1. Discrimination based on gender, especially discrimination against women.

2. Attitudes, conditions, or behaviors that promote stereotyping of social roles based on gender.

I've posted it once in another thread, but I though I'd start with a dictionary definition of sexism for this confesion.

Why am I a sexist? Certainly I'm not an overt sexist, I truly believe in the equality of the sexes.

I say I am a sexist in exactly the same spirit that a member of alcoholics anonymous says they are an alcoholic. Because the moment one says they are not an alcoholic, they stop being vigilant and thus run the risk of sliding back into alcoholism.

All of us are the products of a sexist society that for all of history has atributed certain roles and identities to a person based solely on their sex. All of us have lurking within our ourselves expectations of roles and identities of one another based on our sex. Even though many of us try very hard to seperate role from gender, sexism lies within our unchallenged preconceptions and our trained responses, try as we might, to say catagoricaly that we are not sexist is to abandon vigilance.

So hello, my fellow Babblers, I am a sexist, and so are all of you.

feminism

1. Belief in the social, political, and economic equality of the sexes.

2. The movement organized around this belief.

Feminism is the movement that rescues us from sexism, it is so diverse that it is not so much a school of thought, but a field of study, a broad movement organized around the belief that the sexes must be equal. It is a vital movement, one that has done a tremendous amount to make our society better. Without feminism, it's hard to imagine what our society would look like. Feminism has improved society for all of us. Feminism has changed the way men and women think about each other.

And as such, it speaks not only about the conduct of men towards women, but of the conduct of men and women.

For feminism to advance it goals, both sexes need to be vigilant against sexism. Equality can not be unilateraly achieved.

Judy Rebick said somewhere in this forum that femism must not only help women do what men do, but for also men to do what women do.

Therefore, for this new Forum on Babble to contribute to the advancement of feminism, it must educate both men and women, it must encourage discusion among both men and women, and it must be inclusive and encouraging towards both men and women.

So far, I'm afraid it's simply not, not by a long shot.

Many men, and many women feel alienated by feminism, because it excludes them, it singles them out for accusation, it holds them to certain roles and identites based solely on their sex and it creates double standards.

There are examples of all these things easily found on this forum. All sorts of talk of "men this" and "men that" and while sexism towards women is correctly challenged here, sexism among feminist is not. It is tolerated. In fact, any attempt to address it is met with condescension, increduelty, hostility and worst of all self-rightousness. And then when people wonder why so many men and women do not embrace feminism, it is blamed solely on their ignorance and the corporate media.

Reading some of the comments in the women-only thread made towards their fellow male Babblers is quite surpising, its almost as though they have comepletly lost sight of the fact that very many of us here are quite commited to social revolution too, that we are not adversaries, but rather allies. Reading some of these comments here, is it really so surprising that so many people are aliented by feminism? Are these self rightous attitudes really very good for the advancement of feminism?

I wish we could, all together, embrace the vigilance to keep our sexism at bay, to be able to discuss our ideas without unneeded and unhelpful reactionary rhetoric. And let all voices into the discusion.

quote:

---

it must educate both men and women, it must encourage discusion among both men and women, and it must be inclusive and encouraging towards both men and women

---

There is a history to the desire of many women babblers to have a feminist forum. (And the whole forum, please note, is not meant to exclude male participation -- I've only seen one thread started so far that asked men to hold back a bit.) However much you, Quirk, and some others may wish to idealize/naturalize/essentialize/theologize "equality," it is the experience (we're talking history and contingency here, Quirk) of many women that some kinds of debates make it difficult for them to participate equally, and that that sometimes has something to do with some kinds of some males' behaviour. OK?

Or even if not ok ...

You might have noticed that there are a few mouthy dames on babble, me sort of among them, who are willing to jump into any forum and can sometimes even keep up with the academic bs-ing at its most intense. Cute of us though that is, many of us also have a nagging sense of just how much bs goes in to the cleverest debates, and we probably spend more time than you do watching some other talented babblers whose wisdom we've got to know, and from whom we would like to hear a lot more. And we've talked enough to know why some of them back off much of the time on other threads.

quote:

---

Quirk do you think perhaps some people are responding negatively to being told what they "must" or "should" believe. I can imagine that most women might be somewhat weary of having men telling them what they "should" or "must" be, think, do or believe.

---

Hmmm, it makes it very difficult to make assertions or have a discusion of any kind if you can not suggest beliefs! I am certainly not commanding anybody or telling anybody what to do. Only stating my beliefs, and yes, suggesting they may have some validity worthy of discusion.

quote:

---

Therefore, for this new Forum on Babble to contribute to the advancement of feminism, it must educate both men and women, it must encourage discusion among both men and women, and it must be inclusive and encouraging towards both men and women.

---

quote:

---

I am certainly not commanding anybody or telling anybody what to do.

---

Feminism, to succeed, needs the cooperation of both women and men, and as such it must be embraced by women and men, yet there is much evidence of sexism within feminism, this is not alarming, as I also carefully note there is sexism within us all, but that sexism creates alientaion, which is not to the benifit of feminism.

Anyway, I will address the points you raise, to try and make myself clearer.

quote:

---

There is a history to the desire of many women babblers to have a feminist forum. (And the whole forum, please note, is not meant to exclude male participation

---

I have no problem with a women only topic, or even a women only forum, or even a women only web site, but feminism can not be women only, as I've explained, and therfore it's critical analysis needs to include men.

Not all, but some, topics must contain critical analysys of feminism, and one of the issues it will need to address is sexism among feminists, otherwise we're just keeping our head in the sand.

quote:

---

it is the experience (we're talking history and contingency here, Quirk) of many women that some kinds of debates make it difficult for them to participate equally, and that that sometimes has something to do with some kinds of some males' behaviour. OK?

---

Hmmm, well comunicating with each other is something we must all continue to learn to do, and communication problems usualy have to do with both parties when it comes to humans. I am trying to make my case in as nice a way as possible, certainly I am not perfect, but I wonder if defensiveness also has something to do with it?

quote:

---

But I doubt that an effective challenge is going to come from someone who speaks of "support groups" with dripping contempt.

---

I have no dripping contempt for support groups, that's all your projection. All I said was that this is not a support group! How does that indicated contempt?

If this is a support group, then why does the system put the phrase "rabble-rouser" under my username?

This is a public, barely moderated, discusion forum. The perfect place for debate and critical analysys.

And further, do you not think that your disqualifying me from making "an effective challenge," based solely on your (incorrect) interpretation of the unexpressed feelings behind one statement speaks a little bit towards the dogmatic defensiveness that I've been refereing to?

quote:

---

Do make up your mind, Quirk.

---

'lance, I am making a case, and therfore putting forth arguments that I believe.

You know perfectly well that making an assertion is not making a command, let alone the childish "telling someone what to do" routine.

quote:

---

Not all, but some, topics must contain critical analysys of feminism, and one of the issues it will need to address is sexism among feminists, otherwise we're just keeping our head in the sand.

---

Or do you believe all discussion should cease because mommy's little soldier did a boom boom.

quote:

---

I have no dripping contempt for support groups, that's all your projection. All I said was that this is not a support group! How does that indicated contempt?

---

quote:

---

I say I am a sexist in exactly the same spirit that a member of alcoholics anonymous says they are an alcoholic. Because the moment one says they are not an alcoholic, they stop being vigilant and thus run the risk of sliding back into alcoholism.

---

quote:

---

You might have noticed that there are a few mouthy dames on babble, me sort of among them,

---

Has anyone here yet read "No sissy boys here: A content analysis of the representation of masculinity in elementary school reading textbooks" by Evans and Davies in Sex Roles, vol 42, 2000, 255-270? It says that in children's storybooks

quote:

---

males were significantly less likely than females to be described as affectionate, emotionally expressive, passive or tender

---

[ January 15, 2002: Message edited by: vaudree ]

quote:

---

It seems more irrelevant whether your claim is an assertion or a command. What you clearly state is what you believe feminism "must" be.

---

Yup. That's what one does in a discusion forum, state ones beliefs. Uh huh.

For beliefs to become commands is a question of authority, please quote where I have claimed any authority over the others here?

Or are you simply commanding me to not use the word "must?" I'm confused.

quote:

---

I was merely trying to explain that such an assertion might be(and apparently had been) percieved as offensive.

---

Then please explain what is offensive about the assertion, so far it seems you think it's offensive that it's made at all. That's not a good enough argument, certainly it's not an argument that can be debated until you tell me what specific statement, and why specificaly it is offensive.

quote:

---

I might also respectfully point out that perhaps some people are more than a little fed up with having to answer this question over and over

---

No one here is force to answer or even read anything posted, but if you choose to read and to answer, then answering merely with fallacy and invective does not advance the debate.

quote:

---

Or do you believe all discussion should cease because mommy's little soldier did a boom boom.

---

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. I have not discouraged any discusion. I am encouraging discusion on an issue, sexism within feminism, that many here seem to feel can not or should not be discussed, and the only "boom booms" are being fired at me.

quote:

---

Finally if this was a projection it was one shared by me.

---

Well then, quote the passage in question and show me were this idea that I have "dripping contempt" towards support groups is stated.

If I state that this is not a day care, space station or drive through, does that mean that I have contempt for those things too?

The difference is clear, a support group must be private and heavily moderated, because it's aim is therapuetic. This forum is public and losely moderated, because its aim is to encourage critical discusion, or to be colloquial, to rabble-rouse.

That is not to say they we can't be supportive and encourageing towards each other here, we can and should be, that is to say that we can not avoid critical topics simply to create a more peacefull discusion, since we are here to explore, debate and rabble-rouse.

Now, to get to the point of the thread, will you join Vaudree and I and confess that you are a sexist?

[ January 15, 2002: Message edited by: Quirk ]

quote:

---

Agree. We all are products of a racist, sexist, ethnocentric, genocentric society and we must resist strongly the urge not to think about what we are thinking about and to prevent certain thoughts that automatically pop up in our heads from clouding our judgement.

---

Thank you Vaudree! You are the fist in our little group to confess your sexism! I hope more will follow.

I wonder why it's so hard for so many, perhaps, because such an admition takes away their claim to rightous indignation? How can we get them to admit there might be a problem within feminism if they can't even admit there might be a problem within themselves?

What do you think we can do to make this subject less inflamatory? How can we make everyone see that looking into sexism within feminism is not anti-feminist?

quote:

---

Sounds like you're trying to run a support group after all, Quirk.

---

quote:

---

Certainly not. I neither encourage, nor join in, orgies of public self-abasement. I do sometimes get a chuckle out of them, though.

---

quote:

---

Busted! It's just to make fun of you, Quirk. Sorry about that.

---

quote:

---

If you say so, Quirk. I certainly can't argue with your logic.

---

When you tried to read me above, you ducked one carefully worded introductory formulation ... I presume because you didn't know what to do with it:

quote:

---

However much you, Quirk, and some others may wish to idealize/naturalize/essentialize/theologize "equality,"

---

Or maybe you recognized the challenge?

Quirk, your immature (to me, and to a number of the feminists who've tried talking to you on this forum) definition of feminism rests entirely on a philosophically indefensible definition of "equality." To me, listening to you talk about "equality" is like listening to Stockwell Day talk about good and evil, or family values, or some other epic-heroic/romantic projection of his own ahistorical fears and bogeymen.

"Equality" is historical, Quirk, every bit as much as "masculine" and "feminine" are. And the history of equality, if it is to be understood at all, will be understood through the real lives of real people, real women among them -- not through your antiseptic, "essentialized" version of it.

(Gee, why would an academic man suddenly want to think of "equality" in a purely abstract, idealist or naturalized, ahistorical way?)

[ January 16, 2002: Message edited by: skdadl ]

quote:

---

However much you, Quirk, and some others may wish to idealize/naturalize/essentialize/theologize "equality,"

---

quote:

---

"Equality" is historical, Quirk, every bit as much as "masculine" and "feminine" are. And the history of equality, if it is to be understood at all, will be understood through the real lives of real people, real women among them -- not through your antiseptic, "essentialized" version of it.

---

Or, ok, in this one -- but you set it up.

But yet, once again, I'll try to address some of your comments.

quote:

---

philosophical pretensions

---

My pretentions, Skdadl? No pretentions on your end huh? Typical.

quote:

---

When you tried to read me above, you ducked one carefully worded introductory formulation

---

And you, for the second time, ducked every single assertion I've made, you haven't even defended the assertions that you've made (and I refuted) in your last post, despite the fact that they too had little to do with my original article, but rather like most of your comments here seem to much more concerned with me than my arguments.

quote:

---

... I presume because you didn't know what to do with it:

quote:
However much you, Quirk, and some others may wish to
idealize/naturalize/essentialize/theologize "equality,"

---

You presume wrong, not surprisingly. Why would I respond to this? You say nothing here, you invent a wish for me, then with no substantiation, attribute a bunch of unsupported labels to your invented wish. This is called a straw man, although even straw men are usualy more coherent. Please quote from my actual assertions and show how they are what you say they are.

Funny that while you hold up this quote and demmand that it be refuted, you ignore all my arguments to the many things I did directly respond to. Makes one wonder if you will actually discuss something or simply run from one argument to the next, making noises about pretentions and maturity, while neither saying nor refuting anything.

quote:

---

Quirk, your immature [...] definition of feminism rests entirely on a philosophically indefensible definition of "equality."

---

Once again, you can not simly dismiss something as being "indefensible," otherwise I can just as easily dismiss your arguments as being "pompous," you have to explain why they are indefensible by making direct reference to them. Which you have not done.

quote:

---

To me, listening to you talk about "equality" is like listening to Stockwell Day talk about good and evil, or family values, or some other epic-heroic/romantic projection of his own ahistorical fears and bogeymen.

---

Once again Skdadl, How are my assertions simular to Stockwell Day, anybody can make up a colourfull dismissal, I could easily say that listing to you is like listening to Dan Quayle talk about Polution, or listening to Porky Pig recite a tongue twister, or like listening to Mel Lastman talk about... well.. anything! but with out drawing concrete corelations, I would just sound glib.

quote:

---

"Equality" is historical, Quirk, every bit as much as "masculine" and "feminine" are. And the history of equality,

---

How does this historical nature of equality comment on what this topic is about? Does this "historical nature" have anything to do with my argument that for feminism to advance to must govern the conduct of women and men? Does the "historical nature" somehow justify sexism among feminists that leads to the alienation of many men and women?

quote:

---

if it is to be understood at all, will be understood through the real lives of real people, real women among them --

---

And what makes you think the real lives of the people around me are any less real than the lives of the people around you?

Since you're being intentionaly adversarial, and since you make so many assumptions about me, I'll go out on a limb here, what can a priviledged middle class, north american white women, tell me, an immigrant with a diverse multi-ethnic backgound, about equality? I've faced, actual, in your face, sometimes violent bigotry, I've seen my family and friends go through it as well, even some of my many close Queer friends, real women among them, so get off your high horse.

If I'm making incorrect assumptions about you, I'm sorry, but at least you'll know how it feels.

quote:

---

not through your antiseptic, "essentialized" version of it.

---

Skdadl, once again you label my version as being "antispetic," how so, once again you fail to quote any statement of mine, how convenient! Is this simular to my "dripping contempt" for support groups?

quote:

---

(Gee, why would an academic man suddenly want to think of "equality" in a purely abstract, idealist or naturalized, ahistorical way?)

---

quote:

---

I might agree with you, Mandos. In some other debate.

---

This is also very confusing Skdadl, if you don't really believe what you are saying, then why say it, in this, or any other debate?

That it proceeds at a (forgive me) different level of discourse -- partly because it is about discourse -- does not mean that I don't mean what I'm saying when I express myself in other terms. For example, seriously though I take the critique of "essentialism" (Mandos doesn't), I do not normally find it congenial to hold my own prose to those extremely exacting (and often unreadable) standards -- so usually, I don't.

But Quirk: You started a thread in this forum called "Less Drivel, More Feminism." Hey, I enjoy lively rhetoric too -- but then let's drop the pretence that you are arguing from a more purely "objective," neutral base than I. You raised in that thread (and also earlier in a thread on gender-specific language) the philosophical critique of "essentialism," so I figured it was fair to hold your feet to the same fire you had held others' -- partly to demonstrate how difficult it is to escape "essentialism" in ordinary language. Target it in someone else's concerns, and you are likely to be committing it on the new turf you choose, and where you demand they follow.

I understand that about my own writing. I thought you would be able to follow that demonstration.

Further, you have now laid out in these two threads firm definitions of feminism, equality, sexism, and a few other notions, like, eg, "intellectual integrity." You have then insisted that others accept your definitions, and you've insisted that we debate you on the basis of those definitions.

Your definition of sexism others can see above. The drift of your arguments on "Less Drivel" I copy here:

quote:

---

If, as I think Butler's is sugesting, we concern oursleves with performance and not physical bodies, we can unite against domination, instead of devide over Male domination. Unite against violance, instead of divide violence against men from violence against women.

---

quote:

---

This is not a support group, we are talking about academic feminism. Which like all schools of thought has a responsibility to strive to remove from itself all illogical artifacts of bias and anger. Otherwise it weakens it's claims to intellectual integrity. It does not matter whether these biases and the anger can be justified on a personal level or not.

---

quote:

---

We both agree with Butler that expectations of performance must be independent of having male or female bodies. And that it is this pitting of male bodies versus female bodies that is where sexism begins.

With this as a starting point let's do an excercise together, go throught all the topics on this "pro-feminist" forum and take note of the number of times expectations of performance are linked to either having a male or female body.

---

Now, my problem is that I don't agree with your definitions of either sexism or feminism, and it's unfair to demand that I spend as long as it would take to analyse my disagreement in detail. (I would rather spend my time and energy talking creatively, from my own turf.)

But briefly: Apparent in those extracts above is your assumption that "feminism" is all about discussing male domination. Why do you think that? I don't. I can't speak for anyone else, of course, and maybe that's true of some feminists, but it sure isn't what interests me. I think if you follow some of the creative threads that have arisen on this forum, you will see that it isn't what interests most other babblers who've come here -- and I'm including the men.

To me, feminism just isn't about men -- sorry. It is sometimes about the patriarchy -- but I'm not silly enough to think that most men are much a part of that.

And I don't assume that men can't be feminists, excellent feminists (witness NDB, WingNut, 'lance) ... although I note that many men seem to resist the notion that it might be difficult for them to understand women's experience if they haven't had it, and that might require being a woman, or at least listening to a few ...

In other words, I'm disputing your conviction that it is possible to separate "performance" and "bodies," much less claim for any such separation intellectually integrity -- so far, anyway. Perhaps you will in turn simply reject that position. Tant pis.

Beyond that, once again, after several readings, I just can't figure out what you are trying to say.

I'll leave your debate with Mandos out of it.

But anyway.... here we go....

quote:

---

Your raised in that thread [...]the philosophical critique of "essentialism," so I figured it was fair to hold your feet to the same fire you had held others' -- partly to demonstrate how difficult it is to escape "essentialism" in ordinary language.

---

Perhaps we have a different understanding of essentialism, but I don't see how essentialism aplies to the topic here. Once again, what I am saying is that there is sexism among feminists, is it the essence of sexism or femists that you dispute? I've given dictionary definitions for both that I think are fair, obviously we can get more existential about it, but why?

Here is my line of thinking:

Premise: There is Sexism within Feminism.

Premise: Sexism within Feminism alienates people.

Premise: Feminism's goals require that both men and women be governed by it.

Conclusion: Sexism within feminism hurts feminism.

Were is the missplaced essentialism you complain about?

quote:

---

You have then insisted that others accept your definitions, and you've insisted that we debate you on the basis of those definitions.

---

No I haven't, I've insisted that you make refference to my actual assertions, and that your arguments stand up to the basic rules of logic, that's all. I fully agree that anything I write is open for debate, my definitions and premises as well as my conclusions. However, out of hand dismissals, apeals to authority, straw men and other fallacies simply don't cut it.

quote:

---

Now, my problem is that I don't agree with your definitions of either sexism or feminism, and it's unfair to demand that I spend as long as it would take to analyse my disagreement in detail.

---

It's not unfair, what is unfair is criticising my definitions based upon alleged alternative definitions that you refuse to state.

If you are unwilling to analyse your disagreement in detail, then are you expecting me to simply accept your unstated definitions, abandon mine, and agree that you are right without even knowing what I'm agreeing to? I'm really having a hard time understanding what you are saying.

quote:

---

But briefly: Apparent in those extracts above is your assumption that "feminism" is all about discussing male domination.

---

What? Where? How? I included a dictionary definition of feminism and stated many times that feminism is a vital and diverse field of study, where are you getting this?

I never said that feminism "is all about men," or any of the otherthings you are talking about, I ask you, once again, skdadl, to not invent points of view for me. I am commenting an an obvious and detrimental phenomon within feminist circles that I propose is hurting feminism, I have explained my position at length. I even include myself in my critism buy confessing my sexism.

quote:

---

... although I note that many men seem to resist the notion that it might be difficult for them to understand women's experience if they haven't had it,

---

It is difficult to understand anyone's experience if you haven't had it. And still, this has nothing to do with my argument.

quote:

---

In other words, I'm disputing your conviction that it is possible to separate "performance" and "bodies," much less claim for any such separation intellectually integrity

---

quote:

---

And I don't assume that men can't be feminists, excellent feminists (witness NDB, WingNut, 'lance) ... although I note that many men seem to resist the notion that it might be difficult for them to understand women's experience if they haven't had it, and that might require being a woman, or at least listening to a few ...

---

Ahem. Though I'm loathe to jump in here -- and though I truly appreciate the sentiments -- I don't generally go around calling myself a feminist. Nor, in any serious way, a socialist, anarchist, or whatever -- although that could change (again). I have an uneasy relationship with -isms and ideologies. Anyway -- maybe because of certain Sensitive Guys I was subjected to back in the old days -- I'd feel just a little bit silly calling myself a feminist. And not in a good way.

Having said all that, I certainly support what many/most feminists are up to, and have no resistance whatsoever to the idea that women's experience is just a trifle difficult for me to take in. But I like to listen. Who wouldn't?

As for being a woman... that's a straight line I'll leave for andrean, Michelle, earthmother et al to pick up. A gift, if you will...

What a surprise! 'lance among the "I'm not a feminist, but..." people! I understand that not everything is in the logo (and I consider 'lance more feminist than a couple of women rabble rousers that occasionally call themselves so) -- perhaps 'lance could be a no-logo feminist . But still, there are so many political/interpretative wars going on around that term that we must not lose allies to some kind of pseudo-neutral sitting on the fence .

Don't trust 'lance when he says "he's not a feminist." Look at the posts in which he carnivalizes the concepts of masculinity and straightness; look at his interest in (aesthetic and artistic) processes of "becoming a woman." Look at his "pedantry" and love of detail (great skill for knitting and sewing!). Or his (enviable) (womanly?) sources of patience and good will. Look at his distrust of universal statements.

The fact is, our interlocutors know more about what we're *really* saying than we ourselves do. We haven't got a clue what we're saying, as a matter of fact.

[ January 17, 2002: Message edited by: Trespasser ]

quote:

---

Don't trust 'lance when he says "he's not a feminist." Look at the posts in which he carnivalizes the concepts of masculinity and straightness; look at his interest in (aesthetic and artistic) processes of "becoming a woman." Look at his "pedantry" and love of detail (great skill for knitting and sewing!). Or his (enviable) (womanly?) sources of patience and good will. Look at his distrust of universal statements.

---

Why, Trespasser! The nicest things anyone has said to me on babble in some time, if not ever. (I'm not altogether sure what "carnivalizes" means in this context, but it sounds like fun).

I suppose I simply like to resist labels because of a skepticism, healthy or otherwise, about ideologies -- about ideologies in general, that is (obviously some are better than others).

quote:

---

The fact is, our interlocutors know more about what we're *really* saying than we ourselves do. We haven't got a clue what we're saying, as a matter of fact.

---

I'm sure this comes on the highest theoretical authority, Trespasser, but I like to think I have at least some clue.

Edited to add: Wot Michelle said... I'm not the most deferential guy, but it does seem a little presumptuous, somehow, to call myself a feminist. But don't worry about a pseudo-neutral sitting on the fence. When it comes down to a fight, I know where I stand.

[ January 17, 2002: Message edited by: 'lance ]

quote:

---

Here is my line of thinking:

Premise: There is Sexism within Feminism.

---

Perhaps, Quirk, rather than asking us to take this premise as self-evident, you might demonstrate it with some representative examples, either from babble or from the Real World(tm).

"Carnivalization" is remotely related to Bakhtin, but more directly to some more recent appropriations of the concept, including feminist. Bakhtin wrote extensively about carnival in Rabelais and His World and Toril Moi, for istance, uses that book for her writing on feminist usages of 'carnivalizing' a deadly serious situation ("Anger is not the only revolutionary attitude available to us. The power of laughter can be just as subversive, as when carnival turns the old hierarchies upside-down, erasing old differences, producing new and unstable ones" etc). In his book on Dostoyevsky, though, Bakhtin had second thoughts about about modern applicability of carnival, even in language -- according to his reservations, modern carnivalization would always be "vulgar", "individualistic." But who cares. He does not own his words anyway

Your descriptions of walking in women's shoes with stilettos, or your musings about make-up and nail polish belong to the tradition of gender transgression and carnival that I cherish very much.

[ January 17, 2002: Message edited by: Trespasser ]

quote:

---

Perhaps, Quirk, rather than asking us to take this premise as self-evident, you might demonstrate it with some representative examples, either from babble or from the Real World(tm).

---

Ok, 'lance, it's a deal, but first, let us come up with a definition of sexism that we can both agree with.

I'll propose this, to keep it simple:

sexism = prejudice based on sex.

quote:

---

sexism among feminist is not. It is tolerated. In fact, any attempt to address it is met with condescension, increduelty, hostility and worst of all self-rightousness.

---

quote:

---

No one here is force to answer or even read anything posted, but if you choose to read and to answer, then answering merely with fallacy and invective does not advance the debate.

---

And thus is the problem with all forums on the internet. No matter what topic, what thread, who is involved and how intelligent they are; nothing is really addressed in a cheerful collective manner. And no one is saying everyone has to be cheerful, or anyone HAS to read what is written or even respond. Yet, frustrating replies that only peck apart the poster's post like carrion does not further the subject and/or the argument. If this were a court room, the judge would have said, "Get to the point and quit bickering over how he pronounced a word." If this were a caucaus we'd be down to physical conflict a long time ago.
Every poster who decides they might begin a topic that connects female and male issues is immediatley put on the defensive. Yes, women are probably exhausted and don't want to hear anything about male feminists, or sexism in femenism, if so, don't reply, or at least don't condesend to Quirk. All it would take is someone saying "Quirk buddy, women get bothered with questiosn like that all the time, and when it comes to the bigger picture, it's trivial." or how about "We understand where you're coming from, but what about ______," and so on.
I'll hate myself for saying this but, when you use 'YOU' words, it put's people's backs up, makes them feel accused and assaulted. When you use 'WE' or 'I' words, it puts people at ease and makes them more willing to converse and discuss, not argue and barb. For this Quirk was perhaps at fault for commanding feminists to "be this and do that." but everyone else here has simply thrown tridents of condesension and fluff at him, while effectivley evading he asked and said. While at the same time impressively proving everything he stated.

There has got to be discussion of sexism, all forms and all manifestations thereof.

One of the main reasons a lot of young men join white supremacist gangs is because they've been hurt and put the blame for that hurt on black people, but not just one black person, ALL black people, and there is no margin left for them on that side, so they congregate and stew their hatred with other like-minded young men. That was just an example and irrelevant to the tpoic at hand, but the same, or equivilent could be said of this issue. Young men who are hurt by a women or girl are allowed to stew in their hatred, they are left to beleive that all women are Jezzabells, sluts, lesser than men, and there is no margin of error on the righteous side of feminism, instead he is shot down and condesended to, he is made to look a fool, and his ideas and arguments are side swiped and left to crumble and become more fuel for his hatred. I'm not saying feminism breeds misogyny, but un-accepting arms do indeed make enemies.

But hey, you don't have to run around with arms wide open, accepting every little boy who needs answers to the world's confusing problems, thats not your job right? It's society's.

quote:

---

But hey, you don't have to run around with arms wide open, accepting every little boy who needs answers to the world's confusing problems, thats not your job right? It's society's.

---

Quite frankly no we don't. No one signed on here with the intention of being anyones parent. Some of us are parents already and others are mentors in other various ways.

I find it quite disturbing that you feel one slight from a woman or a person of colour would be enough to turn someone into a misogynist or a white surpremest. I certainly think the people I know are more intelligent than that and able to seperate the actions of a few from the intentions of the many.

quote:

---

I find it quite disturbing that you feel one slight from a woman or a person of colour would be enough to turn someone into a misogynist or a white surpremest.

---

My favorite and I can't remember the original statement. But they were quite the distance away.

quote:

---

I certainly think the people I know are more intelligent than that and able to seperate the actions of a few from the intentions of the many.

---

Yet, so far only vaudree has joined me in admited her sexism, so as far as we know, the many have abandoned vigilance.

The actions you and WindDreamer are talking about is making sexist statements. Far from being the few, the people making these statements are prevelent here and I'm not saying that these statements will drive people to white supremecy or anything quite so dramatic, but It seems obvious that they would alienate some from feminism.

'lance asked for examples, but then ran away from my asking him to agree to a definition. Obviously, because agreeing to a definition would rob him of the privledge of equivicating about my examples.

Skdadl seems to have run out of reasons to say that either this shouldn't be discussed at all or that I am not qualified to discuss it. Everyone seems to run to away from the point, making undefensible accusations of "essentialism," using ad hominem fallacies, and or trying to "pull rank" because of their Gender or because they read a particular book, and I didn't. Or even worse, the complaints about being "fed up" or having had enough, when is is just indignant nonsence, since the choice to read and respond to anything here is purely elective.

Obviously, sexism exists within feminism, how could it not? We all, as the point of this topic is, are corrupted by being products of a sexist society. Do the people here imagine that somehow, some of us are magicaly imune?

The whole reason that I braught this up in the first place is that people on all sides of all the issues here agree on one thing: From the "I'm not a feminist, but" people to the "Humanism not Feminism" people, to the "What about Men's Rights?" people, to the "Feminists are FemiNazis" people, we all agree that some people are alienated by feminism.

What can I say, the answer is obvious, if feminism wants more widespread acceptance, it's going to have to be more accepting. It simply doen't work any other way.

And this is not an anti-feminist point of view, this is a pro-feminist point of view, since my goal in making this critisism is to advance feminism, not discourage feminism.

quote:

---

'lance asked for examples, but then ran away from my asking him to agree to a definition. Obviously, because agreeing to a definition would rob him of the privledge of equivicating about my examples.

---

You neglect the possibility, Quirk, that I was simply thinking about it. But I don't think I'll bother debating with you, when you're inclined to write such things as

quote:

---

Yet, so far only vaudree has joined me in admited her sexism, so as far as we know, the many have abandoned vigilance.

---

or again

quote:

---

The actions you and WindDreamer are talking about is making sexist statements. Far from being the few, the people making these statements are prevelent here

---

For all that you like to bandy about terms of logic, Quirk, and point out alleged logical flaws in other people's arguments, you also like to harangue.

Well, consider that the form in which one expresses one's argument -- I mean the "social" form, having to do with respect, couching one's opinions as opinions rather than as pronunciamentos, and so forth -- is at least as important as the "technical" or "logical" form. That's to say, it's at least as important, if one is to be taken seriously, that one consider the way in which one's interlocutors like to be addressed.

Check out the What's funny II thread you'll see that there are jokes which are sexist against women and some that are sexist against men. The point is we also have the ability to laugh at the sexism inherent in our culture while at the same working on changing it.

I dont see the point of doing a 12 step meeting here and all rising and baring our shame.

earthmother: People want to know why some feel alienated from feminism, I try to answer the question. If there's anything specific about my reasoning you don't understand or dispute, please specify. I would like to ask you what you mean by this though:

quote:

---

All I can repeat is the is a FEMINIST FORUM to discuss issues from a PRO FEMINIST point of view.

---

quote:

---

Many men, and many women feel alienated by feminism, because it excludes them, it singles them out for accusation, it holds them to certain roles and identites based solely on their sex and it creates double standards.

---

Are we all sexist? Well, you say you are. You want everyone else to announce they are sexist too so the healing can begin. Yet, we do not all discriminate on the basis of gender. We do not all promote attitudes, conditions, or behaviours based on gender. Some of us might actually promote the exact opposite. So you open a door for us to confess and have our sins washed away. But maybe we believe that even if we have sinned by standing up and shouting "I am sinner" does not lead to salvation but merely more judging.
Surely those who have questioned your new religion, so far, have not been met with the understanding and forgiveness of a gentle saviour.

Am I sexist? I will tell you now. No. Am I going to hell? Before I submit to a baptism let me assure you that I am not in a position to discriminate against anyone on any grounds. And in those circumstances when I have been, I have not. Not even against those I know to be Alliance supporters.

If I promote any behaviors, attitudes or conditions they would be those of non-comformity. Hardly a sexist direction which could best be described as traditional. A word never used to describe me. Yet, you would still have me confess. I think not.

I do not believe you set about to annoy people. In fact, I beleive you set out to widen the discussion. But a wider discussion requires a more concilliatory approach by her making the invitation.

Finally, I hit rock bottom last year when I took a Womyn's Studies course. My sexism has devastated my life in so many ways. I lost a kind and loving husband because I was unwilling to admit that I was helpless, and submit to his higher power.

Many are the times that I have refused to allow a man to give me the benefit of his superior knowledge. And I am all the poorer for it.

So, like, I would like to do this, y'know, the way you do, except I have this problem. I mean, I do know some men I actually -- I mean, it's not like I feel superior to them exactly, but like I think I am, um, maybe more alert? than some of them sometimes, I think ... And I still think I'm, oh, I dunno, maybe real sensitive about what other people are thinking and saying, sometimes I am, I'm sure I am ...

Because I was a sexist, I took a dead end job in a factory so I could post sunshine girls at my line, leer at the office girls and make crude comments like, oh, her tits are sooo huge, I’d like to…, well, you know.

(And fight the moderators! Fight the power!)

edited to something funnier... if that is possible for me, cause I'm such a funny guy.

[ January 19, 2002: Message edited by: clockwork ]

One's adherence to a cause may be eithet out of an insightful, analytical well thought out vision OR a personal (sometimes pathological) experiences. Of course with some variety in between.

Like the pathological element found in a man who has been rejected or jilted by a woman and develops a hatred for women, there are also women who have been sujected to abuse (physical, sexual and what have you) and develop hatred for men.

The difference is that very few are men of the above type who would join a men's -"male equality-seeking" organizations or groups, but many and many are women of the above type who engage in self-delusion, call themselves feminists, join feminist organizations and groups and start their deeds berating men for being men and -in the way and without knowing it- maligning the cause of feminism.

Later

For today's discusion, I wan't to make a comment regarding what has been described here as that scourge of feminism.

While we battle for freedom from sexism, we must be carefull not to fall pray to hasty generalizations. We all know there is sexism within feminism. Well, we all know that sexism is everywhere, including feminism. But we must remember that sexism is not inherent to feminism.

In fact, as recovering sexists, we must embrace feminism, because it is the feminists who have taught us much of what we know regaurding the scourge of sexism and it's consequences.

quote:

---

As so often before, Quirk, I am in awe. I hadn't realized analysis of this quality was possible. Thank you.

---

And, as so often before 'lance, I am in awe with how desperate you are to respond to my analysis, wether you have a point to make or not, that you actualy delude yourself into believeing these sorts of comments are amusing. Poor 'lance, it must be difficult to be so very afraid of having your argument refuted, that you find it prefferable to not make an argument at all.

As much fun as it would be for me to exchange pithy barbs with you ad nauseum, I think's it off topic here and would spoil the spirit of acceptance that's emerging.

Maybe one day, since you seem an eager, if disingenuous, student, we can go over the origin and meaning of the insult game in culture, which manifests inself in such contemporary ways as flame wars and battle rap, or historical, the game of dozens.

Here's a story from African-American folklore:

.........

Monkey, from the safety of a tree, taunts lion about what he supposedly heard the Elephant say.

"He talked about yo' people till my hair turned gray. He say yo' daddy's a freak and yo' mamma's a whore. He say yo' brother's going through the jungle selling assholes from door to door"

quote:

---

Poor 'lance, it must be difficult to be so very afraid of having your argument refuted, that you find it prefferable to not make an argument at all.

---