sailor:

FGM is the obscure term? I hear the opposite, m’self.

And no, Toby doesn’t have to know about FGM. But don’t ignore the fact that the remark is offensive interpersonally (given the dynamic of the situation) as well as ignorant. Shoot your mouth off about something a subject on which you are ignorant, and you may offend someone.

How is it going overboard to suggest that people

a) don’t shoot their fool mouths off about things they know nothing about, and
b) don’t expect others to drop everything and make them the center of attention merely because they have expressed an opinion?

I find it illuminating that your examples analogize feminism to white supremacy.

There is, by the way, a world of difference between the genuinely well-meaning (but clueless) and the proud, look-at-me ignoramus.

Even if one see no link whatsoever between FGM and MGM or absolutely no link between honour killings with female victims and honour killings with male victims I still can’t see why it would make sense fearing that the mere mention of these facts (male victims) somehow should reduce the suffering of the female victims or harm the the fight against honour killings (of females)?

To stray back on topic, I believe grumpyness breeds grumpyness and personally I tend to dislike grumpy people - regardless of sex. Although I haven’t been called a bitch or a cunt for disagreeing with a woman I have been called a prick and a worthless piece of shit. The cultural gap between the threshold for “loud, rude and obnoxious” behaviour in men and women are decreasing at a growing rate amongst the younger generations. I am sorry to see that it¨s not more men being less obnoxious and rude which is closing the gap. Of course that’s colored by my preference for less obnoxious and rude people.

When someone else doesn’t know what you mean, that’s usually because it’s YOUR pet issue, not THEIR pet issue. If you want to develop an opinion, great. But please, there are only so many issues on the planet, and expecting someone to have diligently read about the competing interests involved in FGM, and what differentiates it from circumcision, before they can have an opinion, is ludicrous.

When I have an opinion that’s different from someone else, do I educate myself on every issue that’s important to them? Do I go and read about the detailed bases of the white supremacist movement before I develop an opinion that touches on white supremacy? Do I go and read “prolife 101″ blogs before getting in an argument with prolifers? Do I read Main Kampf; do I spend a lot of time on MRA sites reading the various posts there?

No. I do not. Some people do, but not many. How many of you feminists spend time on MRA blogs? Can you pass “101″ on my pet issues? On every issue for which you develop an opinion?

I used to be fully on board with the Feminism 101 thing but now it seems to be (more and more) being used to support things that are really not all that “101.” I’m beginning to feel like “101″ is really becoming code for “I don’t feel like talking about it” rather than what it purports to be; “things which reasonable people should really be expected to know.”

It’s not as if this dude asked for “proof that women aren’t the dominant class” or something. We’re talking about an unusual term for an action that doesn’t take place in the U.S., which has little effect on women in the U.S., and which (though horrible) is actually not all that widespread worldwide… is taht really something everyone is supposed to know about? Does it ever become a tad ridiculous to pull the “101″ line? If so, this seems like it.

In other words, it’s a Feminism 101 issue. Some posters seem to think that because Toby’s remark revealed profound ignorance of the topics at hand, he should be immediately and lovingly educated by the women present, effectively derailing their conversation and keeping it from getting to the advanced level they preferred. And yes, keeping him at the center of things, like a pampered toddler who wants you to watch him do a trick.

Guys, we’re not your mothers when it comes to feminism. The info is out there and easy to find. If you want to participate, learn the basics. If not, siddown, listen, and learn. Otherwise, we’ll assume you are attempting a deliberate derail.

I personally aim to get more and more like Joanne when it comes to this kind of stuff. I’m tired of holding the hands of men with wee little egos.

You sure are.

As has already been pointed out, the threshold for what is “loud, rude and obnoxious” in a man or women is very different in our culture. And men generally aren’t called bitches or cunts for disagreeing with a woman. (Though a man could be called a pussy for not being loud and rude enough.)

I think this is drawn from my original text. I believe that he was recentering himself in the middle of the conversation. The conversation was about the class women, which excludes him; he took the emphasis off of the class women (and the topic of honor killing) and recentered it on the class which includes himself (through a bizarre leap to circumcision, which had not previously been mentioned in the conversation).

The leap itself is reflective of anxiety about “women’s issues,” as it suggests that he filled in a mental blank between “honor killing” and “male circumcision.” That mental link, of course, is FGS (female genital surgeries).

This requires some condensations to take place. The most important one is “honor killing” = “all women’s issues in the third world” = “female genital surgeries.”

And of course, there’s the end point to bear in mind: bringing men back into the center of the conversation, which appears to be his goal from the fact that he said “these conversations annoy me,” seeming to indicate that he meant discussions of “women’s issues in the third world” (since the way he wanted to recenter the conversation was onto men, who may or may not be in the third world).

One notes that he didn’t say “These conversations annoy me, men get burned for their dowry money too…” or “These conversations annoy me, there are parts of the world where it’s against the law for men to drive.” Neither of these are true. He didn’t pick a random other exotic* oppression that women suffer; he picked the one through which he could make a link to men. Unfortunately, that link is problematic and largely based on the fact that both procedures involve the word ‘circumcision.’

Still, even if it had been a good, logically sound link, he would have been recentering the conversation on men. He might have said “These conversations annoy me, men get killed in wars” which would at least be springing off of the original conversational meat in a more appropriate way. It would still, however, be an attempt to take the focus off women and put it onto men, thus recentering men (and by proxy himself) in the middle of the conversation.

There’s a strong subtext here suggesting that feminism is untenable in some way. After all, it is the author of “these conversations,” and “these conversations” are the ones that focus on violence against women.

None of this means Toby’s a bad person. He’s a nifty person. I suspect that he’s bought into the intuitive logic that centering women means depriving men of something. After all, he’s living in a world where men are centered 90% of the time. He doesn’t notice that. But he does notice it when women, and specifically gendered violence against women, are the focus, because he feels the sensation of being decentered which women are used to.

Toby is a neat guy. He’s just also a person who is uncomfortable discussing feminism and who used a common anti-feminist tactic (however genuinely meant) over dinner conversation.

I called him on his bad logic. However, by walking out, Joanne called him on his behavior.

–

*I do think that there’s also a tone of “things that happen in (primarily) developing countries” to the way that his leap progressed, since he kept the conversation focused on oppressions of women that seem foreign (even exotic/barbaric) to the western ear. This can, of course, be criticized.