Saturday, April 4, 2009

Boys swim

I am the subject of two threads at Feminist Critics.

Am I important or what?

I'll bet that never happens to you!

Well, okay, it's actually the same thread... but there is a restricted-posting version, and a regular free-for-all version, wherein the insults come fast and furious and the regular commentariat makes jokes about suddenly needing to buy guns. (I guess I make them mad.)

From the Original Poster, comes this:

Please acknowledge female privilege. Alternatively address the question set forth above. You will not get a good response on FCB [Feminist Critics Blog] if you demand that men acknowledge male privilege until you do one of these two things satisfactorily.
And I think my regular readers know that will happen (as we say here in the south) on the second Tuesday after the third week hell freezes over.

The genesis of this argument was a post I was writing for this blog, actually, which I described on FCB some time ago. I was going to write about not being permitted to play the drums as a girl, and how I think that influenced my personality. Just as many women wish they had learned to participate in sports and compete, I think it would have very good for me. Drums would have been a way to control my aggression, or perhaps (as people like Mickey Hart have said) it would have increased my concentration and meditation capabilities. I consider the fact that I never grew up unselfconsciously drumming (as a method of relaxation or as a way of having fun--a HOBBY, okay?), one of the great losses of my life.

No, I do not think I would be some star drummer like John Bonham. (As a girl, I would not have even thought of such a thing, since I had never even seen a woman drummer before.) I was merely expressing sadness, and incidentally, giving this as an example of my earliest feminist consciousness. When I grew up, in the radical feminist 70s, I met women who had been denied other supposedly "male" activities: scientific careers, knowledge of car mechanics, the chance to play on sports teams with men, etc.--and I instantly identified. I offered this as an example of male privilege, the fact that my untalented brother was encouraged to do something that I even seemed to have an aptitude for and he did not.

Needless to say, I was savaged.

No, I don't think I would have been a star. Yes, I know I could have learned as an adult, but that is not the unselfconsciousness I am discussing here--I wanted this to be second nature, as is singing or dancing (for me). Yes, I know other girls in other places learned to play, and I have even mentioned them here on this blog. Yes, I know that other families did not think playing drums was too butch, and allowed their daughters to play, but that is not the family I came from. (I probably would have been allowed to play sports, if I'd been interested. However, other girls in other families I grew up with were never allowed to wear pants; hence, no sports.)

And no, I don't think my family was necessarily "worse" than others regarding sexism ... I think sexual stereotyping is very idiosyncratic, depending upon race, religion, nationality, ethnicity, class and overall general background. I knew girls forced to wear mantillas to church, who were allowed to play very rough-and-tumble sports... I knew girls allowed to do science experiments but never allowed to wear pants... I knew girls (like me) allowed to beat up harassing, nasty boys (and it was a lot of fun!) but not play drums. Go figure. I don't know why, or pretend to know why.

Actually, I do know: life is complex. Get a fucking clue.

It seems these guys on FCB do not understand this, although they love to continuously bellyache about whatever THEY were never allowed to do... surely they understand the dynamics I describe are very similar for boys? Some boys were allowed to play with dolls, but never permitted to cry. Other boys were allowed to cry, but never wear dresses; yet certain boys could wear dresses if they called them kilts. Etc. I knew boys not allowed to play violin (the instrument forced on me) since it was considered frou-frou and girlie, but were forced to play properly manly brass instruments. Again, go figure. (Cultural note: For this reason, I've always found it fascinating that BRASS is often used as a euphemism for boldness and/or high-ranking military status.)

One of the basic truths about sexual stereotyping and gendering is how arbitrary and ridiculous it is. OF COURSE it makes no sense and is not consistent! That's how feminists first discovered it was a crock!

I am glad a lot of these things seem bizarre now, but that IS the way I grew up. It is a shining testament to the fact that feminists have made so many improvements in life for boys and girls, that all of this seems so distant and strange now. But I grew up never wearing pants to school, ever, amen. It was against the rules, and it is still against the rules at places like Bob Jones University. These anti-feminists don't want to face these facts, since they would have to admit that FEMINISM HAS DONE GOOD THINGS, and they are, as their blog name proudly proclaims, FEMINIST CRITICS. In any event, the thread in which I stated these things was my last participation on FCB.

Unfortunately, I realize I made the mistake of trying to compare my experience to other women, and since NOT EVERY SINGLE WOMAN IN THE WORLD experienced what I did, well, obviously, sexism had NOTHING TO DO WITH IT. Even though I was explicitly told that GIRLS DIDN'T PLAY DRUMS (and since I could not find one in 1964 to point to and say "What about her?"--it seemed true enough to me), obviously, I must have been imagining things, since you know, sexism doesn't really exist, or something. I was informed "my assertions were unconvincing"--and since I don't take accusations of lying well, I went off on several arrogant FCB participants. (And no, not a bit sorry.)

I tried to explain that in working class, industrial Ohio in the 60s, this is the way it was. And again, I was savaged. Know why I must be wrong? Because ELLY MAY CLAMPETT (yes, Donna Douglas, ex-girlfriend of ELVIS) was a tomboy and much-beloved by America. This proves that gender stereotyping for women/girls/tomboys was not a big deal in the 60s.

Yes, you heard it right. The BEVERLY HILLBILLIES was used as proof that I am wrong about my life. A fucking TV show!

This individual repeated this inane and bizarre statement a number of times.

And see, at this point, I whistle to the intersectionalists in my readership--YO! Hey yall, over here!

At left: Elly May Clampett (Donna Douglas) of the 60s TV show The Beverly Hillbillies churns butter with her pet possum. (With that hair, it's pretty obvious that she is hard-core tomboy, yes?)


I did not consider Elly May a tomboy, but a redneck. To an upper-middle-class Canadian like my critic, Elly May was a tomboy. (Isn't it interesting that poverty/hardscrabble existence is regarded as masculinizing to the upper-classes?) They really didn't get it that Elly May was a stereotype of a backwoods girl, albeit one who was played by a former beauty queen. But what did she do (besides wear dungarees tied with a rope) that was tomboy or butch, besides have a multitude of "critters"? Actually, nurturing animals in the style of Elly May, is traditional feminine behavior. (?) (But maybe if you think tending animals is low-class farm-work, you don't know that?)

Dumbfounded.

As I said, that was it. I left FCB, since I was too livid to continue.

And I put the drumming post on the shelf, since I was too confused, at that point, to even attempt writing it. And a good thing too.

At the city swimming pool I attended as a girl, there were segregated swimming periods designated "boys swim" and "girls swim." The boys swim was known for people getting held underwater and nearly killed, while of course, ours was civil, except for girls making fun of each other's swimsuits and boob-size.

Feminist Critics blog is "boys swim."

And thus, I hereby name the threads currently frying my ass, BOYS SWIM.

Here are some of the highlights of Boys Swim (spelling and grammar remains intact):
I get sick of hearing about it, frankly. If she wants to play the drums, get a job and buy some drums. And then play them. If her parents sucked, she should yell at them (or whatever). America is going to fall apart with these spoiled princesses and the enabling male chivalrist idiots.
This marks a first: I've been called a lot of things by men in my life, but "princess" is most assuredly not one of them.
Women are the big victims in war, because the men die and then no longer support them (paraphrased from a statement by Hilary Clinton).

It’s kind of like … I don’t care if he got drafted and then shot at and then killed, I BROKE A NAIL. Everyone pay attention to me.

And all the chivalrous males DO pay attention to her. No one cares about men. That’s why these princesses can still be complaining when they’re the most entitled, privileged, spoiled group to ever walk the earth. Maybe Daisy ought to work for a few months in a rescue mission for homeless men (and they are mostly men, don’t kid yourself). Maybe she will get a different attitude.
I think my regular readers can probably guess that I have done such work...but doncha love how they make assumptions that I have NOT, without coming over here to read and find out what kind of person I am?
[...] I do think there’s a problem in the reactionary, aggressive and confrontational way Daisy deals with these misunderstandings. It doesn’t invalidate her opinions or arguments but it does tend to inhibit the coherent and productive discussion I see as the goal of (at least) this blog.
Misunderstandings? I think I understand them just fine.
I don’t know if I should really address this because there’s a need for my rage to be put under intensive care for the moment.

Thing is, DaisyDeadHead isn’t the only one who experiences hard times due to gender. I’ve been bullied by both men and women, had been betrayed by someone I thought cared about me.

Her comments about male priveledge set me off due to the fact that I’ve never had the “Luxary” of priveledge while both genders were slinging arrows at me left and right.

It’s unfortunate we got off on more than the wrong foot.

My opinion is strictly based on the fallacy of male priveledge. Because I’m not priveledged. Period. I’m a human being who’s had his fair share of hardships. Calling me priveledged due to my sex is a surefire way to negate those experiences. That’s why those types of discussions make me explode and I haven’t participated in a gender debate for a while.

And if she has a problem with that, then whatever her opinions are strictly her opinions. But don’t go calling me priveledged.
Privileged! Nyah- nyah! Yes you are!

This one is from typhonblue, internet circumcision crank, mentioned in my last post:
By not being circumcised a girl can experience something a circumcised man never can: sexual pleasure from an intact set of genitals.
Doncha love when people say exactly what you predict they will?

At this point, the thread threatens to totally melt down into still another male circumcision discussion. (See what I mean? PENISES UBER ALLES!)

Oh wait, they get back to the subject eventually:
And assuming that you [women] didn’t fill-out the [Selective Service] form when you turned 17, I assume you’ll now be *voluntarily* placing all of the appropriate restrictions upon yourself out of principle.

Failing to do so would show that you tacitly agree with the notion that you, weak woman, are poor solider material.

Maybe it’s not as fun as smashing the patriarchy by getting stinking drunk and having kinky sex all over the place, but I know you’re serious about walking the walk in addition to merely talking the talk.
I had no idea I had such a reputation over there! No wonder they address posts to me.
When women get drunk and have kinky sex, they are smashing the patriarchy. When men do the same, they are *reinforcing* the patriarchy. It is therefore vital that women go full-scale hedonistic without restraint while men refrain from doing the same. Go ask the denizens of Feministing, and they’ll assure you that this is absolutely correct.

True, it seems to involve a double-standard, but that only ignores the *real* double-standards inherent in phallocentric hermenuetic power systems of dominance and control blah-de-blah blah patriarchy racism.
As one who has discussed alcohol and alcoholism very personally and critically on this blog many times, I'm not sure where this fella is getting this, but obviously, he has issues with some female who is not me.

But then, I guess we all look alike in the dark, right?

More from the brawl:
It’s fine with me really. I can’t say if DDH will understand my reasons for thinking the way I do, though I hope she does. I do believe that now, in the present, in 2009, male privilege and female privilege are about equal (different things in different areas), all it comes down to is what you seek and if you’re encouraged or prevented from doing it (not why I transitioned, and I certainly don’t recommend transitioning to solve this). This will affect one’s perspective.

A woman who wishes to be a construction worker versus one who wishes to be a mother and housewife. One will feel more wronged than the other or more blocked in her choices. The same for a man who wants to be a stay-at-home dad.

It is less anti-woman bias than plain categorization bias. That is, people generalize traits of a category to all instances of that category. If they don’t fit, we’ll make it fit… This applies to both men and women. Don’t want to be a provider? You better be really lucky, handsome and find the very very few women who would like to provide for you, if you’re a man…or there’s always suicide. I hear there’s a high rate in men.
And I am sure there will be plenty more... the restricted thread is about to be "opened up" so that people can pile on me even MORE!

Let this be a cautionary tale to any feminist who seeks to discuss anything with the Men's Rights crowd: Don't. They just want to put you down. They just want to generalize about you without knowing anything about your personal history. They don't CARE about anything but reducing all arguments to FORESKINS.

And if this is how they are when they are heavily moderated, imagine how they REALLY are.

55 comments:

Ruth Moss said...

What a total bunch of arseholes. I admire you for putting yourself "out there" but at the same time, I wonder if it's worth it, you know?

Mama moretti said...

"princess" is insult, but "prince" is a compliment.

among other things i thought of while reading your post! ;)

Meowser said...

Oh, yeah, and the "we have to register for the draft and you don't" crap. Okay, for one thing, I opposed draft registration when it went into effect when I was 17, and I oppose it now. For another, there hasn't actually been a draft in over 35 years now.

Oh, and about the circumcision thing: They should ask their dads how opposed they were to their sons having it done. If they're Jewish, of course, the answer is probably "not at all." I'm somewhat sympathetic to their argument as an argument, but why they have to be such, well, dickstains about it, I don't understand. Anyway, do they really have evidence of intact men having more sex or more orgasms than men who were circumcised? (Also, do we actually want men to come faster? I don't know about you, but I've never known a guy who took too long.)

If you're going to argue that circumcision=FGM, you'd better be able to prove that for you, circumcised male, sex equals no sexual pleasure whatsoever and never has, just for starters. Because that's how it is for a woman who's had her entire clitoris removed in girlhood.

(If you think this post will lead to too much threadjacking by MRAs, Daisy, feel free to delete it.)

Octogalore said...

The thing with FC is that on first blush, and here and there within it, it seems to have some worthwhile things to say about how gender roles debilitate both men and women.

However, on a closer look -- and not that much closer -- it's clear that FC's real mission is to claim that despite women historically and in many ways currently being considered second class, male and female privilege are actually of equal impact -- or even that men are the ones who lack privilege.

And then it becomes clear. This is really misogyny, dressed up with five dollar words and the pretense of analysis/critique.

And regarding sexual pleasure re circumcision and male/female comparisons. We probably all suspect, but only I'm crude and bitchy enough to actually say, that such speculations on the part of the male FC hosts are largely theoretical.

ballgame said...

For the most part, DDH, this post is a grossly unfair characterization of Feminist Critics in general, and a blatantly inaccurate portrayal of the posts related to your participation in particular. I notice that you quote the most inflammatory comments from some non-regulars, and mischaracterize some of the ones from more frequent commenters. You chose not to quote my comment:

I believe DDH’s point that her being denied the chance to play drums was an example of gender-based discrimination. I think she’s fully entitled to feel whatever sadness and anger she may still feel about that. I don’t think we’re entitled to judge how much she should feel about that. Who knows, maybe she would have really loved it … maybe she would have become a renowned drum player for some band.

I also think it likely that this was not the only such familial discrimination she suffered. If her parents did that, it seems likely they also did other things that undercut her ability to grow in the things she felt passionately about.

But that doesn’t mean males — even those growing up in the same era — weren’t sabotaged in their ability to develop in different ways because of sexism against men and boys.


And that's really the gist of the posts in question. People weren't saying you were lying about your experiences, they were saying your experiences aren't proof that gender discrimination only goes one way.

ballgame said...

And regarding sexual pleasure re circumcision and male/female comparisons. We probably all suspect, but only I'm crude and bitchy enough to actually say, that such speculations on the part of the male FC hosts are largely theoretical.

I am shocked, shocked to find Octogalore engaging in virgin-shaming instead of genuine argument. Shocked, I say.

Daran said...

Am I important or what?

Yes.

surely they understand the dynamics I describe are very similar for boys?

That you think this makes it even more curious that you won't answer the question I asked. Why do you not frame those dynamics that limit only boys as "female privilege"?

DaisyDeadhead said...

Ballgame, you know I like you. There are a couple of guys on FC I really like, in fact. And all I have to say about that is--the whole problem with FC is: too few of you, too many of them.

Octo: And then it becomes clear. This is really misogyny, dressed up with five dollar words and the pretense of analysis/critique.

Exactly.

And regarding sexual pleasure re circumcision and male/female comparisons. We probably all suspect, but only I'm crude and bitchy enough to actually say, that such speculations on the part of the male FC hosts are largely theoretical.

No, not just you.

I've been married to circumcised men, and they had plenty of sexual sensation and functioned sexually just fine. I've heard holistic-natural hippie types (especially in my profession/line of work) talk against circumcision, in the same vein as anti-vaccines, organic foods, herbalism, anti-hospital births; just generally anti-allopathic medicine in general. I understand and respect the commitment, and their position is entirely consistent.

But I had never heard anyone else talk that way who was not a member of this counterculture, until I got online. Since I am one of the (out and proud!) centrists in my profession, I try to keep an open mind when it comes to any medical practice and carefully weigh the evidence on all sides. (And one aspect of this evidence is the experience of men I have known well.)

Having done so, let me announce: I think some of this anti-circumcision hysteria is an undercurrent of antisemitism in our culture that is "acceptable" to act out, while other avenues have been closed off. Like "crime watch" can also be code for: keeping an eye on certain colors of people in certain areas of town.

I've actually heard uncouth southerners say it OUT LOUD about circumcision: Damn Jews forced their shit on us! Circumcision! Hollywood! New York! Wall Street! World Zionist conspiracy! (etc etc etc) As usual, the only difference is that rednecks have the nerve/lack of class to say it out loud, and others don't. (Or maybe they are just IN TOUCH with their feelings, so to speak, and some of these anti-circumcision zealots are alienated from theirs.)

These zealots would do well to consider the antisemitism connection. (Analogy: Some feminists going apeshit over a damn scarf: Do you think you might also have some anti-Muslim sentiment you are not really copping to/unconscious of?)

Think, people!

Ballgame accused Octo of "virgin-shaming".

I must have missed the reference to virgins. (?)

DaisyDeadhead said...

Daran: Why do you not frame those dynamics that limit only boys as "female privilege"?

Because I believe the rewards for manhood more than outweigh the negatives. They are the payments extracted for a piece of the very nice pie.

A good example is the military service you repeatedly speak of... GI bill, VA medical service (better than none), federal job preferences, American Legion social life, VFW, free travel, 3-hots-and-a-cot, the benefits of networking, etc. My father was military and got a multitude of benefits in exchange for a small portion of his life.. in which, incidentally, he learned how to fix airplanes and all kinds of cool shit that practically guaranteed he got a job at GM after his service was up. For a poor Irish boy destined to work in a sawmill for mere pennies, the military meant a great class promotion that was encouraged and all men in his family took advantage of. And his youngest brother, my uncle, ended up in Vietnam.

OF course, I have made my position on military service clear elsewhere on this blog. I am pointing out that there are a lot of benefits in a patriarchal culture, for one who adopts the rituals of the culture. The men who cannot perform these rituals (or pass properly as one who can) is out, no question. But that is not the fault of the women who never had access to these privilege-dispensing rituals in the first place.

yinyang said...

Wow. Poking around, there seems to be a lot that I think they're misunderstanding over at FC. Thank the Flying Spaghetti Monster I'm not a big enough blogger, so I don't have to deal with things like this.

Bryce said...

omg, d.

fcb looks like a buncha effin cry*babeez. i thought straight guise r supposed 2 b tough?

tell me itz a huge old joke? lol

BigFred said...

DDH:

I've actually heard uncouth southerners say it OUT LOUD about circumcision: Damn Jews forced their shit on us! Circumcision! Hollywood! New York! Wall Street! World Zionist conspiracy!

Which is wrong and should be condemned. There may be an undercurrent of antisemitism at work on the issue. I don't know how widespread it is though. I do think there are good arguments against circumcision however. I think it's reasonable to question a practice of removing a healthy, functioning part of the body. Circumcision is one of the few things that I can think of that we do such a thing. I just think we should have good and immediate reason to do so. It's not as if foreskin doesn't serve a purpose. What's more I think there are issues of consent, particularly why the child should not be allowed to make the decision for themselves.

Desipis said...

Because I believe the rewards for manhood more than outweigh the negatives.

Speaking from your vast experience as a male there are you?

Renee said...

Daisy I have to hand it to you for being willing to engage in that hostile blog. I have been a feature of conversation there on more than one occasion and I am well aware of the misogynist vitriol that they are capable of engaging in. Honestly I don't believe that speaking to them serves any purpose. They are committed to not only maintaining undeserved male privilege but promoting it at all costs. I prefer to deal with the regular asshats which can be somewhat reasoned with. Good luck and keep a strong upper lip you are going to need it on that blog.

John Powers said...

I'm really not educated enough about Feminist theory, so I've got a couple of questions--recognizing that it's not your job to educate me.

What caught my attention in this post was your observation:

"One of the basic truths about sexual stereotyping and gendering is how arbitrary and ridiculous it is. OF COURSE it makes no sense and is not consistent! That's how feminists first discovered it was a crock!"

That analysis of a consensus around gender "as a crock" seems consistent with my understanding of a consensus in "Second Wave Feminism." But I wonder if you think this consensus within current variations of Feminism is still so so solid?

My second question is is spurred on by a little snippet in your satire More on feminism and class where you lampoon elitism. One of the questions for the "credentialing" concerned Judith Butler. The way I took it in the context of your post was that feminism is of pressing importance even for women whose life experience doesn't included advanced degrees. I didn't take it as a dig on Butler. Reading this post, I wonder if I'm missing an implicit critique of recent feminist theories in your writing. Are Butler's ideas problematic to you?

I really don't expect you to answer the questions. But not because I'm asking them rhetorically, but rather because I'll keep reading your blog and I expect I'll understand better as a matter of course.

Basically I'm really asking one question which is something to the effect: Do you think that the debates within "Third Wave Feminism" are distracting to the political goals of Women's Liberation?

captcrisis said...

Daisy,

I agree with your point, as I said in my brief comment at FCB. Which no one took up, because they were riding their hobbyhorses.

I'm quickly getting disenchanted with that blog. I have no patience for theory, or long-winded denunciations of "what feminism tries to do" or "where feminism went wrong". I like talking about specific things, like your comment about not being allowed to play the drums as a child. And then they constantly bring up circumcision. It makes it look like a den of cranks. Probably not ballgame's fault; any blog so pitched will probably attract the same types.

Miche D'anom said...

Both you and Renee seem unable or unwilling to distinguish between the bloggers at FC, who are to a man (and a woman when RenEv blogged there briefly) not misogynistic, and the commenters, some of whom are raging misogynist dicks.

Given that, your misunderstanding of the blog is entirely understandable.

Miche D'anom said...

captcrisis : FC is a blog devoted to what they see as problems in feminist theory.
That's probably why they talk about theory and not individual experiences.
If you don't like that, then don't go there, it's not the blog you are looking for.

And though I don't give two hoots about circumcision, clearly several of the commenters there do. To dismiss their concerns as crankery is dismissive and demeaning.
I'm happy to dismiss UFO enthusiasts, I'm not happy to dismiss people who are upset about the cutting off of a part of their body. (Or other people's bodies, in the case of the women who care about this)

sheila said...

Fargin iceholes! lol. (remember that movie?) ANYHOW...my God someone has their boxers in a bunch now don't they?

So many things stand out, and I won't mention them all, but I'm wondering...do we *have* a current draft in place? I was pretty sure we didn't. lol

I was gonna go over to that site, but my nerves wouldn't hold up. It's like arguing politics with a person who's on the other side.

People like that are just not capable of seeing others views. They just aren't.

Asshats.

captcrisis said...

Miche D'Amon:

I've never seen a blog post at FC that was about theory. It's always about a particular situation that has cropped up recently.

And I'm not dismissing the concerns about circumcision. It's just that if that's all someone talks about, no matter what the subject is at hand, that person is a crank.

DaisyDeadhead said...

John, the Judith Butler remark was actually a dig at certain feminist blogs that purport to talk about class, race, immigration, etc and then doggedly and deliberately talk over the heads of the people they supposedly care about. Most women don't know who Butler is, and as you probably know, I am all about the grassroots. I think constant theory-talk is a way to alienate women who think feminism is a just a "women's studies" thing. I am largely unfamiliar with Butler, since this dynamic has given me (unfortunately) a grudge against that whole wing of the party (as Arianna Huffington might put it)...and I don't regularly read her, although I have read a couple of essays. I don't mind bringing in theory as PART of what one is discussing, but to repeatedly craft entire posts about Judith Butler (or similar personages and their ideas)? Not a working class blog. Not working class feminism. I prefer to talk about other feminists who haven't been so lauded and quoted, and I guess I am trying to get these other feminists to do likewise?

About gender, actually I do think most feminists (second and third wave alike) agree that gender is not a prescribed list of attributes, but (as the above individual has written) shifts markedly between cultures, eras, countries, circumstances, etc. This means the gender-attributes are not fixed, but fluid. (As a girl in most African nations, I would of course have learned traditional drumming, but something ELSE would undoubtedly have been off limits to me.) I understand that; I was only discussing my own experience, and then everyone at FCB acted as if I was unaware that my family's rules were not universal. (I KNOW that, and never imagined they were.)

Miche, I tend to agree, but Daran can be stubborn as hell. He often takes a joking comment as serious, and he often takes a serious comment as a joke. And I think this is often damned deliberate.

And his constant "giving of ultimatums" to feminists is nasty; he does not do this to his regulars.

Although I am relieved that FCB has taken steps to moderate the pigs, there are still too many of them. And the moderators don't challenge the piggery, they let it go, and instead challenge (pile on) any feminist who shows up.

Any feminist who deigns to go over to FCB is likely sympathetic to the plight of men to start with. They don't seem to get that we are already a self-selected group. To focus on bullshit Stalinist checklists such as "Do you admit female privilege?" (i.e. Do you admit that workers must seize the means of production? If not, OUT of the collective, reactionary running-dog capitalist!) is unnecessarily schism-inducing and splintering. Good way to run off the girls, Daran! (Who decided that was the qualifying question for participation?) (Can't I just agree that capitalism is excessive and bad, do I hafta agree with the whole 9-point socialist program to attend the meeting?)

They have drawn up a Stalinist/Maoist checklist: Female privilege! Circumcision! Military Service! And if you don't line up with their agenda, you are grilled alive. This seems to be the hazing ritual.

In short, no different than some of the feminist blogs they criticize; can't tell em apart without a scorecard. Agree, or get piled on, first thing.

If they want more participation from feminists as they SAY they do (but I doubt, really, since it interferes with the whole boys-swim atmosphere)--they need to dump the checklists.

And I'm not dismissing the concerns about circumcision. It's just that if that's all someone talks about, no matter what the subject is at hand, that person is a crank.

Especially considering that this person claims to be a female. Since typhonblue has no ongoing internet presence (no accessible blog, flickr acct, etc), there is no way to confirm this assertion. The guys at FCB are highly invested in her womanhood, which is why I have come to doubt it. She is like a projection of their fantasies, and she enjoys playing that role... not that there's anything wrong with that, but bitch, please. Do not expect ME to play along with the porn narrative. I can dig that they enjoy an Ayn Randian-type woman "rescuing" them from the evilll feminists (nice porn narrative! ORIGINAL! Where is REN, she might be able to do something with this...) but when I come out and call bullshit, stop fucking hyperventilating and grow the fuck up.

If typhonblue wants to be all mysterious and reap the benefits of total anonymity, she has to be prepared for people to doubt her biography, as I have. One reason I began a blog was to have a net presence on other people's blogs; people will always doubt the veracity of what you say if you are totally anonymous, and with good reason. If you are too scared to go there, don't expect anyone to believe what you say--that's the price you pay for anonymity and safety. The rest of us have put ourselves out there, your turn. You will find that when you are accountable for what you say, you aren't nearly as much of an asshole, and weigh your words far more carefully.

As for typhonblue being a crank on circumcision (and every single discussion comes back to that, for her; s/he thinks it is THE proof men are more oppressed than women), I find it peculiar. IF she is a circumcised man who believes this has negatively impacted her life, I get it. However, if she is a female (and says she is not a mother), as she claims, then I can't help but wonder if this is some sexualized obsession with uncircumcised penises. Again, nothing wrong with that, but don't expect me not to notice it. Please try to keep your sexual obsessions under wraps, and do not bore everyone with them. There have been repeated problems throughout feminist Blogdonia with people turning every single thread into a referendum on their sexual practice/obsession. We are not as fascinated with your fetishes as you are; show some self-awareness. I have learned to channel my own fetishes constructively, it can be done. There is no reason to bring every single post back to what WE are obsessed with. Again, grow the fuck up.

And in a recent post, typhonblue actually blamed Christianity for circumcision, apparently unaware that it comes from Jewish law, not Christian. (Nice dodge, though.)

Renegade Evolution said...

There's a reason I stopped blogging there, and well, reading there.

And I'm even one of those women who thinks women SHOULD have to registure for the draft.

John Powers said...

Thanks for your answer Daisy. Internet communication is tricky at times; I was afraid my questions seemed bratty.

Theory disconnected from data sometimes leads in weird directions. For most people their own experience is primary data. So I thought the whole shtick of the critics positing your experience as merely anecdote disingenuous. And the second tack, "But what about my experience?!" annoying.

I agree that gender-attributes are fluid. I don't think gendering is random. Drawing on the fluid part, I certainly want life more abundant for everyone.

ZoBabe said...

With just the simple, "yeah I done fucked up" self depreciation available to me, this would be a more fun post to ponder on, wouldn't it?

Jeez, dudes at FC once in a while, see the ridiculousness of it all.

Maybe I will do that earlier threatened switch, on that very thread.

the fruitfemme said...

All this makes me love u even more!!!

timberwraith said...

As a trans woman, I have plenty of critical feelings about feminism because it can be quite lacking in the inclusiveness department. I have to say however, after reading Feminist Critics and Toy Soldiers, I'm reminded of why I'm grateful that feminism is still alive and kicking.

ballgame said...

[DaisyDeadhead:] Ballgame, you know I like you. There are a couple of guys on FC I really like, in fact. And all I have to say about that is--the whole problem with FC is: too few of you, too many of them.

[Octo: ] And then it becomes clear. This is really misogyny, dressed up with five dollar words and the pretense of analysis/critique.

[DaisyDeadhead:] Exactly.


You know, DDH, I'd really like to take your initial olive branch at face value, but I find it very difficult to reconcile it with the immediately ensuing affirmation of Octogalore's snide observation that FC was really just "misogyny, dressed up with five dollar words and the pretense of analysis/critique." The overall thrust of your OP and your comments at FC tend to support the notion that's what you believe about FC overall as well. It's a grossly inaccurate and flagrantly unfair smear.

A number of FC participants — including me — embrace the label "feminist," though we don't subscribe to the 'Stalinist/Maoist checklists' (to repurpose your phrase) enforced by some feminist bloggers (who might more accurately be labeled "women's rights activists" than egalitarian feminists). We do not flinch from criticizing mainstream feminism's frequent inability to recognize gender dynamics which adversely affect men (that is, we criticize the denial of the existence of feminine privilege/male disprivilege).

It's true there are some FC commenters who use inflammatory language to express themselves. We don't ignore expressions of misogyny, however; we have OFTEN struck and edited MRA-type commenters, and have banned/partially banned more than one. We're not perfect at FC, but I'm not aware of any feminist blog that 'clears the path' for the participation of feminist critics (i.e. shuts down ad hominem attacks against those critics) as much as we 'clear the path' for the participation of feminists at FC. (At least, not since Happy Feminist left us. *sigh*) What is often labeled as misogyny is just our refusal to pretend that gender privilege only flows in one direction.

LarryE said...

I might have more to say on this later, I dunno, but for the moment I'll toss this into the mix:

In a broad theoretical (using the term in the vernacular, not the scientific, sense) way, yes, there is such a thing as "female privilege" and there is such a thing as "male privilege." But both sets of "privileges" come with equivalent expectations - i.e., social definitions - that can be seriously wounding. That is, it's not so much, for example, a matter of what privileges males have as it is the limiting expectations of what it means to be "female."

I had a crappy childhood and young adulthood marked by isolation, depression, two near-breakdowns, and a suicide attempt because I didn't - and don't - fit comfortably into the definition of what it means to be "male" in our society. (Parenthetical note for clarity: I am a straight male; this is a matter of cultural identity, not sexual identity. I note that because it would be natural to take my reference to not fitting in, in that light.) So I have no patience with those "feminists" of either gender - and they do exist - who regard those "privileges" as running in one direction only. (I still recall the one who wrote, and this is an exact quote, "He's a male - what problems can he have?")

However - and this I think is the crux of the matter and a point on which I think/hope Daisy and I agree - saying that both genders can be limited and yes wounded by the definitions placed on them does not mean that they are equal or equivalent.

That is like saying that because some blacks hate whites (and yes, again, they do exist) that black-on-white racism is every bit as serious as white-on-black racism even though the latter far outweighs the former in both frequency and impact.

It's like saying that the issue of battered husbands (and yes yet again, they do exist) is every bit as serious as that of battered wives even though cases of the latter far outstrip those of the former.

It's like Anatole France's famous line that "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."

It's like saying, in the comparison I often use, that skin cancer (91% 5-year survival rate) is as bad as lung cancer (15% 5-year survival rate).

The bottom line is that the fact that there are "privileges" afforded both genders and there are limitations and definitions imposed on both genders does not mean they are of equal seriousness or, beyond particular individual cases, equally damaging.

Sara said...

"Because that's how it is for a woman who's had her entire clitoris removed in girlhood."

This is from the FGM comment. Far from me to deny what can happen to women who have clitorodectomy, I will say however that the quote above is biologically incorrect.

As typhonblue has pointed out before: The clitoris is as long as the penis and you only see the tip, the glans clitoris, not the rest. Much like the glans penis is only the tip of the penis. The clitoris is mostly internal. No one would remove those internal parts without literally killing the girl in question.

""princess" is insult, but "prince" is a compliment."

I said so in the thread. I perceive princess as a compliment unless its clearly said with a derisive tone, in the sense of 'bitchy' and such. It's what my name means (princess, not bitchy) and I'm sort of proud of it.

"Okay, for one thing, I opposed draft registration when it went into effect when I was 17, and I oppose it now. For another, there hasn't actually been a draft in over 35 years now."

The argument by other commenters (I'm Canadian, so no SS here) was that if you did not register for selective services, regardless of being drafted or not, you had penalties, but only if male. Penalties like being refused school loans.

"If you're going to argue that circumcision=FGM, you'd better be able to prove that for you, circumcised male, sex equals no sexual pleasure whatsoever and never has"

Typhonblue has found pretty convincing studies about countries where FGM is performed reporting orgasm rates sometimes higher than without the mutilation. This is consistent with what has been reported about circumcision. Though since the argument put forth in countries that do FGM is to reduce women's pleasure, if studies prove its ineffective in doing so, they might abandon the practice.

---

My stance on circumcision, is that its harmful, unnecessary removal of healthy tissue performed on a non-consenting individual. Wether it's damaging or not is not even at cause in my argument. I don't care if its painless and doesn't affect future sexual pleasure. I have the same stance on FGM and on forced assignment at birth of intersex babies/children. I even go further and am against the forced hormonal treatments on children (mainly intersex) who fail to develop due to a congenital or other condition - they are very rarely consulted about their decision.

I am a trans woman as well. I was not circumcised and am glad for it as well. I don't want to use it (and have never done so), but having a cornified glans clitoris later is not something I'd like either.

"As a trans woman, I have plenty of critical feelings about feminism because it can be quite lacking in the inclusiveness department. I have to say however, after reading Feminist Critics and Toy Soldiers, I'm reminded of why I'm grateful that feminism is still alive and kicking."

I don't think FC or TS' blog criticize the very existence of feminism, in so much as its lack of focus and/or opposition to concern about male problems (especially the opposition part). Lack of concern is fine if that's not your mission and you say so outright. Opposition is not fine though.

I'm mainly against radical feminism myself for the lack of inclusiveness. I've been in the toxic cesspool of MWMF (to me it was) for almost a year. I sincerely hope they don't represent even a good portion of radical feminism. I have a radical feminist friend online who doesn't subscribe to their ideologies at all, so this gives me hope.

Harold said...

Well just to add my own two cents. The central problem is what premise makes more sense to you.

Men are more overall privileged than women in society.

Or

Women and men are equal, but just have different forms of privilege.

The question is what evidence and how you weigh it will determine how you will decide. The thing is what you believe to be true will in turn decide what to focus no. I personally subscribe to the first theory because the evidence is much more stronger in IMO. That not to say that there are not important issues for men to address, but I do not believe you can expect feminists to make them a priority.

Meowser said...

Okay, make it "the entire visible part of her clitoris removed in girlhood," then. That's more or less what I meant.

And drums...yeah, if I'd even thought it was possible for me to play the drums, damn skippy I'd have wanted to. In my parents' case, it was less a matter of, "Girls don't do that," than, "All that noise is going to give me a headache, forget it." But I never saw a girl play drums, so I didn't even know it was possible. I certainly had never heard of Mo Tucker or Alice DeBuhr, and wouldn't until I was much older and they were largely inactive.

By the time I started to become aware of what a band was and what it did, I hadn't seen even Karen Carpenter play drums, because the only time I ever saw her was on TV and she was always holding a microphone. (Many years later, I saw an episode of the Carpenters' TV series where Karen held drumsticks and made silly jokes about playing drums, but I didn't know about it at the time because I wasn't allowed to stay up late enough to watch a variety show until it was off the air.)

But I did take some drum lessons eventually, and I love it! One of these days I want a house with a soundproof music room so I can get good at them for real. (Oh, yeah, the class thing too, blegh.)

Danny said...

Men are more overall privileged than women in society.

Or

Women and men are equal, but just have different forms of privilege.


What I see happen a lot is that people who subscribe to the first one use that "overall" as a hammer to silence anyone that doesn't make women's issues the top priority the first time.

I personally subscribe to the notion that each gender has privileges over the other.

Harold said...

Hi Danny,


What I see happen a lot is that people who subscribe to the first one use that "overall" as a hammer to silence anyone that doesn't make women's issues the top priority the first time.

I personally subscribe to the notion that each gender has privileges over the other.


While I acknowledge your position, the overwhelming vast majority of feminist and feminist bloggers do not ascribe to it. Simply put, they do not see reality this way. I also think that too many posters who believe in your position or an antifeminist one want to force feminist blogs to constantly debate the issue, but IMO it is pretty rude. If I have a socialist blog or a capitalist blog I not going to be interested in debating how I am constantly wrong about my position. Likewise, if I have a Christian or Atheist blog and having discussions on that topic, I probably not going to be interested in debating on how strange my beliefs or lack of them are.

Simply put, you cannot actually move forward a discussion unless you agree on the major premise(s). Daisy’s Blog is a feminist blog, I am definitely not speaking for her, but the proper assumption a poster should have is that she wants to focus on topics that she blogs on and that is it. (Note: I do not call myself a feminist because I do not believe I qualify, but I agree with many feminist positions).

Silvia Ramos de Barton - Sommelier said...

Hi Daisy, sorry I bodered you, but you have had the same problem that me, the counter of my visitors to my profile has stucked or locked or hacked, is stopped.
I saw that you ask for help to blogger/google, did they respond and repair the problem, please, answer me. Thank you.
Silvia from Argentina
www.elartedelvino.com

Jacob said...

Daisy, you and the feminists who commented here have done yourselves a great disservice and demonstrated that those who hold apprehension about trusting the sympathy, the word and the intent of feminists who claim to be concerned about the experiences of males do so justly.

There is a reason I stopped commenting on feminist blogs and reading them. It would seem the lessons I learned as a child at my aunt's hand still hold true. Thank you and your posters for reminding me of that.

Lauren O said...

Oh girl. This reminds me of many, many, many such conversations I have had with online douchebags. They were all just fruitless and frustrating because you will never ever convince certain people that they have an advantage by virtue of being male. Stay strong.

Danny said...

Harold,
While I acknowledge your position, the overwhelming vast majority of feminist and feminist bloggers do not ascribe to it.

But plenty do. I acknowledge that there each topic has its place but unfortunately people like to pass off generalizations as facts and when they do that they cross the line between "that's not what we're talking about" into "that doesn't happen".

Likewise, if I have a Christian or Atheist blog and having discussions on that topic, I probably not going to be interested in debating on how strange my beliefs or lack of them are.
But if you are running a Christian or Atheist blog and you are shouting off generalizations, myths, and lies about Buddhists why act surprised when the Buddhists come to correct you?

Harold said...


But if you are running a Christian or Atheist blog and you are shouting off generalizations, myths, and lies about Buddhists why act surprised when the Buddhists come to correct you?


But Danny the general problem is not that people argue a certain aspect of feminism is wrong they argue that it is mostly or all wrong e.g. feminism bloggers should not be blogging about feminism. I almost never see a feminist ever go an antifeminist blog to say how wrong they are, even though they see opposite on many issues. Sorry, but the fact of the matter is antifeminists just want to derail discussions. BTW, just to be clear feminism is a social/political movement, many of its ideas are back up by evidence.

If a person believes that feminism is fundamentally wrong they can start up their own blog(s), there is simply no need to “correct” feminist bloggers.
Finally most antifeminist posters implicitly if no explicitly insult the intelligence of feminist bloggers, feminists in general IMO spend a larger amount of time thinking/reading/practicing on their issues, antifeminist seem to believe that all their posts sheds some remarkable insight that feminists have never heard or thought of before.

Renegade Evolution said...

Harold:

Amen.

That is the thing, and it is not so much the writers at FC, I state that right out, but the massive threads are often filled with how blind, stupid, whatever "the Princesses" are.

That is a huge part of why I left, that and the whole being the lone female blogger at a place where the general mentality seems to be "we are SOOOOO beset upon" just drove me up a wall.

Yes, men face shit it life. Yes, women face shit in life. And often, I think depending on if you are a man or a woman, you tend to take various forms of that shit more personally because it messes with you directly. Calling people "princess" and assuming they are less intelligent than thou is not exactly going to foster good vibes.

Some folk never seemed to figure that out.

Jacob said...

Harold, if a person disagrees with an ideology, they are not likely going to support it in general. Atheists argue that religion is mostly if not altogether flawed and should be done away with. No one suggests that atheists ought to consider religions valuable because of all the good things that have resulted from them. The same holds true for a number of secular ideologies. Why should this not apply to feminism? Who has suggested that feminist bloggers not write about feminism?

As for feminists going onto men's issues blogs to say how wrong they are, I would suggest you read the posts on Feminist Critics, Glenn Sacks blog and quite a few others. Feminists do it quite frequently and often derail discussions. Daisy recently did it on my blog before writing her above post. Coincidentally, the things discussed on men's issues blogs are backed up by evidence. Feminist simply dismiss such evidence outright, regardless its veracity.

I spend most of my time thinking, reading and talking about sexual violence against boys and I have done so since I was in high school. I started my own blog to discuss that issue, among other things, and do so quite frequently. One should not presume to tell other people what they do not or do not do just because one considers their concerns irrelevant. By making such a statement you present yourself as believing that all feminist posts shed some remarkable insight that non-feminists never heard or thought of before. That is quite to the contrary. Your remark demonstrates the implicit, if not explicit, insult to the intelligence of non-feminist blogger so many feminists engage in, like as what has occurred on this thread.

As I said before, feminists do themselves a great disservice when they make such comments.

Beste said...

it's intersting Ren that you agree with Harold... because you certainly feel the need to clash heads with Radical Feminist nutjobs when they shout off generalizations, myths, and lies about Bud...I mean sex workers etc.

Surely you can see I might feel the same when they spout off the same BS about men.

DaisyDeadhead said...

Jacob: Harold, if a person disagrees with an ideology, they are not likely going to support it in general. Atheists argue that religion is mostly if not altogether flawed and should be done away with.

And if we are going to go there, let's discuss the last time in history someone said that, and the results of their little experiments. Translation: Get ready for the gulag! (Because you will take my rosary when you ply my cold, dead hands from it, okay?)

No one suggests that atheists ought to consider religions valuable because of all the good things that have resulted from them.

Umm, as Axl Rose famously asked, do you know where you are?

I certainly do ask them to consider that, quite frequently.

The same holds true for a number of secular ideologies. Why should this not apply to feminism? Who has suggested that feminist bloggers not write about feminism?

Are you kidding? Have you clicked on those links?

As for feminists going onto men's issues blogs to say how wrong they are, I would suggest you read the posts on Feminist Critics, Glenn Sacks blog and quite a few others. Feminists do it quite frequently and often derail discussions. Daisy recently did it on my blog before writing her above post.

I was rattled (I think they call it "triggered"?), admittedly, by your insensitive dissection of Little Light's post--the overriding concern that men might be slandered, OMG!--and the total lack of concern for what LL experienced. Deja Vu all over again. I thought the responses were self-centered, and reminded me of what I had experienced at FC.

If you prefer, will not visit your blog again.

Coincidentally, the things discussed on men's issues blogs are backed up by evidence. Feminist simply dismiss such evidence outright, regardless its veracity.

I don't dismiss anything. But if it's presented in a misogynist manner ("princesses") I will tune out.

As you do, when you are insulted.

I spend most of my time thinking, reading and talking about sexual violence against boys and I have done so since I was in high school. I started my own blog to discuss that issue, among other things, and do so quite frequently. One should not presume to tell other people what they do not or do not do just because one considers their concerns irrelevant.

Ummm, and WHERE did I say your concerns are irrelevant? I said and believe no such thing.

SEE--you just put words in my mouth that I did not say. Thanks for the handy-dandy example of how women are treated at FCB, you couldn't get through a whole post without doing it yourself.

By making such a statement

But as pointed out above, I didn't make any such statement, you made it, then criticized me for something I didn't even say!

you present yourself as believing that all feminist posts shed some remarkable insight that non-feminists never heard or thought of before.

But I did not say that, you did.

That is quite to the contrary. Your remark demonstrates the implicit, if not explicit, insult to the intelligence of non-feminist blogger so many feminists engage in, like as what has occurred on this thread.

But...but... I didn't say it, you did. I don't think ANYONE's concerns are "irrelevant"--who the hell are you talking to? Answer: you are talking to some cardboard cut-out feminist in your head, not to ME as an individual.

As I said before, feminists do themselves a great disservice when they make such comments.

Right back atcha, dude.

DaisyDeadhead said...

Beste: Surely you can see I might feel the same when they spout off the same BS about men.

And when did *I* spout this particular BS?

Again, I am not a cardboard cut-out feminist, I am a real person. If you are engaging with ME, please do me the courtesy of finding out what *I* believe, not putting words in my mouth.

(God forbid I do that to you guys!)

As stated above, the group of feminists visiting FC is already a self-selected group; Mary Daly is not going to visit FCB.

Get a clue.

Harold said...

Jacob, I will just start by saying that I do not know you and you maybe a better person overall than I am and in fact I would not be surprised, if you are doing very useful work.

All I am going to say, is your post is mostly nonsense. In fact, your post is a perfect example of how antifeminists derail discussions on feminist boards. As for antifeminist or MRA boards, I got no problem, if they set a rule that bans feminists or people who are supporters of them.

Jacob said...

Daisy,

You and other religious people may ask atheists to consider the good things about religion, but it is not a general demand in the same way that it is not a general demand of Christians to consider the good atheism, Islam or Judaism have done. No one really objects to this because people are allowed to disagree with other ideologies in part or in full. The exception appears to be when it comes to feminism, which would be akin to telling someone that they can reject progressive liberalism, but rejecting neo-conservatism is off limits.

I was triggered by little light's post and her negative framing of boys and masculinity. It reminded me of the things my aunt did to me and how damaged and disgusting those things made me feel. Little light's post lacked any concern for what boys like me experienced. However, it did not have to because her post was not about that. It was about her. That is why I wrote about my experiences and how the post triggered me on my own blog. As you made it clear in your remarks your opinion of my concerns and the issues I discuss on my blog, while I do not care whether you do or do not visit my blog, there seems little reason for you to do so.

In regards to your other remarks, my comments were in response to Harold, not to you. I stated his name at the beginning of the comments to ensure that was evident.

Renegade Evolution said...

Beste:

The overall behavior of "when I generalize its okay, but when I am specific it's okay, I am the universal" crap bothers me coming from anyone, Radical Feminist or Man. And yeah, let's not lump me in with the Radical Feminists here either or act as if I have never been critical of their treatment and attitudes towards men, m'kay?

I blogged on FC. People acted like complete assholes to me, then got all butthurt when I said STFU. It all seems very immature to me.

Guess what? A lot of the dudes over at FC and a lot the Radical Feminists? They behave exactly the same. EXACTLY. And it sucks out of both sides. You cannot have reasonable conversation with people who do not listen- about ANYTHING-.

Yeah, I hate it when Radical Feminists say "all sex workers are.../all men are"

I also hate it when some of the FC dudes say "all women are.."

Get it? Doesn't get much more simple than that.

DaisyDeadhead said...

And....what Ren said.

Harold said...

Jacob,

My crude intuition is telling that you’re being deliberately obtuse, but I will address this part….

The exception appears to be when it comes to feminism, which would be akin to telling someone that they can reject progressive liberalism, but rejecting neo-conservatism is off limits.


A. There is no law that I am aware of that says you must be a feminist
B. I never heard about person on the news say that they were dragged kicking and screaming by strangers to convert them into a feminist
C. People, mostly men, discuss/practice antifeminism
D. Probably the vast majority of people in the USA do not consider themselves feminists
E. And here the kicker, I been on Internet reading feminist materially for around thirteen years. Initially, I would only look at debates between antifeminists and feminists and I had more sympathy to antifeminist arguments. As I examined the debates; however, I came to the conclusion that feminist arguments were usually more logical and the antifeminists were much more personal in their attacks. And if anything, I become more convinced of that position through the years. The antifeminists in 1996-1999 were much more intellectually rigorous in their arguments than most of the ones today.

Jacob your problem is you want to “debate” whether feminism is valid or not. Guess what, the overwhelming numbers of feminists are not interested in that discussion. If you force people to constantly talk about whether their important beliefs or major premises of their beliefs are valid or not you’re effectively silencing them.

Danny said...

Initially, I would only look at debates between antifeminists and feminists and I had more sympathy to antifeminist arguments. As I examined the debates; however, I came to the conclusion that feminist arguments were usually more logical and the antifeminists were much more personal in their attacks.
Thats interesting because these days (with respect your "initially" taking place years before) I see just the opposite (but it is on both sides) Feminists being quick to label someone MRA (using the term as an insult) just a way to dismiss them. Now this is not to say that feminism in and of itself is all wrong (in fact I agree with quite bit of it) mind you.

white rabbit said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
white rabbit said...

Oh dear...

Doesn't male circumcision get the furniture flying across the room as a topic?

It's hardly done at all here. For what it's worth my understandiung is that it removes sensitive tissue and may thus result in erectile dysfunction/inability to ejaculate, especially later in life. But there ya go...

Now about Ellie Mae. I confess I used to sit in front of the TV gazing adoringly at her aged about 11 or somesuch. And as for female drummers...

Mo Tucker - wasn't she great??

That would be a 'yes' :D

ZoBabe said...

"As one who has discussed alcohol and alcoholism very personally and critically on this blog many times, I'm not sure where this fella is getting this, but obviously, he has issues with some female who is not me.

But then, I guess we all look alike in the dark, right?"


But Daisy, I thought it was obvious who he has a problem with.

It me! ;-)

Anonymous said...

came from open thread link on NSWATM. lending you my support. i'm sorry FC banned you. I enjoyed the FC thread ballgame linked and don't understand why he closed it just as it was heating up. its the kind of thing mras (i am one) are always complaining never gets talked about (older men - younger women). my pet peeve is mras want a fair fight w/radfems then get all freeked out when they actually meet a woman not afraid to brawl. they count on feminists 'acting like ladies' and i think 'ladies' are the fucking problem. and i think you probably do too. ;)

sorry ddh. keep posting at NSWATM. i will keep reading.

Talked about my guy's problem so won't ID myself said...

Oh, wow, Daisy. I know this is an old post, but I just saw it, so...

I'm a fan of your blog, and Renee's blog, and FC. I mean...the people who started FC, the whole point of the name was that they *are* feminist, they just have a few minor disagreements. Or that's the impression I got.

They allow bitter MRAs in the comments section, but those aren't the people running the site. They allow them in order to learn from them rather than dismissing them with, frankly, misogynist shaming as *everyone* else does, even young feminists.

I think there was a need for FC, because I think there are serious mistakes the very young online feminists are making, and that is who they've had bad experiences with and are criticizing, and I don't blame them, because so have I had bad experiences with them. I'm a woman, I've been a feminist since age 12, and I live with my male SO. I don't enjoy some 18-year-old telling me I must be "a sissy man who will never have a girlfriend" because I...object to misogynist shaming? These kids seem to have zero grasp of anything all those great depression baby and war baby feminists said. Whatever happened to "Free To Be, You and Me"?

Have you seen Clarisse Thorn's new book on what she's learned from her experiences with the PUA community? It's really interesting.

When it comes to male circumcision...well, two things.

First: My guy's circumcision took off his frenulum (they usually don't go that far in today's circumcisions--and they shouldn't! Anyone circumcising your son, make sure they don't), thus he pretty much can't come from normal PIV. Has he ever even mentioned that, let alone complained about it? Of course not. Men aren't supposed to complain about things like that. (Men who do are subject to, again, "sissy-"shaming.) I had to figure it out.

No one who's serious about opposing circumcision equates it to clitoridectomy. What it does equate to is removal of the clitoral hood. That's just basic anatomy. And some forms of "FGM" actually do stop at removal of the clitoral hood. So Meowser is wrong: Circumcision doesn't have to equate to clitoridectomy to equate to FGM. Literally speaking, both are genital mutilation.

I would not want my clitoral hood cut off and my clit allowed to dry out. I cringe at the very thought. So nor would I want the exact analogue done to a son of mine. And the history of circumcision in the US makes it pretty clear that yeah, it does impede sensation. That was the whole point of it. They thought it would reduce masturbation. It sure makes external lube necessary for masturbation.

Second thing: If anything, circumcision has tempted me toward antisemitism, not the other way around. I've done my best to resist, but I doubt everyone has. This is similar to the way FGM has tempted some people toward scorn for whole cultures.

Alison said...

I just read the thread you're talking about. I read it the same way as BlackHumor on "No, Seriously, What About Teh Menz?". (http://noseriouslywhatabouttehmenz.wordpress.com/2011/10/28/open-thread-7/) The guys you were arguing with seemed not very familiar with second wave feminism. Their experience of feminism seems to be mostly online feminism.

They kept trying to subtly reference "Nice Guy(tm)" / Amanda Marcotte type arguments: The "she has a right to be attracted to or repulsed by anyone she wants to be AND NO ANALYSIS IS ALLOWED" argument that...these guys didn't realize emerged as a third wave *reaction* to arguments like yours ("We're *sick* of self-analysis! Just leave us to our masturbation materials! On our backs!").

They seemed to be assuming that since you were a feminist you (a) were familiar with these arguments and (b) agreed with them and therefore (c) were being a hypocrite with your pro-analysis arguments.

That's probably where the "arguing in bad faith" idea came from. There may have been other misunderstandings going on too that I didn't catch.

Talk about different background assumptions!