Feminism and men. Before you get defensive...

[Quail]

I wrote this earlier. I haven't checked through it properly so it could probably do with tweaking at some point, but I'm going to post it here.


I've noticed that whenever feminists post constructive criticism of the way that certain men act, it is almost always met with defensiveness. This defensiveness often means that the women's concerns get dismissed and the discussion gets derailed so that important, valid points are lost. There is some irony here – by getting defensive, men often exhibit the exact behaviour that feminists criticise them for in the first place. The purpose of this article is not to call anyone out or criticise any particular behaviour.


I want to tell you that it's okay to admit to sexist behaviour if you intend to do something about it.


You see, the only way that you can begin to challenge problematic beliefs or behaviours is to admit that they exist in the first place.


Among activist circles sexism is naturally frowned upon, and there is strong social pressure to keep your behaviour in check. That's not a bad thing, but it can lead to a certain stigma being attached to admitting that your behaviour isn't perfect and that you've made mistakes.


The thing is, nobody expects you to be perfect. You've grown up in a patriarchal society so it's only natural that on a subconscious level you will pick up some patriarchal values. Feminist men have to challenge the messages that they've picked up in the same way that feminist women do.


An accepting environment is necessary for all of us to challenge our beliefs and behaviour. In the same way that it would be counterproductive for a feminist group to, for example, exclude women who removed their body hair and wore make up unquestioningly without explaining why these things should be questioned, it would be counterproductive to criticise men without giving them the chance to change their behaviour.


What feminists are doing when they make criticisms of the unhelpful ways in which certain men behave is giving you a chance to see if any of it applies to you, and to do something about it. They are not suggesting that all men do these things and it's not a personal attack. They are suggesting ways in which you can improve the way that you interact with women, and how best you can support us.


There is simply no need to be defensive, and in fact defensiveness establishes a counterproductive “men vs feminists” mindset, where it seems that the men involved are so busy trying to discredit the feminists that they overlook the valid criticisms that are being made, and they fail to acknowledge what is being said. When you become defensive you engage in exactly the kinds of behaviours that we criticise – our concerns aren't taken seriously, we aren't listened to and our experiences are denied. This is a problem and a big barrier to deconstructing your problematic beliefs and behaviours.


So next time you read an article by a feminist suggesting how you can best support women and the struggle against patriarchy, slow down and take a breather before you get defensive. Reflect on what has been said and calmly question whether it applies to you. Ask questions if you don't understand, but don't be aggressive. And remember, it's okay to admit that you're not perfect, as long as you take responsibility for trying to improve.

[Manic Impressive]

That's excellently written Quail. I don't think anyone man or woman for that matter can rid themselves of patriarchy completely, if they're being truly honest. Just as it's near impossible to completely rid yourself of private property thought. We simply do not know how people will think and behave without these social constructs influencing them from birth.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Excellently written, Quail.

I've started to be of the mindset that male feminists, such as myself, are in a similar position to non-proletarian Socialists. They can be sympathetic all they wish, but at the end of the day, it's not men who will drive feminism as a cause, it is those who identify as female. After all, do men gain personally from female equality, in material terms? Probably not. So really it's pointless to just presume equality of female feminists and male feminists for the sake of political correctness.

Just as we shouldn't trust petty-bourgeois and bourgeois elements to 'run' Socialism, so we men shouldn't be entrusted to fight the good fight for womens' equality. Of course, this doesn't mean we shouldn't, as male feminists, hold ourselves to a high standard in terms of our behaviour and attitudes, but to me our role as propagators of feminism (i.e. leaders) is no more effective than passive support.

The real task for feminism - of all shades - is to either convert or defeat those who are anti-feminist into either passive or active supporters of female equality, rather than co-opting already supportive male feminists from a passive to an active role, since it is not us who, ultimately, will be most effective in fighting for feminism.

I hope that makes sense. I am a bit of a novice when it comes to feminism but it's something that does interest me a lot, but that - due to the massive amount of opinions within the field of feminism alone - I find difficult to get my head around, intellectually.

[individualist]

I dont think it's a problem to get deffensive if the criticism being made is invalid, that is only a natural reaction.

[Quail]

I dont think it's a problem to get deffensive if the criticism being made is invalid, that is only a natural reaction.
Did you actually read what I wrote?

What feminists are doing when they make criticisms of the unhelpful ways in which certain men behave is giving you a chance to see if any of it applies to you, and to do something about it. They are not suggesting that all men do these things and it's not a personal attack. They are suggesting ways in which you can improve the way that you interact with women, and how best you can support us.
If you think about a general criticism that has been made and find that it doesn't apply to you, then you don't have to do anything. But sometimes people do things without realising (since we all grew up in a patriarchal society), so I don't see the harm in sitting back and having a think to make sure that it really doesn't apply to you. It would be rather arrogant to think that you're above all criticism.


There is simply no need to be defensive, and in fact defensiveness establishes a counterproductive “men vs feminists” mindset, where it seems that the men involved are so busy trying to discredit the feminists that they overlook the valid criticisms that are being made, and they fail to acknowledge what is being said. When you become defensive you engage in exactly the kinds of behaviours that we criticise – our concerns aren't taken seriously, we aren't listened to and our experiences are denied. This is a problem and a big barrier to deconstructing your problematic beliefs and behaviours.
It is possible to say that a criticism doesn't apply to you without being defensive and coming across as dismissive. For example, if a woman writes that she feels that men interrupt her a lot, instead of saying something like, "I never interrupt women and I don't know of anyone who does," which dismisses the woman's experience, you could say something like, "I try not to interrupt anyone and I wasn't aware that she felt that it was a problem, but if I see it happening in future I will do something about it."


So next time you read an article by a feminist suggesting how you can best support women and the struggle against patriarchy, slow down and take a breather before you get defensive. Reflect on what has been said and calmly question whether it applies to you. Ask questions if you don't understand, but don't be aggressive. And remember, it's okay to admit that you're not perfect, as long as you take responsibility for trying to improve.
If you don't think that the criticisms raised are valid or you don't understand a criticism, ask for clarifications, ask for specific examples instead of just dismissing the whole thing as ridiculous. If women feel as though the men around them are being unhelpful, that feeling has to come from somewhere, so to just dismiss it outright doesn't help anything. You might not understand why something is such a problem, but the only way you will get to understand is by talking and opening up a constructive dialogue. Getting defensive will not give rise to the kind of constructive conversation that promotes understanding.

[Capitalist Octopus]

Excellently written, Quail.

I've started to be of the mindset that male feminists, such as myself, are in a similar position to non-proletarian Socialists. They can be sympathetic all they wish, but at the end of the day, it's not men who will drive feminism as a cause, it is those who identify as female. After all, do men gain personally from female equality, in material terms? Probably not. So really it's pointless to just presume equality of female feminists and male feminists for the sake of political correctness.

Just as we shouldn't trust petty-bourgeois and bourgeois elements to 'run' Socialism, so we men shouldn't be entrusted to fight the good fight for womens' equality. Of course, this doesn't mean we shouldn't, as male feminists, hold ourselves to a high standard in terms of our behaviour and attitudes, but to me our role as propagators of feminism (i.e. leaders) is no more effective than passive support.

The real task for feminism - of all shades - is to either convert or defeat those who are anti-feminist into either passive or active supporters of female equality, rather than co-opting already supportive male feminists from a passive to an active role, since it is not us who, ultimately, will be most effective in fighting for feminism.

I hope that makes sense. I am a bit of a novice when it comes to feminism but it's something that does interest me a lot, but that - due to the massive amount of opinions within the field of feminism alone - I find difficult to get my head around, intellectually.

That's a really interesting thought.
Though I would say that many of the "leading" communists have been non prole (Lenin, Marx, Trotsky, Che, etc etc).

I don't think many leading figures in feminism have been men?

[Crux]

Off the top of my head only Charles Fourier really comes to mind. Supposedly he coined the word too.

And, as others have said already, well said Quail. I don't have much more to add than saying seeing men getting super defensive annoys me, it makes the discussion more difficult than it should be.

[black magick hustla]

my problem sometimes with this pieces is that there of course isn't a unified "female" perspective on this things in the same way there isn't a unified "mexican" perspective on this things. for example, a lot of this pieces argue that men should be particularly conscious about the way they treat female members, but i've heard other people telling me that is patronizing. for example, men tend to interrupt each other too, but men are socialized better to cope with this things and raise their voice etc. so who am i supposed to agree with? i am not dismissing the criticism and i think many of them are true (the truest one i can think of is how female end up doing secretarial tasks in orgs cuz no dude wants to do that, which in my experience is true), but i don't know how many of the other things can be fixed by a behavioral "correct your ways" approach to it without becoming condescending/phony/fake, like how white activists tiptoe around racial issues, etc. i think probably the best solution is just to be particularly polite to everyone.

i think a lot of the points raised in this pieces are more of a matter of politeness, and behavors that affect the less assertive of the group, in many cases female.

. honestly. i've been trying, for example, to listen more rather than talk because i'm somewhat of a loud nerd and i've been trying to be more polite about it, especially around female comrades.

[Luís Henrique]

i think probably the best solution is just to be particularly polite to everyone.

Yup. We are so ingrained with the idea that politeness is bourgeois, however, that it is almost impossible.

Luís Henrique

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

'
The thing is, nobody expects you to be perfect. You've grown up in a patriarchal society so it's only natural that on a subconscious level you will pick up some patriarchal values. Feminist men have to challenge the messages that they've picked up in the same way that feminist women do.'

This is refreshing to read as a man who has been accused of sexism once by a radical feminist, for calling her beautiful - I was surprised to be attacked very viciously in what I thought was an innocent but genuine complement. You highlighted the very issue which was my argument, in a patriarchal society which, in the final analysis can declare almost every relation between a 'man' and a 'woman' (in inverted commas because these binary oppositions, to me, have a very particular definition in patriarchy, in relation to patriarchal gender relations) can be seen a one of power-over. I was having this discussion with a feminist yesterday and I said that maybe me just talking to her was a power-relation, if we take an analysis of patriarchy as far as it will go and she agreed, but the conversation continued. Me observing her as a woman is a power-relation, because she is defined by patriarchy and I, as defined as 'male', have the upper hand in the power strugge. Of course, as an individual who thinks that gender-equality is a priority in society, I view her as an individual, but this is merely a disclaimer.

The question for a man conscious of this is, then, what behaviour is appropriate and in terms of sexuality, what lines are drawn between 'appropriate' and 'inappropriate'? Is it sexist to call a woman beautiful? Probably, given that the historical weight of patriarchy suffocates the male statement of any notion of it being free from this power-over relationship. How do I, as a male interested in having sex with females, enjoy my sexuality which is defined within the parameters of patriarchy? Are sexual objectification and viewing another being sexually the same thing? If not, how does one avoid the former in favour of the latter? Can a heterosexual still pursue the act of lovemaking in a patriarchal society without being sexist, whether it is a man having power over a woman or a woman submitting to the power of a man? Where are lines drawn in this regard? Even if we are conscious of our place in society, whether in relation to gender, class, race or whatever else, we are still subject to that relationship until the relationship is transformed by some revolutionary or transgressive struggle which succeeds. In that regard, for as long as I go thinking that some women are beautiful and wanting to have sex with them, I will be active in patriarchy, and attempts to modify these things through communicative means will merely reword the sexist, power-over statement to make it more 'polite', I suppose.

For me, it is not a defence as a man against women but rather, as a sexual (social!) being against both patriarchy and also feminist discourse and all of its unclear principles, but let me also say that I take feminism very seriously despite its flaws in clarity - this is why I found kayl's statement 'Feminist men have to challenge the messages that they've picked up in the same way that feminist women do.' refreshing, inasmuch that it points out the lack of clarity and cohesive argument in feminist discourse, and raises a myriad of questions to be asked of anybody involved in the discipline.

I always considered myself a feminist but I am, firstly, unsure of what this exactly means outside of the statement 'I believe in a society of equal gender relations' and secondly, as a male, how I can overcome the power inherent in me as a social-being, especially in the pursuit of my own sexuality. This was all brought into question in the scenario that I described at the beginning of this post. Kayl is right in that this is subconscious patriarchy, but how do we tackle this? I want to see equal relations between all genders and sexualities, how do we achieve this necessary state? And in the meantime, what is the appropriate form of behaviour?

[RedAtheist]

This is refreshing to read as a man who has been accused of sexism once by a radical feminist, for calling her beautiful - I was surprised to be attacked very viciously in what I thought was an innocent but genuine complement.

I have a somewhat unique explanation for why nobody should be complimented for their appearance, but first let me explain some of the more common ones.

1) By complimenting a person on their appearance you are implying that their appearance is important and that they should be evaluated based on this. The importance placed on women's appearances causes serious harm in society, e.g. eating disorders, plastic/cosmetic surgery going wrong and having serious consequences. You might be thinking to yourself that by complimenting her this you are claiming that she does not need these things, but the fundamental assumption (that women should strive to achieve some standard of attractiveness that is determined by men) is contained within the compliment, though in this case not deliberately.

For example a sentence like 'women who already own a [insert name of a designer brand that I am unashamedly unaware of] dress do not need to buy one' contains within it the assumption that all women should strive to own fancy dress.

2) Beauty is an aspect of the female gender stereotype, thus by complimenting her for it you are assuming that there is something inherently good about conforming to the female gender stereotype. You might as well compliment a man on his manliness.

3) The comment fails to acknowledge any of the woman's internal characteristics (i.e. her personality.)

Now here is my somewhat unique take on this. I believe our society's bias in favour of 'attractive' people (which by definition implies a prejudice against unattractive people) is unjustified, unfair and harmful. I do not care how broad you think your definition of an attractive person is, there are going to be women who fall outside it and I believe that they deserve equal treatment to the women who fall inside it. After all, appearance is mostly determined by genetics and even when it is not determined by genetics it has no impact on the value or moral character of a woman (positive of negative.) Is it fair to deprive women of something (even something as small as a compliment) based on traits they cannot control, which harm nobody and are often not even related to health (e.g. small breasted women are not unhealthy unless they are starving)? I don't think it.

Likewise it is therefore unfair to compliment somebody for having the 'correct' traits (again I do not care what your definition of 'correct' is.) I do not know if any radical feminists understands this idea, nobody has ever really suggested it to me or at least nobody has taken it as far as I have . If she did understand this idea however, then complimenting her for being 'beautiful' would be like complimenting a white supporter of black peoples' rights for being white. A person who supported black rights would be offended due to their conviction that her being white does not make them superior.

Think about it for a second. Could you imagine if the word 'white' were used to describe people the same way the word 'beautiful' was. If you frequently said things like 'ahhh look at that little girl, she's so white. Isn't it wonderful to have such a white child?' even Nazis would think you were strange. Yet the majority of physical features women and little girls are evaluated for are just as genetic as 'whiteness' and have just as little real benefit to society. This includes features such as the relative proportions of a women's facial features. For some reason evaluating women's attractiveness based on their faces is often considered to be a legitimate alternative to evaluating them based on body shape and breast size, even though all you have to do is spend a few minutes in a primary school classroom to know that girls are routinely descriminiated against for having the 'wrong-sized' facial features.

I apologise if you are tired of me explaining things over and over, but so few people get this point that I feel the need to make myself as clear as possible.


The question for a man conscious of this is, then, what behaviour is appropriate and in terms of sexuality, what lines are drawn between 'appropriate' and 'inappropriate'? Is it sexist to call a woman beautiful?

It certainly reinforces gender stereotypes (just like calling a man 'tough' as a compliment would.) Even if we grant that it is not sexist it still contains an implicit bias against women whom you do not find attractive. This is especially appearant if you call a woman attractive in front of her female friends and thus imply that they are less attractive than she is and thereby inferior (remember saying that people who have a certain trait are superior is the same as saying that people without that trait are inferior.)


How do I, as a male interested in having sex with females, enjoy my sexuality which is defined within the parameters of patriarchy? Are sexual objectification and viewing another being sexually the same thing? If not, how does one avoid the former in favour of the latter?

To continue with the logic established earlier, only having sex with people (assuming the sexual experience is positive) who have certain genetic traits and denying sex to people who have the 'wrong' genetic traits is even more unfair than denying them compliments. Therefore in order to have sex fairly one would have to avoid basing their decisions about who to have sex with based on appearance. If they agreed/refused to have sex with somebody it would have to be on the basis of something other than appearance. This does not mean that according to my moral system, you are obligated to have sex with everyone, only that your reasons for not having sex with someone should be anything other than 'she's ugly'. Even when somebody does refuse to have sex with somebody based on how they look, it is of course not acceptable to force them to have sex with you. It is however perfectly acceptable to question their choice.

This might seem like an unrealistic expectation, after all, men are taught to take for granted the fact that sex is only something you do with attractive women, however women do not take this fact for granted. There are ways of being aroused that do not depend on the appearance of the people involved. To get a sense of what I am talking about, read a sex scene in a romance novel with any references the the characters' attractiveness removed. You will find a description of actions and behaviour anyone is capable of perform without needing the right genes. I am not trying suggest that romance novels are flawless by any means and many of the behaviours will be expressions of male domination, but they at least give one the sense that sexual arousal and enjoyment can come from something other than a person's body.

I guess my recommendation is that you try to find things that turn you on about a person other than how they look (especially valuable aspects of a person's character, e.g. their intelligence and assertiveness.) If this fails remember that actions matter more than thoughts. Before you imply that a women is superior because of a feature that does not in any way determine her value as a human being, stop and think about the social consequences of such actions.

Can a heterosexual still pursue the act of lovemaking in a patriarchal society without being sexist, whether it is a man having power over a woman or a woman submitting to the power of a man? Where are lines drawn in this regard? Even if we are conscious of our place in society, whether in relation to gender, class, race or whatever else, we are still subject to that relationship until the relationship is transformed by some revolutionary or transgressive struggle which succeeds. In that regard, for as long as I go thinking that some women are beautiful and wanting to have sex with them, I will be active in patriarchy, and attempts to modify these things through communicative means will merely reword the sexist, power-over statement to make it more 'polite', I suppose.


For me, it is not a defence as a man against women but rather, as a sexual (social!) being against both patriarchy and also feminist discourse and all of its unclear principles, but let me also say that I take feminism very seriously despite its flaws in clarity - this is why I found kayl's statement 'Feminist men have to challenge the messages that they've picked up in the same way that feminist women do.' refreshing, inasmuch that it points out the lack of clarity and cohesive argument in feminist discourse, and raises a myriad of questions to be asked of anybody involved in the discipline.

What you are describing as a lack of clarity is really a lack of agreement. Anyone can call themselves a feminist while being completely unfamiliar with feminist principles and promoting principles that I think completely contradict feminism. I partially blame moderate feminists who want as many people as possible to indentify with the feminist label whether they know anything about feminism or not. I can't claim to have studied feminism myself though, I have just done a lot of thinking.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

But I didn't use beautiful consciously as a patriarchal term, I call anything that is aesthetically pleasing to me beautiful should I find it attractive enough to warrant the term - that is, after all, the common definition. I thought that beautiful was a gender-neutral term aside from maybe some abstract notion of it carrying feminine connotations, but I'm unsure of to what extent this is true. The feminist who slammed me for it explained that the reason it was offensive for me to say it to her was because of the weight of historical patriarchy carried in me saying that statement to her, not because the word itself had any sexist connotations. Its about the power within the statement for her, rather than the word itself. There are words like 'slut' or '*****' which are obviously sexist terms in themselves, based on the broad, discursive understanding of the terms, but I don't think that 'beautiful' is featured in that group of terms as such.

I'll answer properly in a bit anyway because its quite long and I'm quite suspicious of your general approach to sexuality as if the remedy is to express your sexuality based on personality traits as opposed to appearance. You're enforcing the binary oppositions in gender in assuming that I am attracted to any one particular model of 'woman'. I would not say that I am attractive to the socially dominant, oppressive view of what a woman 'should' look like and personality is key in my attraction to a person. To qualify it further but perhaps seem naive, I would say that my sexuality is largely subjective, perhaps geared by some social, biological and genetic factors but I am subject to these factors and sexuality is the result, and I would not say that I fit the typical heteronormative stereotypical 'man' in relation to my sexuality and the kinds of women I am attracted to - perhaps my understanding of my sexuality is a subjective understanding of objective features, whatever. But regardless, if we see sexuality in this way, as subject to various objective features in society, then is your solution workable? To try and manipulate your sexual urges in trying to escape the visual element of sexuality? Are you assuming that it is the visual element of sexuality that is a large part of the construction of patriarchy? It seems, to me, that it is more about our understanding of attraction in this regard as opposed to what an individual is attracted to. A problem here lies in that you're enforcing more of the rigid definitions on sexuality and gender which aren't coherently featured in society. Male and female as binary oppositions based on an ideal, socially constructed model of each, are just that: social constructions. However, there are a plurality of sexualities and even possibly a plurality of gender identities in different discourses, so it seems that your analysis, in my case, relies to heavily on reductionist understandings of men and women and that isn't how I understand men and women.

This is more of the confusion I face. But as I said, I'll read and reply properly later on.

[Zealot]

This is liberal horseshit that probably should have been posted in the religion forum.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

This is liberal horseshit that probably should have been posted in the religion forum.
Marxist-Leninists are good at making statements which express anger without any context, or so I've noticed.

What about this thread is 'liberal horse shit' and for what reason should it be moved from where it is? Why is this statement more justified than an articulate response which points out the claims you made (perhaps because Marxism-Leninism is the holy-grail that needs no self-criticism nor outward argument to make its case - its just 'right'?

[Zealot]

Marxist-Leninists are good at making statements which express anger without any context, or so I've noticed.

What about this thread is 'liberal horse shit' and for what reason should it be moved from where it is? Why is this statement more justified than an articulate response which points out the claims you made (perhaps because Marxism-Leninism is the holy-grail that needs no self-criticism nor outward argument to make its case - its just 'right'?

Or perhaps you shouldn't start tendency wars. If it wasn't already obvious, this bunk contains the classic claptrap of religious thinking and was obviously written by someone who flatters themselves with their own stupidity. Take this, for example, and note how it sounds when I change the words up a bit:


There is simply no need to be defensive, and in fact defensiveness establishes a counterproductive “religious vs disbelievers” mindset, where it seems that the disbelievers involved are so busy trying to discredit the religious that they overlook the valid criticisms that are being made, and they fail to acknowledge what is being said. When you become defensive you engage in exactly the kinds of behaviours that we criticise – our concerns aren't taken seriously, we aren't listened to and our experiences are denied. This is a problem and a big barrier to deconstructing your problematic beliefs and behaviours.

And so on. I could have done that with the whole piece but I find it unnecessary. It gets rather cultish when the only way you can make men retain their feminism is by telling them to keep their opinions/criticisms/"defense" to themselves and making a blind devotion in order to "deconstruct" problematic beliefs and behaviours. What you have here is a brainwash/shut-up-and-listen approach that only makes men bury their patriarchal vestiges rather than convincing them in a rational way. And personally, I'd rather know who is and who is not supportive of women's struggles anyway.

[helot]

But I didn't use beautiful consciously as a patriarchal term, I call anything that is aesthetically pleasing to me beautiful should I find it attractive enough to warrant the term - that is, after all, the common definition

Could not the fact that you brought up that you considered her aesthetically pleasing be a problem in itself? What relevance did it have in the context in which it occured? It's one thing mentioning to someone that you consider them aesthetically pleasing when they ask you how they look but it's an entirely different matter in normal conversation.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

You started your own tendency war with your own tendency to declare anything you don't like as 'bourgeois'.

As for the rest, did you even read my previous posts? Or any other posts for that matter?

Reply when you've read the thread fully.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

Could not the fact that you brought up that you considered her aesthetically pleasing be a problem in itself? What relevance did it have in the context in which it occured? It's one thing mentioning to someone that you consider them aesthetically pleasing when they ask you how they look but it's an entirely different matter in normal conversation.
There was no relevance, other than that I'm a male, that she was a female and that I found her aesthetically pleasing. Perhaps I could say it was a night out and that I was drunk but I don't think that this constitutes an excuse.

I don't really disagree with her calling me sexist, but actually see this logic defining me as sexist in my general sexuality and how I pursue it. The question, for me, is how to overcome these social-relations that exist beyond my control and be a non-sexist man?

[#FF0000]

This is liberal horseshit that probably should have been posted in the religion forum.

How about posting w/ content next time, thanks.


And so on. I could have done that with the whole piece but I find it unnecessary. It gets rather cultish when the only way you can make men retain their feminism is by telling them to keep their opinions/criticisms/"defense" to themselves and making a blind devotion in order to "deconstruct" problematic beliefs and behaviours. What you have here is a brainwash/shut-up-and-listen approach that only makes men bury their patriarchal vestiges rather than convincing them in a rational way. And personally, I'd rather know who is and who is not supportive of women's struggles anyway.

Better, but you're still wrong. The point of the article isn't at all to say "nope shut up don't try to defend yourself". It's saying don't get instantly defensive and consider other viewpoints and criticism.

[#FF0000]

Could not the fact that you brought up that you considered her aesthetically pleasing be a problem in itself? What relevance did it have in the context in which it occured? It's one thing mentioning to someone that you consider them aesthetically pleasing when they ask you how they look but it's an entirely different matter in normal conversation.

I don't think there's anything wrong with telling someone they're attractive (nor do I think being attractive is about "having the right genes" -- anyone could be attractive, really). But that can be more of a cultural thing. In the US and, I guess, the UK, people feel awkward as hell when you're so forward with things like that unless you word it really well. Doesn't seem so in certain other cultures.

[Zealot]

I read over the article again several more times until I uncovered a different perspective. And in the spirit of self-criticism, I renounce what was said in my previous posts and I apologise to Quail. I'll try not to be so trigger-happy in the future.

[Quail]

I've been meaning to respond to this thread but I was pretty hungover yesterday.

I don't see anything inherently wrong with finding someone aesthetically pleasing or telling that person that you like the way they look. In a society without sexism, we would still prefer the appearance of some people over others just as we would prefer certain personality traits over others. I suppose in my opinion, the problem is that a man telling me I'm beautiful is all too easy to take the wrong way. Because of past experiences with men in the street making creepy comments, men in clubs with a sense of entitlement and ex boyfriends treating me badly I have come to expect the worst, so what might seem like an innocent compliment to the guy giving it can make me feel quite uncomfortable. Obviously I can't speak for all women, but that's my experience and judging by some of the statistics I've read, there are probably a lot of women who feel the same. I also think that commenting on someone's appearance is gendered in our society in that more value is placed on a woman's appearance than a man's and to a lot of people it's seen as acceptable for strange men to openly comment on a woman's appearance, treating her as more a body than a human being.


I don't know that there are clear-cut rules on how to best act in social situations like the one you described above. I think it's mostly just a case of being polite and respectful, and treating a woman as a human being first and foremost. For example, going out of your way to open every door for someone is patronising and treats them as a person who can't do things for themselves, but holding the door if you happen to be in the right position when you walk through it is just politeness which should be extended to anyone.


I think that being mindful about how you interact with everyone, not just women, would help create a more respectful environment for discussions, where women aren't interrupted and are taken seriously. Studies have shown that men tend to interrupt women more than other men, so it is a problem. Making an effort to actively listen to people could help prevent people having their experiences invalidated. When you have something to say, it's easy to kind of focus on what you want to get across rather than what other people are trying to communicate (or at least, I know that I do this sometimes) and so you might end up brushing over something important.


I think that women are socialised to be more likely to just get on with tasks that nobody wants to do. I see it all the time in meetings. Someone will say, “Does anyone want to take minutes?” and there will be a long, empty silence, and it will pretty much always end up being a woman who quietly gets out some paper and does the job. In meetings where there is an overwhelming majority of men, that shouldn't happen. So men really do need to take responsibility for actively volunteering to do stuff like take minutes, wash up cups, etc. I find that women end up doing all the menial tasks that are necessary and important because men don't seem to have the same, “Well someone's got to do it and since nobody else has volunteered, I'll do it I suppose,” mentality. I don't know if this is something that men really realise is happening, because I can't imagine that men who claim to be committed to equality would allow that kind of thing to happen... and yet it does, so I suppose my (long winded) point here is that you also need to actively look for examples of inequality like that because if you're on the “right” side of inequality, you're probably less likely to notice it.

[black magick hustla]

i think the problem with a lot of men is that they don't realize there is a "power differential" between genders. when i was younger i tried to think of other women as men, but it is problematic in a few ways. for example, i think a lot of men would feel flattered if they were leered in the street because it never happens to them, etc. if i am raising my voice and interrupting people, i expect the other person to raise his/her voice too, etc.

there is also a lot of dishonest browbeating in activist circles. i've seen it from the race angle. it is really easy to browbeat some guilt ridden white person into your opinion by coming up with empty platitudes about them "denying the colored experience" or whatever, even when a minority can, and is often wrong about minorities. activist circles are very ideological people with specifically tailored world views, and in many ways they are very biased to their particular understanding of the world rather than an honest engagement of it. for example, i won't yield to some misandric radfem browbeating me into thinking vaginal intercourse is sexist or something like that. it really depends on where is someone coming from.

[Hiero]

I tend to find most people on this website (not necessarily anyone in this thread) have a superficial understanding of national, ethinc and gender opppression and discrimination. Most don't see these systems of subjugation as being embodied, embedded, structural and lived through daily interactions between people. It is quite easy for someone on this website to say 'racism and sexism exists', but in the same sentance say 'but myself as a white male have nothing at all to do with that'. That is why else where when the perspective was put forward that men interupt women often that people came to deny that, at the same time accepting sexism is a real thing (but apparently no one is living it and women just imagine it?).

If you are a human you are embedded in the social systems that surround you, while you can become conscious of thoose systems, you are still apart of them and embody thoose systems of subjugation. That means you unconsciously support, benifit or become subjuated through your dispositon, oppositions and positions that you unconsciously hold to the others that surround you. There are stucutural differences between you and others. Socialisation in itself is the attempt to naturalise social hierarchy. In my opinion, coming to consciousness about the particularities of a system of subjugation is particular hard and we often come misdirected (worrying about whether calling some 'aesthetically pleasing' is sexists) . I think what we can get a clearer understanding about is the overall system of subjugation, how such systems become naturalised and internalised (in victim and perpetrator and thoose inbetween). So one can understand the structural differences between men and women (labour, family structure etc) to further acknowledge that this would have an effect in interpersonal interactions. That this structural differences based on power would manifest itself through males trying to control a discusssion by interupting women and it is so embodied that you would misrecgonise it as something else ("I was factual right", "I do it to men as well" etc).

[black magick hustla]

i think you are underestimating everyone here. what you gave is standard freshmen 101 gender studies answer. the problem is not so much that, but how do you translate that to action without treating women like they come from mars and are petridish specimens and not sounding patronizing(which is what activists are guilty of doing when talking about minorities in general).

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

i think you are underestimating everyone here. what you gave is standard freshmen 101 gender studies answer. the problem is not so much that, but how do you translate that to action without treating women like they come from mars and are petridish specimens and not sounding patronizing(which is what activists are guilty of doing when talking about minorities in general).

I guess (and not to get too off topic here) but a lot of activists are not necessarily the minority, female working class whose spirit they often seek to capture.

I've met a few activists in my time who are just hopelessly out of touch with working class culture - quite serious activists too - and it was just a bit painful to imagine these people every taking control of a revolutionary situation, or even any genuine working class movement.

[Hiero]

i think you are underestimating everyone here. what you gave is standard freshmen 101 gender studies answer. the problem is not so much that, but how do you translate that to action without treating women like they come from mars and are petridish specimens and not sounding patronizing(which is what activists are guilty of doing when talking about minorities in general).

I think I estimate the forum very. This forum has a had an ongoing problem with sexism because people (men) constantly fail to identify the reproduction and the part they play that reproduction of subjugation. The racism and sexism people talk about is always 'out there', it is always abstract or so obvious, it is rarely every applied to a real life situation that occurs on a everyday basis. For instance try to talk about white privilege on this website and everyone loses their shit and actively deny it. It is generally because on this website the majority of people are reductionist Marxist (even if they are anarchist or whatever) whereby race, sex and gender are just facets of class and not actual structures themselves. So for instance racism to many Marxist on this website is just a ideological apparatus used to divide workers, rather than an actually division of people where one 'race' overall finds itself in a better situation then another race. Usually this Marxist can only identify racism if it is complete obvious, such as bluntly racist cop shooting an unarmed black teenager. But then these things are only meant to be 'ideological' not structural in themselves. Racism is only a trick of the bourgeoisie to used to prolong their stay in power, its effect is often consider minimal.

Of course any attempt to think of race and gender the other is considered 'post-modern' and 'bourgeois'. But there are other ways that focus on combining practice with ideology in the form of 'habitus', which is the social embodied, not as abstract and outside. This moves away from a Cartesian divide between brain and mind and structure and superstructure, but in phenomenological sense of practice. In Bourdieu's social theory the world works in terms of practices, not consciousness'. I would say with confidence that most on this forum see racism and sexism in terms of consciousness and ideology, rather than practices. So they have little hope in identifying actually sexist practices.

The point is you don't need to talk about minorities (women included), but rather the system of power. Unless you come from the subaltern studies, minorities can talk for themselves. That is why I said you don't talk about every particularity of oppression because you make yourself paranoid, because these things are hidden. You look at the aggregate system of oppressions. It is a bit of a backward of thinking, but it is hard to see the hidden aspects without understanding how they become hidden in the first place.
To be honest I don’t know how to put these into action in the current conditions of old fashioned activism.