quote:

---

For girls to go around insulting other girls or their mothers in that kind of way is counter-productive. It just makes it more ok for guys to call girls sluts and whores. With STFX having the reputation for rape and sexual assault it does, I would have liked to think that maybe the students there would have been more sensitive to this kind of verbal/pictoral abuse, but I think the education in that area must be seriously lacking. There are enough pig-headed men at that university, we don't need a bunch of pig-headed women. Students there need to hold themselves to higher standards. I know I'm a man and it's not my place to tell women what to do, but I'm speaking here as a feminist. What most people interpret as a joke, a feminist would see as a deeply hurtful example of patriarchy, male privilege, and misogyny. Seeing it as a harmless prank is akin to seeing the Abu Ghraib torture scandal as such. Most people are not attuned to be sensitive to this kind of thing. It's ok to joke around, but when it comes at the expense of objectifying women (whether it is a female or a male doing the objectifying, it makes no difference) and depicting them as sex objects, it just shows immaturity and a lack of forethought. It makes a very bad statement about STFX as an institution that students aren't aware of how hurtful their actions can be. Try asking a victim of rape or sexual assault if she thinks that the prank was funny. It was just all the damn feminists' fault for being soooo sensitive!

This kind of argument is the same argument employed by so-called Men's Rights groups and "independent" feminists. It's as if equality has been achieved and we should all just sit down and shut up. Men are now being taken advantage of, they are the ones who aren't being treated fairly. Well that's just crap. Utter and complete. You can't argue that men are just as much victims of sexual assault as women. Every time a girl has sex with a guy and she doesn't want to, that's sexual assault. I'd say rape. Can someone give me examples of instances where a guy has been forced to have sex with a girl and he didn't want to? We live in a society that condones this stuff, people! Whether it's urban culture calling women sluts, bitches, and hoes, to pornography, where it seems the more you make the woman gag on your cock the better! That isn't freedom of expression, that's oppression. Have you ever wondered if maybe feminists are labelled man-haters because that accusation isn't totally unjustified? It wasn't men who had to spend 2500 years of human history without the right to vote. It wasn't men who weren't considered people under the law until last century. Maybe being seen as inferior for 99.9% of your gender's existence gives women the right to hold a grudge. But they still don't hate men. Feminists have hope in men. I hope my gender can change, can mend its ways to see how we contribute to patriarchy every single day of our lives and work to change that. If men were completely hopeless, women would be in armed rebellion against us. But feminist voices are being silenced and marginalized and pushed to the extremes. Because we're just angry. We just hate men. Apparently its not about equality anymore, it's about full spectrum dominance. Well it's not. The plain fact is equality has not occurred yet. As long as men are still beating each other senseless (and sometimes to death) on the ice or on the playing field, it has not occurred yet. As long as pornography objectifies and abuses women, it has not occurred yet. As long as the words slut and whore and bitch do not carry similar weight to the words kike, nigger, and spic, then it has not occurred yet. And as long as immature university students do not understand the implications and offensive connotations to sexually graphic imagery used to insult women, then it has not occurred yet. I would venture that those who accuse feminists of being overly sensitive, man-hating, or militant are actually woman-haters. To be anti-feminist is to be misogynist. It is to be anti-equality. Go out, educate yourselves. Talk to the activists, the rape victims, the professors in womens studies departments. This is a fight for all of humanity. And if we don't keep up the fight, gender equality is just a pipe dream.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by swirrlygrrl:
I prefer the term "pro-feminist men," but that's just me.

---

I think it's good that you spoke out on this. I disagree with a point in your text but that point doesn't make me see your text as anti-feminist.

I don't think you're trying to control women through feminism.

This is from The Herald. It will give a brief background for those who aren't familiar with the story.

They're cancelling a hockey tournament because somebody put up a naughty drawing? With a penis on it?

quote:

---

This is from The Herald. It will give a brief background for those who aren't familiar with the story.

---

To anyone familiar, is there more to the story ? From the Herald account, yes, the act certainly was vandalism, and perhaps crude (though in a University context, probably not) but where does the "rape imagery" aspect come in ?

Is that part of the controversy, with some students seeing cancellation of the game as an appropriate response to sexism and others seeing it as an overhanded repression of freedom of expression ?

quote:

---

A female Resident-Assistant in Burke reported this afternoon that MacIsaac house has plastered Burke house with photographs of a woman with her legs open and a large papier-mâché penis aimed at her vagina. Underneath is the caption “Burke we ****** your mom.” As if this weren’t enough, they filled condoms with a milky substance and taped them to all the women’s doors in Burke house, and they put women’s laundry in the dryers with tuna and sardines. I am sure I don’t have to point out to anyone on this listserv how demeaning to women and potentially inciting of sexual violence these acts are.

---

I think part of the discrepancy with the stories is that I may not be totally informed on what took place at STFX in detail. Given Sharon's description, it seems like a very malicious and wrong-headed act to me, and I'm a university student who has seen a lot of things. And yes, many students are complaining that the game was cancelled due to the actions of a few. But again, its not entirely relevant to my questions.

But then this from the same message board -

quote:

---

Good afternoon to all,

WOW!!! How proud you ALL must be to be ranked #1 in the Country.

Oh wait, been rated #1 on anything does not give the right to act this way. Yet I blame the ADMINISTRATION for letting you get away with this behaviour for many years.

I am a mother and resent the latest of your so called "FUN", indeed grow up act like adults and show that in fact you DESERVE to be at this so called University(#1).

This is against all THAT Catholicism stands for. I am outraged that this kind of thing can happen. Some of you call this FUN, well I think it high time the fun stops, no parent sent you there to do this, and I am disgusted that you are ranked #1 in any level. Your behaviour really speaks volumes, it lets the entire Nation know how your STAFF, STUDENTS BODY and community, etc., be tolerant to IGNORANCE and STUPIDITY.

ALL STUDENTS & MOST DEFINATELY STAFF SHOULD BE EMBARASSED WITH THE LATEST ACT, THOSE STUDENTS THAT DESERVE TO BE THERE SHOULD STAND UP AND LET THEIR VOICES BE HEARD, IT WILL BE VERY UNFORTUNATE FOR THE DESERVING STUDENTS WHEN THE REST OF THE COUNTRY BEGINS TO VIEW ST. FRANCIS UNIVERSITY AS A JOKE, THE GRADUATES WILL NO LONGER LOOK OR DISPLAY OR WHERE THEIR X RINGS WITH ANY PRIDE, INSTEAD, WHEN BEING INTERVIEWED, AT GATHERING WILL BEGIN TO TAKE THEIR RING OFF AND LEAVE IT AT HOME.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by DavisMavis:
... My friend was objecting both to what I had written, and that I felt that I had the authority to write it. I just don't think that she believed a man could be sympathetic to the feminist cause to the point of being so passionate about it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by verbatim:

Perhaps your friend needs to get out a bit more. Perhaps she feels that taking such a stand is more authentically feminist. However, behind the reality of the oppression of women is the more general human experience of injustice, and many men know what that feels like.

---

Anyone? Anyone see the merit of punishing people who weren't involved in any way?

In my opinion, you have every right to speak out against patriarchy, as long as you do so as a man, and don't pretend to speak *for* women. I thought your blog entry was generally appropriate in this regard (edit: I still think "generally appropriate" although others here more attuned to detail have noted some specific sections that may be problematic).

[ 09 February 2005: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
So I have to wonder, if someone at your workplace put a pornographic picture up in the lunchroom, complete with some offensive text, how many of you would be OK with being docked a week's pay as punishment for what that idiot did?

Anyone? Anyone see the merit of punishing people who weren't involved in any way?

I find it puzzling that at a university, populated with young adults, the administration would take such a group punishment position. Why punish everyone for the actions of two women??

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by James:
Davis, it would seem from perusing the message board board that was quoted above that most female students (at least on that board) are much less offended by the incident than are you. If that is so, then your own essay could well be taken as a man lecturing women that they "should be better feminists".

My time here on babble has reminded me that such doesn't fly well.

---

This gets to the crux of the matter. I think it's precisely because I feel more passionate about the event than many of the girls at X that my piece can be viewed as condescending. Now, the next question is, how do I explain to one such girl that my intention here isn't to lecture? I don't think its necessarily that I think women should be better feminists, I was basically trying to defend against attacks made on feminists.

edited because I'm going on 3 hours of sleep

[ 07 February 2005: Message edited by: DavisMavis ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by DavisMavis:

I was basically trying to defend against attacks made on feminists.

---

[ stage whisper] davis, Lesson # 2. Feminists don't appreciate "knights in shing armour" on feminist issues.[ /whisper]

quote:

---

Originally posted by James:

[ stage whisper] davis, Lesson # 2. Feminists don't appreciate "knights in shing armour" on feminist issues.[ /whisper]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by verbatim:
DM, much of the situation is about perception. There is no way that a woman can know that you are explicitly not lecturing unless you are, well, explicit about it, and even then the message might not carry. I think robbie_dee's perspective reflects my own -- as long as you don't attempt to claim "neutrality" (because according to feminist analysis that is the historical location of the male perspective), you'll be OK.

---

It was really where you started making blanket statements about how all feminists feel- with lines like "Feminists have hope in men." I assume, because you're male and because you wrote this, that you do, but to be honest I know a number of feminists who do not have hope in men. This is not necessarily a lifelong opinion. Many of them are PTSD sufferers who are unable to handle so much as being near a man for a certain period of time while they recover from sexual assault etc. But this is the sort of thing-- a man talking about how feminists feel about men-- that may offend some people.

I hope you don't get discouraged by all the fuss; I probably feel the same as you as regards being pro-feminist. Every now and then you get discouraged by a sharp rebuke, or a blunt reminder that you are not a woman and therefore can't understand such and such.

Sometimes these response will be warranted, but sometimes you will come across women who truly do believe that you are not entitled to comment at all about feminist issues. I hope these will be in the minority.

I think it's important to recognise the differences between men's and women's lives and experiences (as you obviously do), but as someone said, there are arguably more shared experiences between women and men than not.

quote:

---

Originally posted by catje:
Hey Davis
I don't mean any offence here [oh dear, that always sounds like the prelude to an offence- i really don't!] but I think, as careful as you were, that your language did get a bit tricky in places.

It was really where you started making blanket statements about how all feminists feel- with lines like "Feminists have hope in men." I assume, because you're male and because you wrote this, that you do, but to be honest I know a number of feminists who do not have hope in men. This is not necessarily a lifelong opinion. Many of them are PTSD sufferers who are unable to handle so much as being near a man for a certain period of time while they recover from sexual assault etc. But this is the sort of thing-- a man talking about how feminists feel about men-- that may offend some people.

I will by no means disallow your right to say it if that's what you feel. Really I applaud you for speaking out. Making public statements about something one feels is important is a difficult thing to do for most people, and getting shot down for it doesn't make this sort of thing easier. But you may have to be aware that it's a difficult line to walk, and something that a lot of people feel very strongly about. Furthermore, anyone making blanket statements about what 'Feminists' as a whole think is probably going to get in trouble with somebody.

---

So, if we are to attach importance to terms like "feminist" or "pro feminist male", then the later is preferable as far as I'm concerned.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tommy_Paine:
Like any other movement, the feminist movement will be on the watch for those that might want to co-opt it from within. There are many professionals and management types that are pro trade union, for example, but most rank and filer's are suspicious to the point of not welcoming them to their ranks.

So, if we are to attach importance to terms like "feminist" or "pro feminist male", then the later is preferable as far as I'm concerned.

Like any other movement, feminism needs allies, and the latter term allows for men who want to allie themselves, but keep open a dialogue with those in the movement that suspect their motives.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zonky:

Every definition of a feminist that I've seen is that a feminist is a person who advocates equal rights for women. I don't see why the two genders should have different terms while having the same ideals.

---

I feel the same way, but I agree with Tommy Paine's reality check. I thin it's hard for most men to relate to the sensitivities involved in the feminist movement.

The closest I've come to understanding the point of view is when I was convening a 'men in childcare' group, and felt kind of funny about women wanting to join in and take an active part.
It came to a head when someone I thought was a close ally presented a conference paper which was a post-structuralist analysis of men in early childhood. She ripped into some longheld assumptions and beliefs in a weirdly vicious and sneering way. I got burnt badly, and haven't spoken to that person again.

quote:

---

For girls to go around insulting other girls or their mothers in that kind of way is counter-productive

---

quote:

---

There are enough pig-headed men at that university, we don't need a bunch of pig-headed women.

---

quote:

---

I know I'm a man and it's not my place to tell women what to do, but I'm speaking here as a feminist.

---

quote:

---

but sometimes you will come across women who truly do believe that you are not entitled to comment at all about feminist issues.

---

And sometimes you will come across USians who vehemently feel that Canadians have no right to comment on *their* politics, and artists who believe that nobody else has a right to an opinion about art, and economists who think regular people should never discuss fiscal policy...

quote:

---

Originally posted by rocco:
First of all the comparison between calling some one a nigger, spic or other racist term and calling someone a whore or a slut is specious. The racist terms are based on appearance, whereas the other terms are based on behaviour. Furthermore, these are not gender specific labels; men can be whores or sluts. All activists want change now. Change is slow folks. You want some forecasts? Women outnumber men on many university campuses across canada. Out here on the west coast, it's more than 60-40. Where do you think that's going to lead us vis-a-vis gender equality, on the basis of pay equality and in positions of power. Lastly, what connection exists between contact sports and the oppresion of women? I don't get it.

---

I didn't want to get into a discussion about the opinions I stated in my article, my purpose of posting here was to comprehend why my article was seen as it was by my friend. I understand the difference between racial slurs and sexist slurs, but I guess my point is that sexist slurs have become part of everyday acceptable language and are deeply offensive to many people, and that has to change. I know change takes place slowly, but radical activists such as myself feel that by pushing as hard as we can we can make the change happen a little faster than it would if we didn't. Would you say to Martin Luther King Jr. that change is slow, just settle down? Would you complain that he wanted change too fast? I'm happy I attend an institution where women outnumber men, it's a good example of positive change. But does that mean I'm just going to sit here satisfied and not stand up and speak out? Hell no.

As far as aggression in male sports goes, I don't feel that I have the time/space here to fully explain the relationship to feminism and patriarchy because that isn't the subject of the thread, but I'll try to briefly outline my views. Keep in mind what the thread it about though.

I guess my position is that masculinity itself stands in the way of gender equality and reform. Masculinity is men's problem like racism is white people's problem. Both are pathological. Masculinity is domination, aggressiveness, strength, and emotional repression. It needs to be confronted. On the ice or the playing field, men call each other pussies, wimps, and girls as insults. Violence in sports reflects these masculine traits, as well as a hyper-competitiveness and an almost uber-masculine archetype. I advocate eliminating masculinity and making typically feminine values, such as sensitivity and caring, human characteristics, as well as what some would consider beneficial masculine characteristics, like strength. There's no need to assign these traits to specific genders. I see this kind of glorification of masculine characteristics in many different sports, and it all makes me extremely uncomfortable knowing these same attitudes are employed by males who seek to dominate women.

edited because I can't spell

[ 08 February 2005: Message edited by: DavisMavis ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by rocco:
Furthermore, these are not gender specific labels; men can be whores or sluts.

---

And yet, promiscuous men are more often called 'studs' or 'players'.