More on feminism

[liv]

I'm posting this partly because I want to reanimate the discussion on feminism that's probably long ago fallen off friends pages by now. There's lots of interesting stuff going on, and I do intend to get back to all the ongoing discussions. But also I wanted to note that I've happened to come across while surfing an example that really illustrates some of the stuff I was complaining about (and is also interesting in its own right).

Backstory: I was browsing ginmar's journal when I came upon some Drama. And I'm the sort of person that can't abide having incomplete information about anything (as well as, I will admit, being a bit of a rubberneck) so I followed up links here and there to try and piece together what the row was about. My understanding is that ginmar posted a rant about a feminist topic, and some people took offence at her rant, and ginmar felt got at by all the people who misread her post as an attack on them when it was really an attack on society's sexism. There was a bit of a classic pile-on effect and it all seems to have turned nasty. Flamewars happen; they're not a characteristic of feminists, but rather a characteristic of internet discussion groups, and LJ I think exacerbates the problem compared to many other kinds of discussion forum. I suppose the difference with feminist flamewars is that the main insult being thrown around is 'misogynist', but hey, now that I've satisfied my curiosity I'm not interested in the Drama any further (and certainly don't want to take sides).

Anyway, in trying to work out what was going on, I came across a very interesting person called elke_tanzer. elke_tanzer's response was to try to figure out a way to use LJ for discussions about emotive feminist topics, in a way that would promote activism rather than degenerating into flamewars. I have a lot of respect for that approach, and I'm interested in the way technology such as LJ can shape communities and interactions. So I started reading through some of the stuff that arose out of this idea of elke_tanzer's, and there's some very interesting discussions going on. At the same time, and thinking about the discussion I started, I'm trying to observe feminists in their natural habitat, as it were.

Then I found this discussion entitled What is sexism? And I remembered exactly why I find so much of feminism so offputting. A few women, including the person who started the discussion, said that they didn't experience sexism in their own lives. And suddenly they're the enemy; the feminist home crowd aren't pleased to find women in good situations, they simply refuse to believe that it's possible to be female without being oppressed, and if you think your life is good, then you're either deceiving yourself or deliberately anti-feminist. So I joined in, just to see what would happen: I posted saying, yes, me too, I'm a woman and I think my life is pretty good.

Some people were polite to me, some people were rude to me. There were a couple of others taking the same view who got more stick about it than I did. That's just people, not feminists; some can handle polite disagreement and some are obnoxious (and there's also overspill from the original flamewar). But the basic message was the same: if you are female, you are ipso facto oppressed, and if you deny this you are anti-feminist. There's also quite a lot of feminist jargon and so on going on here; in a way that's to be expected given I gatecrashed what was basically a feminist discussion, but I get the impression it's being used deliberately to exlude those who, like me, are not on message.

Does anyone have any suggestions how I can dialogue with these people? I'm not prepared to give up holding my own opinions, but I'd really like to find some common ground if possible. I mean, I basically agree with the people in this discussion that oppression of women is a bad thing.

Comments

A feminist response and attempt at explanation

[redbird]

I think part of the difficulty is that, often, the "I don't experience sexism in my own life" is offered in response to someone else's testimony about her experience. In that context, it feels dismissive: not "I'm sorry this problem is affecting you, maybe if you did x,y,z that I do it would be better" but "Well, I don't have this problem, so it's not important."

Another aspect of this is that one of the key insights of second-wave feminism is that many things that were being depicted as personal problems--for example, women feeling isolated and depressed because they were home all day with small children--were not psychological problems, and were best addressed on a societal level. And some of the "I don't experience sexism" posts have been, not your "these things aren't happening in my life" but "well, yes, I get hassled and am paid less than my male co-workers, but that's not sexism."


[I could go on at greater length; I may pursue this in my own journal as well.]

Re: A feminist response and attempt at explanation

[liv]

Mm, thanks for this. There are definitely topics that push my buttons and might prevent me from seeing that a particular person is well-meaning. And if a lot of feminists have been attacked by people using the 'I don't experience sexism' line, I can see they might be predisposed to read innocent comments in a bad light.

And I would be very interested in your further thoughts on this, if you do decide to pursue the topic further.

[hatam-soferet.livejournal.com]

I tried reading some of those threads, and I have to say, I didn't get much idea of what was going on. A lot of people seem to be ranting about how unfair things are, but beyond that, what? Nobody is quoting anything constructive, and a lot of the things people are saying seem to be highly, highly subjective. What do you want to achieve by making dialogue with these people? That question is not rhetorical-dismissive - I think it's easier to work out 'how' when you know 'why.' So what is the purpose of this discussion?

[liv]

What do you want to achieve by making dialogue with these people?
Very, very good question, and thank you. The reason is the point I made at the end of my post: I do think sexism and oppression of women are a bad thing and I would quite like to do something about it. That means that feminists are my obvious allies.

It's just that most of the feminists I have encountered don't seem to be very effective at making women better off, and also seem to insist that everybody has to accept their doctrines. It's no good to me if everybody keeps telling me that all the feminists I've met are just extremists and there are some sensible, reasonable, non-dogmatic feminists out there, if I am unable to find these supposed sensible feminists!

I'm trying to give feminists the benefit of the doubt, because I think that their cause is basically just. My inclination at the moment is that feminism isn't a good way to achieve the things I want to achieve, hence my earlier post. But I don't want to be too narrow minded about it; several people suggested on that post that the reason I don't like feminism is because I have a mistaken impression of the movement, and it seems that dialogue with feminists is the best way I can correct that.

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

I do think sexism and oppression of women are a bad thing and I would quite like to do something about it.

This is reiterating what many people said last time, but I think holding this view probably makes you a feminist by any sensible definition of the word, and that therefore any sensible means you come up with to achieve your end should be considered as feminist. But I agree that it's silly to reinvent the wheel when it's likely there are perfectly good wheels on display somewhere across town, so it's a shame so many of the people in the discussion you linked to seem unable or unwilling to be useful and/or coherent on the subject. But like you said in your main post, that's the internet, that's not feminists.

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

I am using the word 'but' too much today.

[hatam-soferet.livejournal.com]

I've met two kinds of feminists, the ones who are aggressive and the ones who are angry but constructive. The latter kind I've only really met in the JOFA (http://www.jofa.org/) context, and they tend to write articles about practical things people can do. I don't know of any other organisations which approach the problem construtively. Do you remember Gwen Montague used to be involved in some organisation which did real work? Noga was involved with that too, perhaps you should ask her what it was. I think it had to do with addressing imbalances in the business world.

The aggressive kind of feminist, in my experience, likes railing about how dreadful sexism is, but gets so angry that she can't do anything about it. You seem to have found a nest of them. Maybe you could cut to the point and ask them straight up what they think the main problem is, what they think the solution is and what they're doing to achieve it? Then you'd at least have a fair chance of identifying constructive people. The ones who don't do anything but complain you can probably discount as not relevant to your aims.

[elemy.livejournal.com]

You've put your finger on something that's worried me, too. In the face of feminists who insist that all women are oppressed, and particularly women in the sciences, I feel guilty and confused. Am I absurdly privileged because I've never encountered someone with a sexist attitude towards me, or am I stupidly blind to the people oppressing me?

[hatam-soferet.livejournal.com]

One of the functions of angry feminists seems to be to make people realise that they're oppressed, since obviously if a lot of women feel that they're oppressed, the angry feminists have more people in their army and are hence closer to achieving whatever aims they have. But like livredor says, just because you don't have cancer doesn't mean you can't sympathise with people who do.

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

Thanks for this; elke_tanzer's posts are very interesting, and I think very good, though I haven't read the entire comment thread on the last part yet!

Comments like this (http://www.livejournal.com/users/elke_tanzer/519189.html?thread=2827797#t2827797) set my teeth on edge. I suppose they shouldn't, because I'm sure her general point is valid ... but that doesn't mean it's valid for molecular biology, which is the focus of the discussion, and in fact I'd be very surprised if it is, and either way some evidence would be nice, please.

[liv]

Thanks for this; elke_tanzer's posts are very interesting, and I think very good
More than welcome; I got a lot out of those posts too, which is why I wanted to repost them here, since a lot of the discussion was taking place outside the circles I think most of my friends move in.

her general point is valid ... but that doesn't mean it's valid for molecular biology
Yes, you're right there. I decided that it probably wasn't entirely on topic to get into an argument about pay structures in academic science.

The truth is, biosciences are an exception. I've never understood why; there's also no obvious reason why, at Oxford, biochemistry was the only subject with a 1:1 male to female ratio both in terms of numbers of students and across the degree classes. I think this exception may well be informative, but I also think it wouldn't have been helpful to bring this up on that particular comment thread. I also didn't want to be read as denying the basic fact that gender-based pay inequalities exist, and given the way that thread was running, I thought I was in danger of being misinterpreted.

[lyssiae.livejournal.com]

This is a great post which has nudged me into actually thinking about feminism. However I don't really want to put those thoughts here so I'll ponder in my LJ and link readers to you if they're so interested. But thank you both for the earlier post on feminism (which I admite I hadn't followed) and this one. It's all very interesting.

[liv]

This is a great post
Aww, thank you *blush*

I'll ponder in my LJ
I've replied in detail there, but just wanted to say, thank you, I found your thoughts extremely interesting also!

[ide-cyan.livejournal.com]

So, does the sexism endured by women around you not affect you, either?

[ide-cyan.livejournal.com]

And by that I mean, if the preceeding wasn't clear enough, whether you are affected by the way sexism has affected other women. Or men, for that matter.

Being privileged enough to not recognise the influence of sexism on your own life, you nevetheless want it to end... Isn't that influence also?

[liv]

whether you are affected by the way sexism has affected other women
I agree, I am affected by sexism in the Donne sense. On the one hand, a sense of responsibility towards and connectedness with the whole of humanity is a very important moral principle. But on the other, bringing this sense to bear in this particular discussion seems rather semantic hair-splitting.

Being privileged enough to not recognise the influence of sexism on your own life
That's a very loaded way of putting it. I agree that I am privileged, but I believe my privilege is genuine, not a failure of perception on my part. That's part of the point of this discussion in the first place. Anyway, letting that slide.

you nevetheless want it to end
Well yes, but I want AIDS to end without myself having AIDS. I want poverty to end even though I'm relatively rich. And I don't think that overstating the problem is a good way to solve it. (Which is not to say that I want to minimize the problem either; sexism is a big problem, but it's not a universal constant.)

[hatam-soferet.livejournal.com]

There's clearly a difference between experiencing something directly and appreciating that it happens to other people. An informed response to the latter hardly constitutes the former.

[shreena.livejournal.com]

I thought this comment from someone was particularly odd: "You may not be *aware* of how your choices are limited by your gender, but they are still limited." I honestly think that some of the people in that thread were just not making very basic logical distinctions. "Sexism happens" does not entail "Sexism happens to every woman" because some women genuinely do not experience sexism directly. I would probably say that I haven't either but that doesn't mean that I deny its existence.

Personal anecdote: I had a boyfriend once who claimed to be a "feminist". What this entailed for him was telling me every time that I disagreed with him that I didn't really know what I thought, I was just brainwashed by a male dominated society into thinking these things. Feminism should not (although it sometimes is) about telling women what they think, it should be about freedom for women. (For the record, the ex in question has since worked this out.)

[liv]

"Sexism happens" does not entail "Sexism happens to every woman"
Trust shreena to cut right to the heart of the logical weaknesses!

some women genuinely do not experience sexism directly. I would probably say that I haven't either
That's just the thing, it's not just that I'm a freak who doesn't think sexism is a big deal in my life; a lot of my social circle feel similarly. The major exceptions are people who grew up in Mediterranean countries, loreid and Spanish M, for example.

but that doesn't mean that I deny its existence
No, of course not! I think that is also a problem with the debate I linked. Some of the feminists are not making the distinction between 'I don't feel oppressed by sexism' and 'There's no such thing as sexism'. I can kind of see why a feminist would be offended by the latter statement, but the trouble is that's not what people are claiming.

I had a boyfriend once who claimed to be a "feminist". What this entailed for him was telling me every time that I disagreed with him that I didn't really know what I thought, I was just brainwashed by a male dominated society into thinking these things.
Aargh. I think I'm possibly even worse horrified by that attitude coming from a guy than from a woman. But it's certainly an extreme case of the kind of thing I was complaining about in my original post, about feminism being so sanctimoniously uncriticizable.

[beckyzoole.livejournal.com]

I don't have any good suggestions for dialogue. I have tried to dialogue with yonmei, but her latest "well-reasoned" response was so childish, I have given up on it.

[liv]

Hi, and thank you for following me back here. Some of what got me involved in this was seeing the kind of treatment you were getting for making what seemed to me entirely sensible points. (Your piece in response to the_emu's rant about all the pernicious things "they" teach children was absolutely spot on; I agreed with every word.)

I don't want to make personal remarks about yonmei; my aim in this discussion has never been to attack individuals. I do not understand her one bit, and I'm not going to take it any further than that. Part of the reason I wanted to start a new thread, here in my journal, was to take a step back from that particular unproductive personal debate. I want to look at the discussion as a whole, and poke a bit at the sense I currently have of trying to have conversations with people who appear to live in a reality which has almost no continuity with mine.

[beckyzoole.livejournal.com]

But if you'd like a discussion about feminism here, I'd be glad to participate.

I consider myself a feminist in that I strive to interact with others as individuals, not as members of one gender or another. A person must be paid according to individual merit, not according to gender. People must be able to get medical treatment appropriate to their bodies, and not be stuck with restricted or inadequate treatment simply because their body types have not been studied.

For example, I consider it sexist to assume that childcare is a "women's issue". It is a "parents' issue". In so far as the care and education of children affects society as a whole, it is an issue of interest to all. In so far as work time lost due to inadequate childcare affects businesses, and therefore society as a whole, it is an issue of interest to all. In so far as inadequate childcare is connected to public health and safety issus, it is an issue of interest to all. Assuming that childcare is a "women's issue" perpetrates the sexist attitude that only women need to worry about childcare.

[liv]

But if you'd like a discussion about feminism here, I'd be glad to participate.
Sure, I'm delighted to hear your ideas. I'm really glad I posted this, because it's drawn lots of cool new people here! I'm sorry it's taken me so long to get back to you; as I mentioned in an earlier post I've been away from LJ for a bit.

I consider myself a feminist in that I strive to interact with others as individuals, not as members of one gender or another.
Now, that's a definition I could really get behind. The trouble is that my very strong desire to focus on the individual, rather than some superficial feature like gender, seems to be the biggest thing that throws me into opposition with most feminists I've encountered. Feminism not only cares about gender, but seems to exalt gender above everything else.

I consider it sexist to assume that childcare is a "women's issue".
I'd agree with that, definitely. I think it's a far stronger argument to say that better childcare systems would benefit almost everybody, than to say that women need better childcare and women have historically been oppressed so women's issues should get priority.

[791-43.livejournal.com]

FWIW, I don't have to go very far to find examples of sexism affecting my life - my first degree course was hugely competitive and very male-dominated, in terms of both numbers and the prevalent atmosphere. Since we all constantly had to work together, the only options for 'getting along' socially and getting a decent degree at the end were either a) sleep with the boys or b) become one of the boys. From what I know of my friends' post-degree experiences, the industry we were being trained for runs along exactly the same lines.

I wouldn't side with either 'extreme' in this debate: I see concrete examples of sexism on a regular basis, but I chose not to dwell on them, since for the most part they do not affect me in meaningful ways. Examples may be so small, so 'insignificant', that they are not noticeable; we may even end up wholeheartedly participating in them - in the way that I obsess about my weight and tell Blonde jokes. Work-wise, the majority of the research students in my department are female, the majority of the staff, and all the senior staff are male. There's not only a gender difference here, but a generational and an economic one. Less women stay on in academia partly because of real or perceived sexism - be it lower pay, fewer opportunities for promotion, or the assumption that we're not really academics and are just passing the time before we go off and start having babies. A friend quips, sadly: "You hear myths about the glass ceiling, and then you get there and realise that not only is it real, it's double-glazed."

I used to think of myself as a post-feminist, because it seemed to me at the time that the crucial battles had already been mostly won, and because - and this is just a personal quirk - I have always thought that the argument of "This is not fair to me!" is never as strong or as valid as the argument of "This is just not fair." And now I'm sat here reading a feminist tome, published 20 years ago, and while, admittedly, the language employed in it frequently makes me smirk, the striking thing is that it's describing society and the compromises it forces (some or even most) women to make, and I'm realising that, in these 20 years, NOTHING has changed.

On a different note, it's very interesting to see names I know from entirely different contexts intersecting in this debate. Go LJ!

[shreena.livejournal.com]

I chose not to dwell on them

It's interesting because my parents often have the same reaction to the people in the thread linked to but about racism rather than feminism. They tell me that I may not notice it, but I do experience racism and there's just no way that my friends really, deep down, think of me as "one of them" and not as "different race girl". I honestly don't (beyond a few comments in the street - the "go home, Paki" variety) think I have experienced racism but, beyond that, I think the question to be asked is: "will it help me, if I dwell on incidents that I think might have been racist/sexist?" Unless it's such blatant sexism or racism that I could take legal or other official action over it, I really think that the answer to that question is generally "no". I know Indian people and, indeed, women who automatically assume that, if they fail at something, it's because of racism/sexism and I don't think it's getting them very far. If I fail at something, I assume that it was either because I wasn't sufficiently qualified or because something about my application/interview wasn't good enough and, if I really want to do whatever it is, I will work on these things rather than whinge about how the system is against me. The women I know who advance the cause of equality most of all are those who show, by being themselves, that they are amazingly talented and inspiring individuals. The supervisor I had for my masters and the one I have for my PhD currently are both women of this sort - they're both at the very top of their profession and they demonstrate that this is a very good thing for everyone who comes into contact with them.

[stungunbilly.livejournal.com]

I hope I was clear in the thread you mentioned, in that I think it is a *fantastic* thing that you are living a good life. The most important thing to me is what you said, that we agree that oppression of women is something that should be changed. The line between institutional oppression and a personal sense of oppression was not clearly enough drawn in that set of posts, and I think that hindered useful discussion.

[madam-h.livejournal.com]

Hi, I just wandered over after commenting on the same thread in my own journal.

I can't say much, really, except that I pretty much agree with you :)

When I was at school there was a bit of a fad for writing a comment about someone and following it with the letters IDT:INDT = "If Deleted True : If Not Deleted True" That's what this method of "debate" reminded me of, a fingers-in-ears "Lalala, you don't agree with me so I can't discuss anything with you because you're blind and wrong, lalalala."

the feminist home crowd aren't pleased to find women in good situations, they simply refuse to believe that it's possible to be female without being oppressed, and if you think your life is good, then you're either deceiving yourself or deliberately anti-feminist

That's how it seemed to me, too. Some folk in one of the threads commented that it was unscientific to ignore outliers in surveys because they can provide very useful information, yet when a couple of women popped up and appeared as outliers in the Great Sexism Debate, i.e. folk who seemed to have a good experience of life without much by way of sexism (yet not ever claiming that it absolutely didn't exist), they got shouted at for... something.

Now I'm debating "feminism" with yonmei and I feel rather nervous!

statistical outliers

[pir-anha.livejournal.com]

note that the ones who shout down the women who state they haven't experienced much if any sexism directly are not the same people who are arguing that statistical outliers are useful. :)

(i'm not one of the former, but strongly in the latter camp.)

*waves at livredor*. hi!

Re: statistical outliers

[madam-h.livejournal.com]

I confess that I hadn't considered looking at any correlation between the two, either negative or positive...

*looks shamefaced*

... but it seems that you are absolutely right on that observation.

I sometimes wish that the shouty ones would simply explicitly state that they are not prepared to consider any evidence contrary to their existing beliefs, rather than expecting us to work it out. That way we could drop them neatly into the "no brain activity" box, put the lid on, order a few drinks and get down to some useful discussion :)

Re: More on feminism

[pir-anha.livejournal.com]

Does anyone have any suggestions how I can dialogue with these people?

let me know if you figure something out. i never have. i occasionally dip my toe back in to see whether anything has changed, but they're always there, just as before, and they never realise or accept how dismissive they are. or rather, new ones are in the place of the old ones, since i think both ginmar and yonmei are at least 10+ years younger than i am.

redbird has a good point, though that was less applicable in this thread than it usually is, i feel. i also think it's really important to define one's terms up front, before launching into "my experience is different"; this is something i always regret not doing when i leave such things out due to feeling that i am already too damn verbose.

for example, i blinked too when i saw you and a couple of other people state that you had never personally experienced sexism. that is extremely hard for me to imagine because i've grown up with it, i've actively suffered under it, and i still see it all around, every day. my next reaction was "i wonder what her definition is". but nobody asked that! everyone arguing in that vein seemed to blithely accept ginmar's definition (lemme see whether i can pull it quickly: "Sexism is the belief---thousands of years old, supported by male history, custom, force, law, religion, philosophy and so forth---that men are good and women are bad." -- i view that as bad hyperbole, not a good start for a definition). later on i saw emily_wan state her definition, and indeed, it was a lot more restricted than my own; she didn't count wolf-whistles and similar hassle as sexist.

so, i am curious -- i was gonna ask you in that thread, but things have become too difficult to find, and i followed you here -- how do you define sexism?

i copied my own definition here (http://www.livejournal.com/users/pleonastic/28363.html?).

[(Anonymous)]

They tell me that I may not notice it, but I do experience racism and there's just no way that my friends really, deep down, think of me as "one of them" and not as "different race girl".

i hear you on this one.
i have experienced racism, i think more so than sexism. although i think that would be on a personal level, the kind that affects me more psychologically. i think i probably 'suffer' more meaningful sexism of the 'grand scheme' kind, insitutional discrimination, wider social issues.
but i'm not at all sure it's really constructive, in the kind of discussions which are mainly between people who think they are big-f feminists, that are supposed to be meaningful and constructive in battling the 'grand scheme' discrimination, to bring personal experience into it. i'm quite sure the disability to distinguish between personal experience and what goes on in the whole world to all or any people is not at all helpful.

going back to something from "courting controversy" that really struck me:
Try being beaten up, raped or murdered just for being who you are. Then, and only then, tell me I have any privilege whatsoever.
(from compilerbitch)
i can't believe the whole exclusion-ist thing coming from ANY person who claims to be fighting discrimination and bigotry. the above, sadly, could happen to any number of people who might identify with (or be indentified with) any number of groups. no-one and yet everyone has 'privelege'. are we getting on to the statistics of who is more likely to get beaten up and killed on the street, just for being transsexual, or just for being gay? it's a nonsense. all should be welcome in the fight against the crazy horror that is people hurting other people "just for being who they are".


in a funny way i think i just argued for it being less about the victims and more about the perpertrators or the causal issues. it should be less about the victims. the whole point is that it doesn't matter. if you've just been discriminated against for being female (or whatever) do you really want everyone to bang on about you being female?
(does this make any sense to anyone?)

blue_mai