You know what annoys me more than I can express? You can be a person who is only interested in attaching yourself to some guy, becoming his maid and mostly bored sexual partner, you can happily dilute your identity in his completely, even give up your name for him, live as his kept toy, abandon your career to serve his needs (I can give links but do I really need to?), and still call yourself a feminist IF you happen to have a vagina.
At the same time, you can dedicate your life to activism on behalf of gender equality, work hard to maintain the principles of equality in your life, acquaint yourself with feminist theory and improve daily upon its practice but your right to call yourself a feminist will still be disputed IF you happen to have a penis.
And the most hilarious thing of all? The people who award the title of a feminist or withdraw it on the basis of the shape of one’s genitals don’t see a problem with calling themselves feminists. They engage in blatant gender discrimination but see their own feminism as holier-than-thou.
This is precisely the reason why radical feminists often exhibit vicious hatred towards transgender people. In their neatly ordered universe of “penis=male=bad” and “vagina=female=good”, complexities of gender identifications serve as a disruptive, destabilizing force that – oh, horror! – might require one to question the gender binary. And who needs to go to all that trouble when you can simplify your life so much by analyzing the world through the male / female lens?
The entire point of feminism is supposed to be that vaginas and penises should not have meanings assigned to them. (Except, of course, the very individual, personal meaning one might or might not choose to assign to her or his own genitals.) And here come these pseudo-feminists whose entire worldview is based on the difference between penises and vaginas and who do nothing but invent new meanings for these organs.
Seriously, with such friends, feminism needs no enemies.
Clarissa's Blog 
Actually Titfortat has, circumstantially, demonstrated why ‘equality’ is less appealing than ‘liberation’; I can have ‘equality’ with men by being just as vicious and violent as (some) men are raised under patriarchy – I’d rather be liberated from patriarchy altogether (and, incidentally, all men will be liberated from patriarchy too)
LikeLike
@P.rhoeas
This saying pretty much sums up my position on people.
If you truly want to test a persons character, give them power.
LikeLike
@Talis
You will never be truly liberated from life. I got used to inequality a long time ago. Though that doesnt mean I dont try to equalize things to the best of my abilities. By the sounds of things you might learn something from this little diddly.
Pain is inevitable, suffering is optional.
🙂
LikeLike
” Sure, you’ve succeeded in your goal of belittling once again, but you’re not really helping. ”
OK, if we have started on the vague “belittling” of somebody unidentified, I have lost all interest in this conversation. This belittling thing travels from one topic to another like a mantra and that bores me.
Bye-bye, Isabel.
LikeLike
Oh, am I being banned again?
LikeLike
“men have all the power and control everything”
This argument comes up all the time in debates like this and allow me to offer some perspective.
1)
Men will ALWAYS constitute the majority of those among the elite. It has nothing to do with men being more capable or having discrimination favoring them. Alone the fact that men, on average, take more risks than women will always produce this outcome (unless there is some radical legislation that forbids a disparity). If you don’t believe that, then I can talk you through the details of why risk taking causes a pattern like it does but since it’s somewhat technical, I’ll postpone that for now.
2)
Men being in the majority of influential positions is NOT representative of the male gender as a whole. CEOs and political leaders constitute the tinyest minority of society and next to them there are nearly always members of the opposite sex who benefit greatly from that power. The vast majority of the population is in the lower middle class and it is here where you must look for representative gender disparities.
3)
Men being the majority of decision makers does not mean an advantage for men. Only if those men are also acting specifically in the interests of their gender, could you conclude that. But, in practice we see the opposite: Men in power are more likely to act in specific women’s interests than in men’s. Or, more common, “they make politics for people and for women”.
4)
Common sense: If men are really controlling everything, then why would “we” run a society that often favours women? I mean why would we pour the majority of available funding into women’s health and not “ours”? Why would we not send women to fight wars for us and why would we not give women harsher sentences in crime?
You can’t have it both ways. If men are controlling everything then you must concede that they’re also responsible for all the good things which includes women’s liberation.
LikeLike
“Men will ALWAYS constitute the majority of those among the elite. It has nothing to do with men being more capable or having discrimination favoring them. Alone the fact that men, on average, take more risks than women will always produce this outcome (unless there is some radical legislation that forbids a disparity).”
– I don’t get this. What makes you think that men will ALWAYS take more risks? Can you see that far into the future? In any case, this argument makes little sense, because risk-taking is highly detrimental to one’s career aspirations in all fields except, maybe, the crooked high finance in the US. Let’s take being a tenured prof, for example. What you need to become one is not risk-taking but, rather, the opposite: endless and boundless patience. If only risk-taking could help me achieve my career goals and become the leading Hispanist in the world. If only. . .
The rest of what you say I agree with completely. Things are SO much more complicated than the simplistic “men rule the world.”
LikeLike
Like I said, it’s somewhat technical but it’s too late in my time zone for me to go into that now. I’ll get back to you about that.
LikeLike
“The rest of what you say I agree with completely. Things are SO much more complicated than the simplistic “men rule the world.””
You made this simplistic comment, not me.
I stated: Most important political, financial, and influential media related positions are held by men in North America.
Women are half the US population but there has not been a single woman president, yet you are not only declaring victory but declaring that things have gone too far in the feminist direction. It’s ridiculous.
LikeLike
I agree completely that female politicians get subjected to unimaginable sexist vitriol. Take Sara Palin, for example. Criticizing her stance on policy is perfectly fine. But the unhealthy obsession with her hair and clothes that STILL rages on even when she is running for no office is disgusting. I could give links if people don’t believe me.
LikeLike
When talking about the number yes I agree with that.
Me personally my problem comes in when “most of the high end politicians are men” somehow leads to “men have the power”.
LikeLike
oops that should be “numbers”. as in the numbers of male vs female politicians.
LikeLike
See my comment above on this. It applies just the same.
LikeLike
Every step of the way people like you have been saying the same fucking thing.
And of course people run things in their own interest if at all possible. That’s the whole reason why everyone should be fairly represented. You can say it is right and natural for men to rule all you want, you will never make me like it so give up already.
This is exactly why radical feminism is still needed.
LikeLike
The idea that women don’t take risks is also bizarre essentialism. I take risks all the time. I need to take risks in order to feel alive. That is part of the reason why I chose not to enter academia — at least at this time and in a non-risk taking environment (a post at a Zimbabwean University would be different, as it would amount to taking risks).
LikeLike
“The idea that women don’t take risks is also bizarre essentialism. ”
– Absolutely. Any sentence that starts with “Women do / say / think / are . . . .” is completely meaningless. I understand that essentialism makes the world look less scary and easier to understand but it’s a refuge of intellectually impotent people.
LikeLike
“b) reread the part of the discussion about dying in childbirth and try to figure out exactly why you were accused of hating women. A hint: all you need to do is read the ENTIRE comment addressed to you. Another hint: reading and thinking does not equal copy-pasting.”
Ok then Clarissa, here’s the entire comment, I assume this is the one you are referring to:
“And here is our proof that pseudo-feminists like Talis see the very fact of being female as a horrible burden. They hate female bodies, they hate the existence of women, and as a result they hate feminism because any vindication of these creatures with vaginas they despise and detest so much is intolerable to them.”
Nope, sorry, I still can’t see it! I talked about women dying in childbirth and that, somehow, is proof that I hate female bodies? That makes no sense at all.
Please explain it for me Clarissa, because I just cannot see how talking about women dying in childbirth (as a bad thing, it’s not like I was laughing about it), means I hate the existence of women. You’re assuming some kind of a priori rationale here that I just cannot see.
A couple of the male commenters here have talked about male cancers and shortened male life-spans, but I don’t see you accusing them of hating male bodies.
Come on, Clarissa, throw me a bone, pretty please? Because I just cannot see what you are talking about.
LikeLike
This is just bizarre. I ask her not to copy-paste and in response she immediately goes and copy-pastes.
I will answer your question, Talis, even though I realize that this is a complete waste of time because you won’t even read the response.
The lesser amounts of money that are invested in male cancers are a result of an act of human will. The fact that giving birth implies a risk to a woman’s life is not an act of will. It is the unfortunate price women pay for their unique and amazing capacity to give birth. This is why discussing lesser amounts invested in cancer research in terms of gender discrimination makes sense. And discussing the risk of death in childbirth doesn’t. Unless, that is, you are aware of a trend where doctors leave a woman who is giving birth and collectively rush to another ward to save a man’s life instead. If you are aware of such cases happening on a regular basis, please let me know and I will start a new trend about that.
However, in and of itself the risky nature of childbirth can only be evidence of gender discrimination if you believe that the discriminating agent is nature itself. If that’s what you believe, then you have to be guided by a hatred of female body. There is no other reasonable explanation.
I have just wasted 5 minutes of my life answering your question in a polite and detailed manner. Who wants a bet that in response I will get a jumble of copy-pasted meaningless snippets of God knows what?
As for the shorter life spans of males, the fact that this is not biological but, rather, societally engineered has been studied and proven ad nauseam. Again, human agency equals discrimination. Nature, however, does not discriminate.
LikeLike
I like that answer and I can actually shorten it a bit.
“Women don’t get to hold the ability to bear children over the heads of men when it comes to reproductive rights and then cry foul over the fact that it leads a unique situation of childbirth deaths.”
However, in and of itself the risky nature of childbirth can only be evidence of gender discrimination if you believe that the discriminating agent is nature itself.
Or believe that women never have a choice on when to give birth to children.
LikeLike
“This is just bizarre. I ask her not to copy-paste and in response she immediately goes and copy-pastes.”
I was simply copying and pasting to make sure we were talking about the same thing, this is a very long, very jumbled comments thread.
“However, in and of itself the risky nature of childbirth can only be evidence of gender discrimination if you believe that the discriminating agent is nature itself. If that’s what you believe, then you have to be guided by a hatred of female body. There is no other reasonable explanation.”
I see now Clarissa, you have managed to misread or ignore every thing I have actually said on the subject of maternal health and maternal mortality rates.
Maternal health plays a role in maternal mortality rates; in many countries in the developing world, women are systematically, from birth, because they are female, denied nutrition and medical care, this results in overall poor health which means a higher risk of complications and death in child birth.
Also, in many countries (not just in the developing world) women are denied access to birth control and abortions, and are in unequal relationships where they cannot say no to sex or demand the use of birth control, this results in women becoming, and being forced to remain, pregnant when that pregnancy is high risk and may result in their death. Forced pregnancy is, unequivocally, a gendered issue.
Or are you saying that malnutrition, rape, forced pregnancy and lack of health care are part of the ‘natural’ risks involved in childbirth?
LikeLike
“Or are you saying that malnutrition, rape, forced pregnancy and lack of health care are part of the ‘natural’ risks involved in childbirth?”
– And I rest my case. It is all back to pitying 3rd world women in a thread dedicated to American male feminists.
LikeLike
Whoa. Did Talis just basically say, “What about teh 3rd world wimminz?” in a post about American male feminists?
Personally if any man wants the title of feminist that badly he can have it. But I have to say that I find it a bit odd that a movement that says its for the quality of all people, namely for women, would then turn around and deny membership to certain people because of (mostly) unchangeable characteristics.
Let’s get it straight they aren’t arguing if “men who have committed horrible crimes against women can be feminists” not if “men who have betrayed the movement can be feminists” not if “men who show unprovoked hostility to towards women/feminists can be feminists”. No its if “men can be feminists”.
So as we see there is some contention over whether or not men can claim that title. I find the source the contention to be the interesting part.:
They say they expect men to reject the advantages that come with being men.
Exactly what advantages and more importantly how do they know which men have these advantages? That second part if important if you’ve ever heard a feminist say something to the effect of, “we aren’t trying to say that every individual male benefits from every single male privilege….”.
So how can the expectation that men “reject the advantages” be fulfilled when different men have different privileges but the vetting process never gets that far because they are being tossed out for simply being male?
In short I think they are forcing a link between “male” and “privilege” so they can snatch the label away from men under the excuse they are doing so because of the privilege when is really just about them being men.
Now there has to be a word for a situation in which a group of people claim to be the champions of equality for all people deny certain people use of a label because of nothing more than a (mostly) unchangeable part of said people’s identity…
LikeLike
” But I have to say that I find it a bit odd that a movement that says its for the quality of all people, namely for women, would then turn around and deny membership to certain people because of (mostly) unchangeable characteristics.”
– Ah, I’m glad that somebody in this thread gets my point. I’ve started too feel like a voice clamoring in the desert, what with Chinese fetuses, trolls, psychoanalysts, and God only knows what else. It all comes down to the same profound idea that “men are people, too.”
“Now there has to be a word for a situation in which a group of people claim to be the champions of equality for all people deny certain people use of a label because of nothing more than a (mostly) unchangeable part of said people’s identity…”
– And what really bugs me in this whole scenario is that whenever you try to discuss this situation rationally, you start hearing tons of stories about poor, miserable, victimized 3rd world women. And as a 3rd world woman, I find it egregiously offensive that Western feminists only are interested in us and our reality when we can be used to support their vague grievances about the general evilness of men. When I try to discuss the fact that out 3rd world lives are complicated, that we are both victims and victimizers and men in our cultures are, too, we get screamed down.
LikeLike
“Whoa. Did Talis just basically say, “What about teh 3rd world wimminz?” in a post about American male feminists?”
– And if I’m not mistaken, there is only one 3rd world woman on this thread. And that would be me. If people have noticed, however, I only ever talk about the experiences in the countries where I have actually resided on a permanent basis for a significant length of time. It doesn’t occur to me to bandy around facts I Googled somewhere about the lives of people I have never even stood close to.
LikeLike
And the funniest thing is that 189 comments into the topic, I still have absolutely no idea what the participants actually think on the subject of male activists referring to themselves as feminists.
LikeLike
I got four bucks says any asshole scoping out a SlutWalk to snap photos of scantily clad women will call himself a feminist.
That’s a joke, btw. I don’t really have four bucks.
LikeLike
Does it matter who calls themselves a feminist? Even if a male feminist practices feminism “imperfectly”, can it really hurt to have more people considering issues of gender?
LikeLike
The more male feminists there are then the more exposure their friends and family get to the type of thinking that will eventually lead to a better world. Blunting the efforts of men who try to make this type of difference by embroiling them in constant defense of themselves seems to be counter productive.
LikeLike
‘The more male feminists there are then the more exposure their friends and family get to the type of thinking that will eventually lead to a better world. Blunting the efforts of men who try to make this type of difference by embroiling them in constant defense of themselves seems to be counter productive.”
– Great point!! I agree completely.
LikeLike
Funny, I told you what I thought about men calling them selves feminists, but it’s not like you actually bother with a little thing like reading what other people have said before passing judgement on them.
LikeLike
I think you need a guy like this to become a Feminist. 😉
LikeLike
“And what really bugs me in this whole scenario is that whenever you try to discuss this situation rationally, you start hearing tons of stories about poor, miserable, victimized 3rd world women. And as a 3rd world woman, I find it egregiously offensive that Western feminists only are interested in us and our reality when we can be used to support their vague grievances about the general evilness of men. When I try to discuss the fact that out 3rd world lives are complicated, that we are both victims and victimizers and men in our cultures are, too, we get screamed down.”
I couldn’t agree more. You’d really have to be a moral vacuum for using 3rd world people solely as a trump card to win an argument. It makes me sick.
LikeLike
How was I using third world women as a ‘trump card’? Clarissa said that maternal mortality rates are not a gendered issue, and that I ‘hated women’ for talking about maternal mortality rates. I provided proof that maternal mortality rates are a gendered issue.
Stating basic facts is hardly using a ‘trump card’, if anything, Clarissa saying “And I rest my case. It is all back to pitying 3rd world women in a thread dedicated to American male feminists.” is the ‘trump card’ here, since it is unreasonable and makes no sense.
LikeLike
“Clarissa said that maternal mortality rates are not a gendered issue”
– Once again, please show me where I used the expression “maternal mortality rates” or buzz off the blog. Are you really so dense that you can’t read a very simple text? Can you really not see a difference between ‘maternal mortality rates’ and ‘the fact that childbirth is potentially dangerous to a woman’s life’? And you dare to pollute a discussion among intelligent people?
Answer these questions, Talis, or go away.
LikeLike
Well I am also from the third world, more or less, depending on how you judge it. My experience is that Western feminists don’t really want to do anything about the status of third world women, either. They’re keen to maintain the status quo all over the globe. The idea of Western liberals (not just feminists) is that Western culture and values contaminates the pristine nature of African cultures. Women like me ought not to go over there and make a difference, but will do so if we are particularly evil.
LikeLike
After the fall of the USSR, Western feminist organizations started descending on us in droves. And their resistance to finding out anything about what actual issues we confronted was scary. They expected to see downtrodden victims and just wouldn’t accept the simple fact of objective reality that we all had professional, powerful, financially independent women in 3 generations behind us, while they – at best – had one. Many of them were actually the 1st college-educated professional woman in their family. So they started teaching us the usual Western bromides about men interrupting and silencing women, etc. Of course, that was always greeted with bouts of hysterical laughter on our part because imagining a woman being interrupted by a man was a hard feat for us, indeed.
This doesn’t mean we didn’t have feminist issues to address. Of course, we did, and there were many of them. But they were different, that’s all.
LikeLike
Colonial British culture was also in some ways more advanced in terms of gender than contemporary Western culture. Certain types of women, such as school teachers, had immense authority. They wielded the weapon of sarcasm very deftly and I lived in fear and awe of them. By comparison, Western women, even after some inroads made by feminism, were fluffy, mumsy and socially ineffectual.
LikeLike
Exactly who are these Western women you refer to? I’ve had some scary female teachers myself. Once again people you have actually known are compared to some generalized Western woman. Who are these people? It would help to have a better idea who you are talking about.
LikeLike
Exactly, they run things in THEIR OWN interest and not in the interest of their gender. In case you haven’t noticed you deluded fool, men are not some team fighting in unison against women. They’re in vicious competition with one another. Grow up, read something other than Cosmo and open your eyes to reality! Just because you and your radfem friends see men as a collective adversary, does not mean that men feel the same way about women.
Stop putting words in my mouth. I never said there’s anything right about men ruling the world. Neither have I attempted to make you like it. I don’t particularly like it myself. I’m simply stating facts based on objective observation rather than wishful thinking. You should try it but you probably never will because, for you, truth is what makes you feel good. And reducing women to victimhood is what makes you feel great – hence you see everything that contradicts that as false
Oh, and radical feminism is definitely not empowering/emancipating or otherwise helping women. Quite the contrary. But, like I said, you don’t really want to improve the lives of women (or anyone else’s).
I doubt any of this will have made you think so much as a millisecond about anything so I’ll leave you to continue making yourself feel good about yourself by wallowing in victimhood and claiming to have ‘caught’ me making up stories.
LikeLike
Man, you are obnoxious. Why would anyone waste time replying to such an abusive person? Go to hell.
LikeLike
I never said women don’t take risks. That is YOU who’s simplifying and reducing. I offered to give you a detailed explanation but if I feel that you won’t read it properly, then I won’t waste my time.
So saying that men are physically stronger on average is also just “essentialism”? Nice trick, just labeling things out of the way.
There is nothing wrong with studying pattens and tendencies among large segments of the population. It’s done everywhere else too (notably by feminists as well). It’s only important to maintain that such patterns discovered mean very little or nothing to us as individuals though. When I say that women are more risk averse on average that is not at all saying that you personally are risk averse in the slightest. It just seems that way. The difference is too small to be noticeable in individuals. But even the most negligibly small difference in behavior between individuals produces an accumulation of differences in the results of that behavior across large communities.
If you want a practical and immediately relevant example:
We were talking about men’s shorter lifespan which I assume you won’t just dismiss as essentialism. One reason is the far greater number of workplace deaths (something in the vicinity of 97%). Those workplace deaths take place in dangerous jobs which men are obviously more likely to choose than women. Here too, the ratio is something in the high 90s. You’ll probably throw ‘socialization’ onto the table but that cannot possibly account for such a large disparity. Besides, if socialization was that powerful, then we’d see it vary greatly among different nations where socialization also varies. Strangely though, more gender liberated countries, where men and women are free to choose their professions to their desires, show the same pattern of risk taking. In fact, a recent study of job and hobby preferences of men and women across the world revealed that classic gender roles were MORE pronounced in countries like Sweden. Again, there is a very sound explanation: When people have more freedom of choice (i.e. Sweden etc) they are more likely to choose what they want rather than take whatever they can get.
LikeLike
“So saying that men are physically stronger on average is also just “essentialism””
– I forgot to add “with the exception of obvious physiological characteristics.”
“There is nothing wrong with studying pattens and tendencies among large segments of the population. ”
– The population of what? The entire planet? Mechanisms of studying 50% of the population of the world (3,5 billion people) do not exist. The reason is that the linguistic, cultural, social, political, etc, variation will be too huge within each group to offer any kinds of conclusions.
“Those workplace deaths take place in dangerous jobs which men are obviously more likely to choose than women. ”
– You are mistaken. In the USSR, the most dangerous jobs were always reserved for women.
“Here too, the ratio is something in the high 90s. ”
– In all countries in the world? Who has done such an analysis of every single country where there are many countries that conduct no statistical research of anything at all and even don’t have a census?
” Besides, if socialization was that powerful, then we’d see it vary greatly among different nations where socialization also varies.”
– Precisely. This is why everything was very different in the USSR. That’s 260,000,000 people right there who fall outside of the scope of the conclusions you make.
“In fact, a recent study of job and hobby preferences of men and women across the world revealed that classic gender roles were MORE pronounced in countries like Sweden.”
– Yes, I’ve seen the funny Swedish movie. I can manufacture 15 “studies” right now that will prove the exact opposite. Or have I not talked enough on this very blog about how these studies are done and, more importantly, how they get reported? This blog started with an analysis of precisely this kind of “study” that “proved” how men were more aggressive and prone to crime by nature than women. Real scientists debunked this “study” very fast. But the debunking never got reported. The fake study itself, however, is still quoted everywhere. I can provide an extensive bibliography of how gender differences are manufactured on the basis of fake studies by the media.
LikeLike
Lead by example then and show me where I’m wrong rather than just cheap labeling dismissal. As for “crude empiricism”, some of the greatest discoveries were made by empirical observation.
“These observations were indisputable until science came along.”
First of all, those observations were quite scientific given the knowledge that ancient civilizations had to work with. Assuming that a deity controlled natural phenomena was relatively sound considering they had no way of understanding those phenomena. Scientific progress was what enabled those mistakes to be corrected.
Just calling something “bad” is does not promote progress – it is doing precisely the opposite so perhaps you should hold that lecture in front of a mirror first.
LikeLike
I’m pointing out the limitations of crude empiricism. Crude empiricism is not the same as current scientific empiricism. And what I gave you was hardly cheap, but any example of how we have learned to look more deeply into reality, rather than simply trusting our observations.
LikeLike
Oh, I don’t think you would know them personally. Really. Should I make a list? I don’t think that would help you to defend anything nebulous, since the people I am referring to are necessarily nebulous, are they not?
LikeLike
@JFA nice answer 🙂
LikeLike
Not helpful though. If I repeatedly made generalizations about “white africans” versus people I’ve known personally in the US it would be a valid question for you to ask me, and I would answer it honestly. But that’s me 🙂
LikeLike
“And I rest my case. It is all back to pitying 3rd world women in a thread dedicated to American male feminists.”
For goodness sake Clarissa, this is pathetic!
You claimed that maternal mortality rates are ‘natural’, not a gendered issue, and therefore I ‘hate women’ for talking about maternal mortality rates.
I have demonstrated very clearly how maternal mortality rates are a gendered issue, and that is your response!?!
You would rather argue that black is white till the end of time than back-down and admit that someone else was right and you got something wrong.
You were so desperate to discredit me and label me a ‘woman hater’ that you jumped on a made-up excuse and created a straw woman to attack.
I have clearly demonstrated how maternal mortality rates are a gendered issue, and how I do not fit you claim to be a ‘woman hater’ and you are too much of a bully and a coward to be able to acknowledge that.
LikeLike
Just out of curiosity (and not necessarily pertaining to this comment), is it conceivable to you that some new information might come out that would change your mind about some things? I mean, are you even interested in learning and reviewing your opinions. I for one am but it take a little more than just saying I make things up to make me change my mind about something.
Now if your answer is actually “yes”, then what might that information be? For example, what data could come out that might make you rethink your conviction that women are universally oppressed by men?
LikeLike
What exactly is your point about maternal mortality rates? I understand the maternal mortality rates have increased in the US dropped in most of Europe and increased in countries like Afghanistan and Iraq in the last decade.
But what has this to do with men calling themselves feminists?
LikeLike
Lamestllama, Clarissa accused me of ‘hating women’ when I talked about maternal mortality rates, and claimed that maternal mortality was just a part of ‘nature’ and nothing to do with gendered discrimination against women, and I responded to her accusation.
What’s so difficult about that for you to comprehend?
LikeLike
“You claimed that maternal mortality rates are ‘natural’, not a gendered issue, and therefore I ‘hate women’ for talking about maternal mortality rates.”
– Please provide the quote where I say “maternal mortality rates are ‘natural’”. Mind you, I want an exact quote, not your assumptions and conclusions. If you can’t provide such a quote, recognize that everything I said about you being a troll is true.
I expect you not to post anything else before you provide such a quote.
LikeLike
Give it a rest Adi, I’ve wasted plenty of time responding to you, you haven’t been able to reply to any of the points I made.
Plenty of men are powerless, but men are not oppressed as men, for you to convince me otherwise you will have to show me an oppression that potentially any man can suffer from (not just poor men, or disabled men, or gay men, or men belonging to the wrong race/religion/caste in their particular locale), and is not caused by other men (remember, men still control all the worlds major institutions). For you to convince me that men are oppressed as men, you will have to show me women enacting a form of oppression against them.
LikeLike
You mean points like “you just made that up”? That is not a “point” at all.
Why is it relevant that women are the oppressors? The definition of “oppression” requires no qualifier in the identity of the protagonist.
Nonetheless I can come up with an example that meets your requirements:
Feminism is the authority on gender issues. No other movement comes close. Men are frequently denied a voice in feminist circles (in my country men aren’t even allowed to vote a gender equality representative which effectively gives women more voting rights than men) by women.
The result is that men have far less representation and means of getting attention to male specific gender issues.
Now here’s an interesting and very pertinent consequence:
Assuming for one moment that you are right and men are absolutely not oppressed. Now here’s the cracker: If men ever did start getting oppressed (by whomever), them not having a voice in gender issues, means that the population will never become aware of this oppression. So even if men “one day” become oppressed by YOUR requirements of what constitutes oppression, there will still be a majority of people like you who deny it just as there is today.
What we have learned from this:
As long as men don’t have an equal voice on gender issues, we will never really know how men’s gender issues affect them (and consequently women) and therefore never know how oppressed they are or aren’t.
LikeLike
I never said “you just made that up”, I asked you to cite a source for your medical study, which is not unreasonable.
“Men are frequently denied a voice in feminist circles.”
So the fact that women aren’t prepared to listen to men whine about themselves within a movement that is about the liberation of women ‘proves’ that men are oppressed as men? Are you really saying that women oppress men when they don’t place men at the centre of the universe and spend all their energies pandering to men’s fragile little egos?
I’m not sure what you’re getting at with this ‘gender equality representative’ thing. Is this a national thing, a state level thing, something that happens on college campuses? Are you trying to tell me there’s a national vote in the US (I’m assuming you’re in the US) where women can vote and men can’t?
I’m going to assume that you are talking about ‘gender equality representatives’ on college campuses or in the workplace.
Men can’t vote for them because they are not representing men, should a majority population of white racists be allowed to vote in the person who speaks on behalf of a disadvantaged black minority?
The idea that this puts men ‘in danger’ because at some future date, in some SF fantasy, when men are being oppressed as men, no one will know or be able to hear them is just daft – we hear from men all the time, you’re talking as if women control the mainstream narrative, we don’t, hence the need for ‘gender equality representatives’ in the first place. Men are in no danger of not being heard, because they run the bloody show.
The only examples you’ve been able to come up with of men oppressed as men are fantasies, fantasies of a ‘chivalrous’ past, and fantasies of a distopian future when men aren’t ‘heard’.
The only example of women oppressing men you can come up with is whining about how women aren’t giving men the attention men feel they are entitled to.
LikeLike
Adi, how will having male ‘gender equality representatives’ on college campuses help when the Feminazis violently rise up and install a Misandric Matriarchal Wombarchy? How will ‘male voices in feminism’ be able to do anything for the poor downtrodden men under this New World Order?
LikeLike
Plenty of men are powerless, but men are not oppressed as men, for you to convince me otherwise you will have to show me an oppression that potentially any man can suffer from (not just poor men, or disabled men, or gay men, or men belonging to the wrong race/religion/caste in their particular locale), and is not caused by other men (remember, men still control all the worlds major institutions). For you to convince me that men are oppressed as men, you will have to show me women enacting a form of oppression against them.
Women that:
1. Take advantage of the anti-father sentiment in family courts.
2. Take advantage of how they can falsely accuse a man of crimes in order to cover their own asses.
3. Expect men to be their provider and take care of them in an economic sense and go to lengths to maintain that status.
4. Try to take advantage of the “but he’s a man so he wants sex all the time” mentality to justify having sex on her terms and her terms only.
and one more thing….when you mention gay men in your examples of men that don’t count bare this in mind.
5. Sexual orientation is very much tied to gender for a lot of people so when you discriminate against a man because he’s gay you are discriminating against him because of his gender AND sexual orientation. Unless you want to turn around and say that the anti-gay sentiment towards lesbians has nothing to do with their gender….
Basically you’re trying to claim that oppression against men doesn’t exist by simply saying “it doesn’t exist”. Reminds me of the time that I read a feminist that wrote a post saying that misandry doesn’t exist…by using misandry to deny the experiences of men.
LikeLike
“2. Take advantage of how they can falsely accuse a man of crimes in order to cover their own asses.”
I’m sorry but that is some truly ugly bullshit right there and I’m calling you on it. You are obviously referring to the myth that women are left and right ruining men’s lives with false rape accusations, and even if you didn’t mean that specifically, you certainly sound like the million assholes who do feel that this is a real social epidemic. Please never ever do that again that is downright low.
As for the rest of this: yes, we know, women have certain “advantages” within patriarchal social systems. I don’t think I’m exaggerating to say that most if not all feminists already feel that women who exploit such things are hurting the cause.
By the way, y’all, feminists – at least as I understand feminism, which is as Clarissa defines it: the effort to end discrimination and oppression based on sex and gender – know that sexism and the social demands of gender impoverish the lives of most people, male and female. What I don’t appreciate is how often feminism is attacked for not doing enough for men, as if that were an indictment of the entire movement. You may not realize it but such criticisms are very common – appearing in just about every feminism thread I’ve ever read that involved men – and have the effect of implying that women’s issues cannot be dealt with unless men’s are taken care of first … with the added condescending implication that feminists are somehow too involved in their big soppy vagina party to realize that gender is a two-[or more]-way street. Men’s issues with sex-based discrimination absolutely need to be addressed, but dealing with them is not required of absolutely every feminist discussion.
Adi, where do you live? I’d like to know if these “gender equality representatives” are somehow preferentially enfranchised in actual political arenas above and beyond your average citizen voting for real government offices. Otherwise, please, please drop the bullshit hypothetical matriarchal man-eating world domination what-if crap. If it actually starts showing a demonstrable effect on society, we’ll have to deal with that problem, but I seriously doubt you’ll ever have to really worry about S.C.U.M.
LikeLike
I realize I’ve made a blanket statement about feminists projecting my own point of view. I hate the word “all” so I’ll try to be more honest. I don’t know and can’t say for certain that all who call themselves feminist actually know that gender discrimination hurts everybody, or that we can’t forget men. I mean really, we can’t forget men. It is literally impossible. [They’re just so cute.] I just assume it is the case that feminists take this for granted, but there’s some weirdos out there.
The thing is: as feminist efforts to undo gender discrimination continue – and hopefully attract more women and men to the work – many of the gendery things that impoverish men, like the image of “man” as unemotional, unrapeable, untakecareofchildrenable, give-him-a-gun-and-send-him-to-kill-and-die, etc. and the social and political systems built around such images, are likely to disappear in the process. And that’s not just putting guy problems aside to fend for themselves. That’s likely to happen [someday? I pray?] because feminism is about addressing the ideas and systems that construct restrictive and hurtful images of gender, in addition to helping those being hurt right now.
We’re working on it, man. Help us out.
LikeLike
Thanks. Upon reflection, one of the defining factors of being “Western” is denying me my perceptions. “You can’t have that perception. It’s stereotyping and hurtful.” If anyone does this to me, I realise the person has a Western identity, at least in the way they experience the world. Other nations haven’t learned this particular form of emotional blackmail.
LikeLike
You can have all the perceptions you want jennifer. I approve. Emotional blackmail????? Haha, that’s a good one. Who is whining and looking for sympathy now? I just asked you to please be specific. Are these tourists you’ve met? Authors of books? Both those categories would be from a particular class of women. I guess Australia counts as Western, but again, you could say “Australian women”, as there are differences. That is going to give you a very specific impression that has nothing to do with me, or even the majority of Western women. Look how Talis is being savaged here for allegedly using 3rd world women to bolster an argument. But of course, “western women” are spoiled etc so it’s okay to use them to bolster arguments. Fine, go ahead, just thought I’d take a stab at asking. I know it is extremely important to your identity to contrast yourself to this archetype, or whatever it is. And just by questioning the stereotype I’ve proven what an emotional blackmailing western women I am. A neat trick.
LikeLike
“denying me my perceptions”
There was no denial. I asked a question.
“ stereotyping and hurtful.”
It is unhelpful, unenlightening. I never claimed it was “hurtful”. We are on a blog. I take nothing here personally.
It is also hypocritical, since there is a lot of complaining around here about “western women” negatively stereotyping others.
“If anyone does this to me, I realise the person has a Western identity, at least in the way they experience the world.”
Right. When “Western women” make this complaint it defines them as obviously western women. When any other woman makes this complaint she is accurately and legitimately describing her experience.
” Other nations haven’t learned this particular form of emotional blackmail.”
I think they are pretty good at it, actually. 🙂
LikeLike
Fair enough. Still, pointing out limitations with a general methodology isn’t very helpful at this point – especially since you only took my brief description of the methodology and not actually any of the steps themselves (or do you think the observation that the vast majority of work related deaths are men is flawed?). Perhaps my description was wrong and it wasn’t just empirical. Perhaps it’s theoretical and logically conclusive. I haven’t decided yet.
LikeLike
I said men being averagely more risk taking, will necessarily result in a majority of men in the most high status, influential and powerful positions.
Only the part that men are currently (and historically) in that position is observational. The part that being more willing to take risks (on average) is not an observation but a logical consequence. In general, any large group of people (male or female or anything else) that averagely takes more risks will dominate the most sought after and competitive achievements relative to groups that take less risks. The gender disparity is just a specialized example of that.
LikeLike
@ Talis
Time to call it a day. No it’s not conceding anything as you will no doubt try to claim. Anyone who reads your last comment and the one it’s responding to can see that any attempt at discussion is a waste of time. Fortunately, people with such a pitiful mindset as yours will never have much influence in the world and that’s not because of oppression or discrimination as you’ve been telling yourself in order to comfort yourself.
One good thing came out of this and that is that you unwittingly helped demonstrate why mistrust and criticism of feminists is quite justified.
LikeLike
Poor poor Adi, poor poor whiny little man!
I ask you to cite the scientific study which you claims proves something and you can’t!
I call you out on citing the Onion as if it were a source of straight information and you deny you were doing it!
I ask you to explain how asking full grown men not to trample small children during an evacuation is an ‘anti-male’ bias, and you can’t!
I ask you to explain what voting system where you were actually referring to when you claim that men are being denied voting rights for electing ‘gender equality representatives’ and you can’t!
I ask you to come up with one example of men oppressed as men that wasn’t based on an historical or SF fantasy and you can’t!
Poor poor little man.
LikeLike
I would have had no difficulty in comprehending this simple statement if you hadn’t spammed the fuck out of this thread forcing the ratio of information to spam so high that it isn’t actually worth reading in full.
How much of the “content” you have posted actually deals with the original topic?
LikeLike
The topic moved on, I was responding to the claim that men and women suffered equally under the patriarchy.
The ‘spam’ was my own, understandable, frustration at Clarissa for never directly addressing anything I said, no mater how ‘on topic’ it was, preferring instead to call me a ‘crazed parrot’ and a ‘freakazoid’.
LikeLike
This is a time honored technique on the blogs. If you answer each and every attack they whine that you are derailing or ‘spamming’. What they want is for you to shut up and scurry away with your tail between your legs when they start piling on. So don’t worry about accusations of ‘spamming’. I agree, Talis was mostly responding to attacks.
LikeLike
” For you to convince me that men are oppressed as men, you will have to show me women enacting a form of oppression against them.”
– And that’s the greatest mistake right here. This isn’t about men oppressing women and women oppressing men. It’s about the system of gender stereotypes and gender binaries that oppresses PEOPLE.
LikeLike
If after this thread it has not become clear that Thalis is no feminist, then things are, indeed, hopeless.
LikeLike
Dont kid yourself Clarissa, she/he is a feminist, just not the kind you like. 😉
LikeLike
“Dont kid yourself Clarissa, she/he is a feminist, just not the kind you like. ”
– As we say in my culture, then I’m the Sultan of Brunei. 🙂
LikeLike
Da! 🙂
LikeLike
Clarissa, you said this:
“However, in and of itself the risky nature of childbirth can only be evidence of gender discrimination if you believe that the discriminating agent is nature itself. If that’s what you believe, then you have to be guided by a hatred of female body. There is no other reasonable explanation.”
In response I said this:
“I see now Clarissa, you have managed to misread or ignore every thing I have actually said on the subject of maternal health and maternal mortality rates.
“Maternal health plays a role in maternal mortality rates; in many countries in the developing world, women are systematically, from birth, because they are female, denied nutrition and medical care, this results in overall poor health which means a higher risk of complications and death in child birth.
“Also, in many countries (not just in the developing world) women are denied access to birth control and abortions, and are in unequal relationships where they cannot say no to sex or demand the use of birth control, this results in women becoming, and being forced to remain, pregnant when that pregnancy is high risk and may result in their death. Forced pregnancy is, unequivocally, a gendered issue.
“Or are you saying that malnutrition, rape, forced pregnancy and lack of health care are part of the ‘natural’ risks involved in childbirth?”
Your response was this:
“And I rest my case. It is all back to pitying 3rd world women in a thread dedicated to American male feminists.”
You made a nasty accusation against me that I ‘hated women’ and used my claim that women dying in childbirth was a gendered issue, as ‘proof’. When I refuted your accusation, you ignored that completely.
Any half-decent human being would have withdrawn their accusation.
LikeLike
Buddy, concentrate: you either provide a quote where I say anything whatsoever about “maternal mortality rates” or buzz off the blog.
LikeLike
“In 1997, women held half of foundation CEO positions, 68% of program officer posts and 93% of support staff positions, according to a 1998 Council on Foundations survey of 667 foundations and corporate giving programs. According to information released by the INTEREP Radio Store, women 18 years and older control about half of the investment wealth in the United States. Women own 43% of stock portfolios valued over $50,000, and 45% of investments in other markets. At the same time, the non-profit philanthropic sector is becoming an increasingly important part of the U.S. Economy. According to new data, the nonprofit sector accounts for 8% of the nation’s Gross Domestic Product and employs nearly 10% of the work force — more than federal and state governments combined.
Women have expanded their philanthropic pursuits at home as well, and in interesting ways. According to a poll of 1,000 voters conducted jointly by Celinda Lake and Linda DiVall (the top female Democrat and Republican pollsters) for To The Contrary, Americans have an inaccurate picture of giving by women and minorities. While men as a group may earn more money, women make more of the critical decisions about household purchasing and exercise control over many family financial resources. Women actually control 51.3% of percent wealth in the United States.”
http://www.pbs.org/ttc/headlines_economics_philanthropy.html
LikeLike
“Women actually control 51.3% of percent wealth in the United States.”
– Really? That little? It would have definitely been over 80% in the country where I grew up. We had a lot less wealth collectively, of course.
LikeLike
Ah, I get it, the secret to power is marrying a billionaire, or beaming myself into a rich family, and I can give more money away than my brothers. Maybe one day I will be reincarnated as a Walton sibling and I can open a museum!
My favorite is “93% of support staff positions” haha.
LikeLike
“Ah, I get it, the secret to power is marrying a billionaire, or beaming myself into a rich family, and I can give more money away than my brothers.”
– My mother didn’t marry a billionaire. She is a housewife. But she controls all of the family’s finances and always has. My father sometimes gets a beer allowance. If he behaves well. I don’t know a single family where it isn’t the same way, and I don’t even know any billionaires. In my and N.’s family it’s different and I keep hearing what a loser I am for allowing him to control his own money. If it’s different in the families you know, please share. I’m sincerely interested.
LikeLike
So she obtained financial power by marrying your father and then manipulating him as he was a child. No thanks.
LikeLike
“So she obtained financial power by marrying your father and then manipulating him as he was a child. No thanks.”
– You think I praise this way of life, or something? I hate it with all my might. But it isn’t about how I feel or how you feel. It’s about the fact that this is the reality for many people. My mother could easily be making a lot more than my father. Easily. But she chooses not to because who needs all that trouble?
And as a result of this stereotype of man as a provider, both men and women suffer. In different ways but equally. Which is kind of the point of this entire post.
LikeLike
Im curious if any of the theorists in magic land actually encounter even 1 tenth of the nasty gender stuff they claim happens out in the real world?? That question goes out to both male and female that inhabit Clarissa’s fine blog. 🙂
LikeLike
Now this is a good question. I think it should go into a separate thread because it’s so good. Thank you, Titfortat!
LikeLike
LikeLike
“they claim happens out in the real world?? ”
You deny that these things happen?
LikeLike
““they claim happens out in the real world?? ”
You deny that these things happen?”
– We have a separate thread for this discussion. Feel free to join: https://clarissasblog.com/2011/12/31/gender-issues-in-our-lives-a-semi-open-thread/
LikeLike
“Buddy, concentrate: you either provide a quote where I say anything whatsoever about “maternal mortality rates” or buzz off the blog.”
Clarissa, I do not believe you are actually that stupid, so this must be wilful, spiteful, sophistry.
You accused me of ‘hating women’ when I talked about maternal mortality rates, your explanation for me ‘hating women’ was that childbirth was naturally risky, so I must hate women’s bodies for thinking death in childbirth was anything to do with women’s oppression as women.
I demonstrated how women are systematically denied nutrition, denied health care, denied control of their own fertility, and how this contributed to maternal mortality rates.
Instead of responding to any of the points I had made you said: “And I rest my case. It is all back to pitying 3rd world women in a thread dedicated to American male feminists.”
By deliberately ignoring everything I had said about maternal mortality rates in order to refute your accusation that I ‘hated women’, you were ‘saying something’ – you were saying that you weren’t even going to try coming up with a response to what I said, instead you throw out a glib statement that ignored everything I’d actually said.
As I said before, any half-decent human being, at that point, would have withdrawn the accusation that, because I talked about maternal mortality rates, I ‘hated women’.
LikeLike
Buddy, concentrate: you either provide a quote where I say anything whatsoever about “maternal mortality rates” or buzz off the blog.
Is it clearer now? Or do I need to repeat it for the 4th time?
LikeLike
@ Clarissa
So you’re selective. When you deem it “obvious” then it’s real otherwise it’s just propaganda. That makes your judgement on this matter more than a little unreliable.
We’re talking about people’s choices which obviously requires that they have a choice otherwise the pattern will be obscured. That’s very interesting info on the USSR though so thanks for that.
I realize that there is socialization involved but I cannot understand this religious insistence that socialization is the reason for all differences. You even conceded that physiological differences are not due to socialization. But physiology and psychology are fundamentally connected. The brain, for example, is a physical body part and has confirmed to have physical differences between men and women. But it is in the brain where behavior is controlled. To deny the possibility of small behavioral differences (which accumulate when comparing larger groups) is just absurd. It defies common sense.
How about this, scratch humans and look at animals. Anyone who’s had a male and a female dog will confirm that they are very different in behavior. Same with many other species. How will you manage to ascribe that to socialization? Only the male nightingale sings. The PATRIARCHY did it. Come on!
I understand that feminists fear that conceding that such differences exist, might give people grounds for gender discriminatory politics. I absolutely share that fear. I also understand that such cheap reasoning has been what feminism has had to fight for decades which is probably why it’s so hard to move on. Nonetheless, those fears should not let us stand in the way of the truth.
LikeLike
“So you’re selective. When you deem it “obvious” then it’s real otherwise it’s just propaganda. That makes your judgement on this matter more than a little unreliable.”
– I said only 500 times on this blog that there are no differences between men and women except the obviously physiological ones.
“The brain, for example, is a physical body part and has confirmed to have physical differences between men and women. But it is in the brain where behavior is controlled. To deny the possibility of small behavioral differences (which accumulate when comparing larger groups) is just absurd. It defies common sense.”
– The most recent research on the subject has been able to uncover not a single difference between men and women apart from the obvious physiological ones. There is a mountain of bibliography on that on this very blog. For now, science has not found a single demonstrable differences in thinking, preferences, behaviors, etc. that are consistent among women as opposed to men. Not a single one. That’s science. Which has defied what is known as “common sense” since the XVIIIth century. I have a mountain of bibliography on that, too.
“How about this, scratch humans and look at animals. Anyone who’s had a male and a female dog will confirm that they are very different in behavior.”
– I have no interest in discussing animal life. I’m not a biologist, and I suspect you are neither.
“Nonetheless, those fears should not let us stand in the way of the truth.”
– Tell that to scientists.
LikeLike
Clarissa,
You talked about death in childbirth, that’s the same as maternal mortality rates, they are two different ways of talking about the same thing.
You are only engaging in this pathetic pedantry because you know you’ve lost the argument.
Your accusation that I ‘hate women’ doesn’t stand up, I’ve refuted it completely, but you would rather look like a spiteful, pathetic, idiot than withdraw your accusation.
LikeLike
“You talked about death in childbirth, that’s the same as maternal mortality rates, they are two different ways of talking about the same thing.”
– No, it isn’t and no they aren’t. Please look up the definition of the word “rate” in a dictionary and stop annoying me with your illiterate explorations of non-existent synonymities. Being careful with terminology is what defines an intelligent person. Do you remember what I told you about low culture of discussion that characterizes you? Substituting the terms other people use with your own based on a synonymity that only you perceive is evidence of that.
LikeLike
You lost Clarissa, I refuted your claim that I ‘hate women’ completely, and anyone with half a brain (including you) can see that.
Only an idiot would think that ignoring what I’d said would somehow cover up that I was right.
Anyone with any self-respect would withdraw the accusation, but you’d rather look like a spiteful, pathetic idiot.
LikeLike
Seriously, your pedantry is ridiculous, we were talking about what happens to women when they give birth, the risk of something happening is related to the rate at which it happens – Oh no!! We’re back to statistics again, and you’ve already proved wonderfully that you have no clue about statistics!
LikeLike
All this hoop-la! Like I said before, you’d rather argue that black is white till the end of time than back down and admit you were wrong about something.
And you claim to have a high quality culture of discussion!
LikeLike
All this demanding that I find some precise quote is just a pathetic attempt to cover up that I proved you wrong!
You accused me of ‘hating women’, you gave your reasons for your accusation, and I refuted them.
Your response was to ignore my refutation, when anyone with half a brain and an ounce of self-respect would have withdrawn the accusation.
You are viciously viciously stupid.
LikeLike
Buddy, take your half a brain and your ounce of self-respect and buzz off already, shall you? Here we only welcome people with complete brains and healthy self-respect.
LikeLike
Clarissa,
You made a nasty, vicious accusation against me, I refuted your accusation, and all you can do is ignore my refutation and tell me to buzz off!
You lost, I’m right, and you’re too vicious and pathetic and stupid to even withdraw your accusation.
LikeLike
I think you might be so stupid that you can’t even remember the original discussion, so I think it would be best to post it again, so you can find it easily!
You said:
“However, in and of itself the risky nature of childbirth can only be evidence of gender discrimination if you believe that the discriminating agent is nature itself. If that’s what you believe, then you have to be guided by a hatred of female body. There is no other reasonable explanation.”
So I said:
“I see now Clarissa, you have managed to misread or ignore every thing I have actually said on the subject of maternal health and maternal mortality rates.
“Maternal health plays a role in maternal mortality rates; in many countries in the developing world, women are systematically, from birth, because they are female, denied nutrition and medical care, this results in overall poor health which means a higher risk of complications and death in child birth.
“Also, in many countries (not just in the developing world) women are denied access to birth control and abortions, and are in unequal relationships where they cannot say no to sex or demand the use of birth control, this results in women becoming, and being forced to remain, pregnant when that pregnancy is high risk and may result in their death. Forced pregnancy is, unequivocally, a gendered issue.
“Or are you saying that malnutrition, rape, forced pregnancy and lack of health care are part of the ‘natural’ risks involved in childbirth?”
See what I did there Clarissa, I refuted your argument completely!
LikeLike
I notice, also, that you don’t have any comeback regarding the connection between the risk of something happening, and the rate at which that thing happens.
But then you are an idiot.
LikeLike
“Oh yeah, here’s another one, dying in childbirth, no man ever died in childbirth, are y’all willing to sign up for that ‘privilege’ along with your fantasy seat on a made-up life boat”
– This is what I consider to be a woman-hating statement. Feel better now? Note how no “mortality rates” are mentioned here. Just the fact of being able to give birth that women possess (and the attendant grave risks) are something you see as “a male privilege.” The greatest and most unique capacity of female physiology is “male privilege.” For me, that’s woman-hating at its greatest. This statement insults me as a woman, no matter who makes it.
LikeLike
“Note how no “mortality rates” are mentioned here.”
But then she did a pretty good job of clarifying her statement; yet you chose to ignore that clarification. Why? Oh, that’s right. Because it is your blog.
LikeLike
And on the difference between maternal mortality rates and the risk of dying in childbirth. Mortality rates are socially constructed. They are a product of human behavior in societies which is why they vary so greatly from one society to another, from one social class to another. The risk attendant on any childbirth is not manufactured by humans, however.
Let’s take the richest woman in the world as an example. She can have the best pre and post-natal care in the universe, a team of brilliant doctors and still there is a risk of dying in childbirth even for her. That risk can be minimized but it still exists. I hope nobody is going to argue with this at least.
The good news is that there are now places in the world where women can choose never to give birth and to avoid this issue altogether. Hopefully, one day we will achieve this for the entire planet. Even then, though, the risk of dying in childbirth will be present every time a woman decides to give birth. It’s a fact of nature. Maybe at some point medical science will come up with an alternative. For now, however, this risk is a part of female physiology.
Is this, at least, somewhat clearer or not? A simple yes or no would suffice.
LikeLike
I wonder of those who consider vagina vs penis, how many consider that in terms of biology and gestating foetuses, make and female external genitalia are one and the same? Do they consider what defines the genders other than societies roles for them?
LikeLike
P. rhoeas
I’m sorry but that is some truly ugly bullshit right there and I’m calling you on it. You are obviously referring to the myth that women are left and right ruining men’s lives with false rape accusations, and even if you didn’t mean that specifically, you certainly sound like the million assholes who do feel that this is a real social epidemic. Please never ever do that again that is downright low.
No I sound like someone who is pointing out the fact that it actually does happen. And as far as I recall I didn’t say anything about how often it happens. You on the other hand have chosen to add “left and right….” to the mix and then try to call me on it.
So how about this? Prove to me that no woman has ever don’t this I won’t being it up again. Until such time I dare say that you are the one that sounds like one of the millions of assholes that accuse people of claiming an epidemic in an effort to get them to be quiet about something just because they don’t think it happens.
As for the rest of this: yes, we know, women have certain “advantages” within patriarchal social systems. I don’t think I’m exaggerating to say that most if not all feminists already feel that women who exploit such things are hurting the cause.
And now I’m gonna call some bullshit on you. You have the nerve to accuse me of going low and then you turn around and put advantages in scare quotes? Damn that. I’ll believe that “most if not all feminists” feel that way when they quit trying to twist the very language of the discourse to make women look like eternal victims and basically tell men, “yeah that sucks but women have it worse”.
Its still a very popular belief among feminists that there is no such thing as female against male sexism and/or that female privilege doesn’t exist. When that belief is on a noticeable decline then I may take your claim seriously.
By the way, y’all, feminists – at least as I understand feminism, which is as Clarissa defines it: the effort to end discrimination and oppression based on sex and gender – know that sexism and the social demands of gender impoverish the lives of most people, male and female.
So why the belief that there is no such thing as female against male sexism? Oh and I’ve also noticed that Clarissa is no stranger to being at odds with other feminists. Funny thing is folks like ballgame (Feminist Critics), Daisy (Daisy Deadhead), and April (Ethecofem) seem to find themselves at odds with some of the larger feminist communities.
But of course at the end of the day its never something that feminists need to look at amongst themselves right? No its always the non-feminists, men, anti-feminists, etc….
What I don’t appreciate is how often feminism is attacked for not doing enough for men, as if that were an indictment of the entire movement. You may not realize it but such criticisms are very common – appearing in just about every feminism thread I’ve ever read that involved men – and have the effect of implying that women’s issues cannot be dealt with unless men’s are taken care of first … with the added condescending implication that feminists are somehow too involved in their big soppy vagina party to realize that gender is a two-[or more]-way street. Men’s issues with sex-based discrimination absolutely need to be addressed, but dealing with them is not required of absolutely every feminist discussion.
Oh I agree. That’s part of why I started up my own blog. And that’s also when I noticed that some feminists think that a man talking about the issues that men face is still the enemy if he isn’t trying to work under the banner of feminism. Yeah apparently feminists shouldn’t be expected to do due diligence on men’s issues but it should still be believe that they are “the only ones” trying to have those conversations.
If you don’t want to have the conversation don’t get mad when I go somewhere else and have it myself.
And believe me when I say that when it comes to condescension feminists are the only ones the receiving end of it.
LikeLike
“Prove to me that no woman has ever don’t this I won’t being it up again.”
Up to this point I was feeling a little bad that I was being so confrontational. I thought, maybe he didn’t really mean the thing where it’s assumed that a woman would go through the hell of making a rape accusation and trial – opening herself up to accusations of lying, cross-examination of her sexual history, and slut-shaming, all in the likely event that nothing will be proven – to score a point against a guy. So much for that!
I mean, not to say it hasn’t ever happened in the history of all time and space, or that it’s not terrible when it does happen, but the myth is widespread, out of proportion, and hurtful to all women, most of whom are, surprise, sane beings who would never ever do something so hideous as fake a rape accusation.
Unless this has actually happened to you or someone with whom you are close in which case please share for data collection purposes.
“scare quotes”
From my point of view advantage is only superficially the correct term. Any idiot who exploits restrictive gender roles for personal gain is doing harm to everyone, themselves included.
“if he isn’t trying to work under the banner of feminism.”
Well you don’t have to call yourself a feminist but to turn the tables on you a little if you don’t care about women’s issues and you think that women are out to get men then we’ll just never get along.
“why the belief that there is no such thing as female against male sexism”
That’s sure not a thing I ever said.
“being at odds with other feminists.”
Mea culpa there. I did make a blanket statement projecting what I, personally, think feminism is. But I guess it’s just that, if one doesn’t think that discrimination, oppression, and violence based on gender is bad for everybody [taking into account that it’s bad for men and women in different ways] then I don’t see how one can call oneself a feminist.
“If you don’t want to have the conversation don’t get mad when I go somewhere else and have it myself.”
No I’m down. The idea that men cannot be abused is awful and there should absolutely be support services in place for abused men. Preferential treatment of mothers over fathers and female over male family members is also awful and family law where this is the case needs to be corrected. Do we disagree at all? Not on those and similar points, I’m sure. Where I take issue is your perpetuation of hurtful myths about women in your hurry to educate about guy’s issues, and the way you bring that to the table in the same breath as to say that feminism is worthy only of condescension. It’s just that kind of hateful crap that taints any good ideas you have and makes men’s issues seem like an attack on feminism, rather than something that is in fact within the scope of feminist core principles.
LikeLike
I thought, maybe he didn’t really mean the thing where it’s assumed that a woman would go through the hell of making a rape accusation and trial – opening herself up to accusations of lying, cross-examination of her sexual history, and slut-shaming, all in the likely event that nothing will be proven – to score a point against a guy. So much for that!
No I’m talking about the thing where evidence shows that that could be what happened. Such as this (http://dannyscorneroftheuniverse.blogspot.com/2010/02/i-am-so-glad-biurny-peguero-didnt-get.html). A woman makes up a rape allegation that resulted in an innocent man being sentenced to 20 years and actually serving 4 before she came clean. Oh and there’s the fact that she tried to work out a deal so that she could come clean to get him out of prison but have immunity to being prosecuted for what she did. And apparently some of the folks at Feministing had a problem with it being front page news. You’d think that activists that constantly claim to care about equality for all people would be glad to see a man who was convicted of a crime that NEVER HAPPENED be released and someone take a moment to point out how its fact that this stuff happens. But no it should not be front page attention.
Unless this has actually happened to you or someone with whom you are close in which case please share for data collection purposes.
It hasn’t happened but I almost witnessed it happen. Back in college a friend of mine had started messing around with a woman and at some point they eventually took it to a sexual level. Shortly after they had a falling out. Some time after that in front of myself and about 3 other people (but not the guy in question) she says, “Well I could accuse of raping me.” And started smiling. To this day I’m convinced the only reason she didn’t follow through is because we said we’d testify against her.
If a woman has been raped she doesn’t save it for a rainy day when the guy pisses her off. She might be too scared to speak up but I’m pretty sure she doesn’t smile at the thought of accusing the guy of rape later on.
From my point of view advantage is only superficially the correct term. Any idiot who exploits restrictive gender roles for personal gain is doing harm to everyone, themselves included.
So you’d use them when talking about such advantages that men have? If that’s the case then so be it. It just bothers me when people will seriously speak of one gender having advantages while the speaking of the other in those quotes as if said advantages don’t exist. And in my experience people use quotes when talking about advantages their own gender has.
Well you don’t have to call yourself a feminist but to turn the tables on you a little if you don’t care about women’s issues and you think that women are out to get men then we’ll just never get along.
Agreed.
That’s sure not a thing I ever said.
True. I should have made that a general question as to why such a belief is so widely accepted among feminists.
But I guess it’s just that, if one doesn’t think that discrimination, oppression, and violence based on gender is bad for everybody [taking into account that it’s bad for men and women in different ways] then I don’t see how one can call oneself a feminist.
I can agree with that. What bothers me is that so many people that call themselves feminists have such discriminatory ideas (such as “there’s no such thing as sexism against men”) and for the most part either they don’t get called on it or when someone does that person is cast out. I’ve even seen other feminists get raked over the coals for practicing the inclusiveness that others preach (for show I guess).
And truthfully I would probably get along with feminists better if they weren’t so hell bent on trying to define men’s experiences for us while at the same time reserving the right to not touch our issues with a ten foot pole. Kinda like “That sucks and all but its not sexism or oppression. Oh you want to talk about it? Why would I want to do that?”
No I’m down. The idea that men cannot be abused is awful and there should absolutely be support services in place for abused men. Preferential treatment of mothers over fathers and female over male family members is also awful and family law where this is the case needs to be corrected. Do we disagree at all?
On what you say here no I don’t disagree.
Where I take issue is your perpetuation of hurtful myths about women in your hurry to educate about guy’s issues, and the way you bring that to the table in the same breath as to say that feminism is worthy only of condescension.
And exactly what “hurtful myths about women” have I mentioned? There are stories of women who make false accusations of rape against men for their personal gain. Child abuse allegations during divorce cases? I’m not wasting time arguing over how often it happens but fact of the matter is it does happen. (Make your own opinion about the commentary but check out False Rape Society, they come across quite a few of these stories.)
It’s just that kind of hateful crap that taints any good ideas you have and makes men’s issues seem like an attack on feminism, rather than something that is in fact within the scope of feminist core principles.
About par for the course. I’ve tried talking peacefully, and all I ever got was silence and complaints. I let some hatred come to the surface and all of a sudden that’s the only reason people think I exist.
LikeLike
I’m quite curious how many times this Talis person will continue to say “Clarissa, Clarissa, Clarissa” and “You are ridiculous.”
LikeLike
I came back out of morbid curiosity, and, well, yuck, but it serves me right really, for exposing myself again to this toxic dump of a blog.
There is no logical or rational connection between anything I have said about women dying in child birth and the disgusting accusations you have made against me; you decided that was how you were going to attack me, and then you tried to manufacture ‘proof’.
It’s quite pathetic really, I don’t know who you imagine you are fooling with this very obvious sophistry, except, of course, for the idiots who read your blog regularly and think that you’re clever.
I doubt you could make an intellectually honest argument even if your life depended on it.
LikeLike
@Talis
Back for more I see. You fit this quote perfectly.
“Misery loves company” 🙂
LikeLike
“Hedhehogs were climbing a cactus. They kept pricking themselves and crying, but they kept climbing the cactus.”
“Dear visitors of our zoo! Please don’t scare the ostrich because the floor in the cage is made of metal.”
LikeLike
I have no idea who you are, you weird creature. What accusations? What are you blabbering about?
There are many weird people in the world.
LikeLike
I said that the risk of death in childbirth was one of the ways that women were oppressed.
You said that the risk of death in childbirth was only ‘natural’ or innate, and therefore I hated women.
I clearly demonstrated the numerous ways in which the risk of death in childbirth is affected by women’s second-class status, and was clearly not just ‘natural’ or innate.
You engaged in a bizarre semantic argument, trying to claim that only risks that were ‘natural’ could be called ‘risks’. You also showed real contempt for the conditions of millions of women around the world.
Your arrogance and dishonesty are staggering.
LikeLike
And still nothing has happened in Talis’s life since an ancient discussion on Clarissa’s Blog.
LikeLike
Clarissa, why not do the decent thing and withdraw your accusation? It is very obvious that I do not think women are discriminated against by nature, and nor do I hate women.
It still amazes me that someone who is an academic in real life, and therefore must have some degree of intelligence, chooses here a rhetorical style that is so ignorant and anti-intellectual.
LikeLike
You are a stupid, miserable freak of a person who doesn’t have a life and who trolls other people’s blogs to pretend she does. You are a very pathetic creature if you think that anybody cares about you enough to reread some ancient discussion and remember what it was even about. You are not worth the effort because you are nothing but an annoying insect. 🙂
LikeLike
I really do wonder how you manage to get by in the real world, given how full of shit you are.
You prefer name-calling, sophistry and constructing straw women to attack over any kind of nuanced or honest debate, and you are too arrogant, dishonest and cowardly to even acknowledge when someone you disagree with is right about something.
I feel genuinely sorry for anyone who has the misfortune of encountering you.
LikeLike
What, the resident freak has its regular bout of hysteria?
Or is it some new freak?
Funny.
LikeLike
All this name-calling is really pathetic, it’s just a cover for the fact that you’re not intelligent enough to come up with any decent arguments.
You pontificate at large on subjects you obviously know very little about, and offer theories so simplistic they would be laughable coming from a high-school student.
If anyone disagrees with you, you accuse them of wanting to ‘police’ this or that, or of ‘hating’ something or other, with only the flimsiest of rationales, while simultaneously spending a lot of time telling women, and feminists in particular, what you think they should and shouldn’t be thinking, feeling and doing.
Do you have any self-awareness at all?
LikeLike