I've heard some criticism that this is all just a distraction from the shooter and his "real movies" or something-- never mind his manifesto specifically rages against women-- and I think that actually proves the point; when women have a valid, founded concern our treatment in society, even fears about our own physical safety, there's always an immediate backlash to try to derail and silence us. Of course what led to the UC Santa Barbara shooting is more complex than misogyny in society (there's also much to discuss regarding gun laws, identifying and treating mental illness-- even the glorified violence, machismo, and treating lone "misunderstood" figures as celebrities in US culture) and of course "not all men" become murderers when rejected, by the #YesAllWomen campaign brings to light how Rodger's actions are just the extreme version of a toxic attitude of entitlement amongst men pervasive enough to affect all women to some extent, something we need to talk about that is difficult to get
( ... )
Still, how is it in the interests of feminists (the sociopolitical movement) to pick and choose fights, Because, as you've already pointed out, our time and our energy and our resources are limited and because, as I've already pointed out, one of the things we're fighting _against_ is the idea that while our issues are just for us to deal with, men's are universal.
Sexual identity is very obviously a feminist issue, because trans women are women. And feminism hasn't adopted people of colour as an issue; third wave feminism is recognising that _women_ of colour have their own set of issues on top of those faced by women more generally.
Fixing one issue is fixing all the issues. No, it isn't; if we start spending our time fixing men's issues, we'll be taking a big step backwards.
Yes it really is true. This is one of the many, many reasons why they don't test drugs on prison inmates, for example. Well, that and because it's monumentally unethical to do so.
It's really bad study design to use at risk populations, and children are a
( ... )
Focusing on feminist issues is fighting against the ideas that feminist ideas are just ours to deal with? No. Read what I actually wrote, both times.
How so? I've already answered this in previous comments and above. Go back and read it again if you need to, I don't feel like wasting my time explaining it _again_. Or you could google for "What about the menz", that also might help.
If you admit that men benefit from feminist actions, then how isn't it a universal action? Because the benefits to men are incidental; they're a nice bonus, but they're not the goal.
Hormones can throw off or occlude results. Yes, that's right, they can, which is why it's _really_ problematic to insist that women should be using artificial hormones in order to take part in a medical trial.
Oh? Wasn't aware that there were that many anatomical differences between the sexes. Well, perhaps your spouse can explain to you what "gender bias in medicine" means, and why your idea of the universal neuter is so far off.
No, I don't, because as I've stated before, it's really the same thing. No, it isn't, and frankly, it isn't up to you, as a man, to make that call. If you want to be an ally, you're going to have to let women decide which issues they want to address and what feminism is about, and learn to take a back seat. Which is precisely why I'm not comfortable with men calling themselves feminists; because inevitably it means they want to determine the direction feminism takes, which usually means diverting it away from the issues women want to address.
This does not mean that if I break my toe that I will get a different treatment then your broken toe just because of genders. I can't speak for broken toes, but I have certainly been given different treatment from that given to a male friend who had pretty much identical symptoms, because of gender, for a medical issue which was not in itself gendered. So no, sorry, you're wrong. You are a man, you don't see what women experience, so don't try to tell us what we experience. OK?
There is a huge difference when you are driving in a car and your friend says "it's faster to take the freeway" vs. the guy in the back saying "Driver, take the freeway". That's me. But not only are you not the driver or the owner of the car, but you don't actually know where we're planning to go and you don't know the roads. So when you say "It's quicker to take the highway" what you're actually saying is "My opinion as someone who doesn't know the terrain here is worth more than yours, even though these are your roads, and your destination". And in fact, what you've been saying is not "It's quicker to take the freeway" but rather "I don't think we should go where you want to go, I've decided you should drive me to my chosen destination instead", to which my answer is, get out and walk, buddy.
I prod, poke, take things for a spin and that's how I understand things. But apparently what you don't do is listen to the people who actually _live_ this.
...you mean they actually are saying that they should close down women's shelters
( ... )
No, "we" haven't. You may have done so; I'm objecting to you twisting what has been said, for no apparent reason. That's not a stereotype, and it's not in my head. Go back and read again, and you'll see what I mean.
But yes, frankly, it probably is time for you to sit down and shut up; We're driving, we know where we're going, we don't need any backseat navigation.
i've been away from LJ so i've only just read this thread. but i wanted to say that i'm so impressed with the way you handled this conversation, the patience you showed, and how well you articulated yourself here. and also, thank you.
*snort* You said it a lot more succinctly than I did below. I guess one should best disregard any explanation people ever give for their actions, because after all if they hadn't given it, we wouldn't know.
I've heard some criticism that this is all just a distraction from the shooter and his "real movies" or something-- never mind his manifesto specifically rages against women-- and I think that actually proves the point; when women have a valid, founded concern our treatment in society, even fears about our own physical safety, there's always an immediate backlash to try to derail and silence us. Of course what led to the UC Santa Barbara shooting is more complex than misogyny in society (there's also much to discuss regarding gun laws, identifying and treating mental illness-- even the glorified violence, machismo, and treating lone "misunderstood" figures as celebrities in US culture) and of course "not all men" become murderers when rejected, by the #YesAllWomen campaign brings to light how Rodger's actions are just the extreme version of a toxic attitude of entitlement amongst men pervasive enough to affect all women to some extent, something we need to talk about that is difficult to get ( ... )
Reply
Because, as you've already pointed out, our time and our energy and our resources are limited and because, as I've already pointed out, one of the things we're fighting _against_ is the idea that while our issues are just for us to deal with, men's are universal.
Sexual identity is very obviously a feminist issue, because trans women are women. And feminism hasn't adopted people of colour as an issue; third wave feminism is recognising that _women_ of colour have their own set of issues on top of those faced by women more generally.
Fixing one issue is fixing all the issues.
No, it isn't; if we start spending our time fixing men's issues, we'll be taking a big step backwards.
Yes it really is true. This is one of the many, many reasons why they don't test drugs on prison inmates, for example.
Well, that and because it's monumentally unethical to do so.
It's really bad study design to use at risk populations, and children are a ( ... )
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
No. Read what I actually wrote, both times.
How so?
I've already answered this in previous comments and above. Go back and read it again if you need to, I don't feel like wasting my time explaining it _again_. Or you could google for "What about the menz", that also might help.
If you admit that men benefit from feminist actions, then how isn't it a universal action?
Because the benefits to men are incidental; they're a nice bonus, but they're not the goal.
Hormones can throw off or occlude results.
Yes, that's right, they can, which is why it's _really_ problematic to insist that women should be using artificial hormones in order to take part in a medical trial.
Oh? Wasn't aware that there were that many anatomical differences between the sexes. Well, perhaps your spouse can explain to you what "gender bias in medicine" means, and why your idea of the universal neuter is so far off.
Nobody in researchBut, as I _keep_ ( ... )
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
No, it isn't, and frankly, it isn't up to you, as a man, to make that call. If you want to be an ally, you're going to have to let women decide which issues they want to address and what feminism is about, and learn to take a back seat. Which is precisely why I'm not comfortable with men calling themselves feminists; because inevitably it means they want to determine the direction feminism takes, which usually means diverting it away from the issues women want to address.
This does not mean that if I break my toe that I will get a different treatment then your broken toe just because of genders.
I can't speak for broken toes, but I have certainly been given different treatment from that given to a male friend who had pretty much identical symptoms, because of gender, for a medical issue which was not in itself gendered. So no, sorry, you're wrong. You are a man, you don't see what women experience, so don't try to tell us what we experience. OK?
I don't think ( ... )
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
That's me.
But not only are you not the driver or the owner of the car, but you don't actually know where we're planning to go and you don't know the roads. So when you say "It's quicker to take the highway" what you're actually saying is "My opinion as someone who doesn't know the terrain here is worth more than yours, even though these are your roads, and your destination".
And in fact, what you've been saying is not "It's quicker to take the freeway" but rather "I don't think we should go where you want to go, I've decided you should drive me to my chosen destination instead", to which my answer is, get out and walk, buddy.
I prod, poke, take things for a spin and that's how I understand things.
But apparently what you don't do is listen to the people who actually _live_ this.
...you mean they actually are saying that they should close down women's shelters ( ... )
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
But yes, frankly, it probably is time for you to sit down and shut up; We're driving, we know where we're going, we don't need any backseat navigation.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment