babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » walking the talk   » feminism   » Are you a Manarchist?

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Are you a Manarchist?
tonguesincommon
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2903

posted 29 July 2002 04:11 PM      Profile for tonguesincommon        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
After reading Kropotkin's posting in the 'Perspectives on Gender' thread, we thought perhaps this website might inspire some constructive reflection on how patriarchy infiltrates all of our lives...

http://www.infoshop.org/inews/stories.php?story=01/11/21/0853184

It's meant simply as an excercise to examine one's relationship to patriarchy.


From: East Coast | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
charlessumner
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2914

posted 29 July 2002 04:15 PM      Profile for charlessumner     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
May we never call anyone in our personal lives "COINTELPRO-esque!"
From: closer everyday | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 29 July 2002 06:20 PM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I dunno. This sounds like a purity test to me. Some of the ideas of what is a feminist and what isn't in that list seem to me to be a little sectarian/partisan/dogmatic, as it ignores/elides a lot of debates. But that's always the case with purity tests of any stripe.
From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Timebandit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1448

posted 29 July 2002 06:31 PM      Profile for Timebandit     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
That wasn't a questionaire, that was the freaking Inquisition!!!!


From: Urban prairie. | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
disobedient
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2915

posted 29 July 2002 07:15 PM      Profile for disobedient     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Every time I read this, I giggle.
http://www.heartless-bitches.com/rants/niceguys/niceguys.shtml

From: Ontario | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 29 July 2002 07:21 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Do you find yourself only attracted to "Anarcho-Crusty Punk Barbie", Alterna-Grrrl Barbie," or Hardcore-Grrrl Barbie?" (The idea here being that the only women you arc attracted to fit mainstream beauty standards but just dress and do their hair alternatively and maybe have piercings and tattoos)

That made me laugh.

I have to tell you: I have never been able to cure myself of sometimes getting angry at all men for being men.

I have found no rational way to justify that reaction -- it sometimes just arises. I do think of them as the Other, though. I find that I just can't help it. Perhaps I can be cured?


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 29 July 2002 07:26 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Every time I read this, I giggle.

Christine Lavin's "Sensitive New Age Guys" is always good for a laugh, too.


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
kropotkin1951
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2732

posted 29 July 2002 07:28 PM      Profile for kropotkin1951   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Quite the questionarre. I for one try to treat all people as equals. This in my experience tends to piss off the people who think they are better than everyone else and confuses many marginalized people.

I try and speak up against racist and /or sexist statements in my daily life. That is why I post things like on the perspectives thread. When you generalize about any group you must be wrong about some of the group. To me it is important to concentrate on ideas and building coalitions between like minded people not attacking others based on their physical traits.

To be a somewhat provocative I think another good question would be; If abuse in relationships is a gender based problem why is there spousal abuse in lesbian spousal relationships?


From: North of Manifest Destiny | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Timebandit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1448

posted 29 July 2002 07:28 PM      Profile for Timebandit     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I dunno, skdadl... Do you want to be cured?

I generally don't think of men as the Other, although in some cases I do. I guess that because I patterned after the men in my family instead of the women (and very patriarchal they were), I appreciate some aspects of patriarchal men, and don't necessarily find myself at odds with it unless there is undue pressure for me to conform.

I like men. I always have, likely always will.


From: Urban prairie. | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 29 July 2002 07:49 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Oh, I really like 'em, Zoot ...

That is the problem.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Timebandit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1448

posted 29 July 2002 11:00 PM      Profile for Timebandit     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
No problem! Just remember to remember the flaws, and like 'em in spite of it all...

[ July 29, 2002: Message edited by: Zoot Capri ]


From: Urban prairie. | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 29 July 2002 11:12 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
... flaws?
From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
kropotkin1951
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2732

posted 29 July 2002 11:19 PM      Profile for kropotkin1951   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
You only need to remember any flaws detected are inherent in the male gender. While of course keeping in mind that any flaws in a woman are a direct result of patriarchy.
From: North of Manifest Destiny | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
disobedient
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2915

posted 29 July 2002 11:26 PM      Profile for disobedient     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
To be a somewhat provocative I think another good question would be; If abuse in relationships is a gender based problem why is there spousal abuse in lesbian spousal relationships?

I don't think abusive relationships are a gender based problem, but as a heterosexual feminist I can't really speak about lesbian relationships. Feminists tend to view gender as being socially constructed. Are men socialized to be more aggressive in interpersonal relationships? How does that happen? There are masculinist movements but from what I've read, and from what they've told me, they seem entirely focussed on counteracting feminism, opposing abortion, and generally expressing dissatisfaction with their roles as parents, husbands and every day guys. It's more of a reaction, than proaction.


From: Ontario | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Black Dog
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2776

posted 30 July 2002 01:18 PM      Profile for Black Dog   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I got bored and stopped reading a third of the way through. Does that mean I'm a tool of the patriarchy, or do I just have a short attention span?
From: Vancouver | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 30 July 2002 01:19 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
If you are, I am too - you got further than me.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Black Dog
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2776

posted 30 July 2002 01:20 PM      Profile for Black Dog   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Omigod. We should probably give our heads a good shake for being such willful insturments or repression. Or maybe I should just takes me Ritalin.
From: Vancouver | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Timebandit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1448

posted 30 July 2002 01:21 PM      Profile for Timebandit     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Does that mean I'm a tool of the patriarchy...

Aren't we all?


From: Urban prairie. | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Black Dog
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2776

posted 30 July 2002 01:35 PM      Profile for Black Dog   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
6. Do you make fun of "typical" men or "frat boys" but not ever check yourself to see if you behave in the same ways?

And how is an atypical man supposedto act?


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Timebandit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1448

posted 30 July 2002 01:46 PM      Profile for Timebandit     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
That's really the problem, isn't it? If a guy answered all the questions "correctly", what heterosexual woman in her right mind would want anything to do with him? He'd more or less be a woman.
From: Urban prairie. | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Black Dog
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2776

posted 30 July 2002 01:53 PM      Profile for Black Dog   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Which brings me to ask, again, how is a fella suppossed to behave these days? If we are sensetive we're "nice guys" and therefore boring. If we act like "typical" guys, we're oppresive jerks. In the old days roles unequal, but at least clearly defined. Now there's no such thing as gender roles (or there's not supposed to be). No wonder this post-feminist generation of males is so confused and clueless.
From: Vancouver | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Rebecca West
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1873

posted 30 July 2002 04:42 PM      Profile for Rebecca West     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I think that the sheer number of questions is pretty indicative of the kind of lunacy such a checklist represents. Those few reasonable questions that address viable concerns are just window-dressing - the rest, if taken seriously, would represent a concerted effort to manicure the behavior of our interestingly flawed menfolk until they were mindless drones.

Stepford Men...shudder.


From: London , Ontario - homogeneous maximus | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Timebandit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1448

posted 30 July 2002 04:44 PM      Profile for Timebandit     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Try to just be yourself, for starters. That's something that the rigid gender roles of the past definitely didn't promote for either men or women.

I don't see "typical guys" as particularly oppressive. One can only be oppressed in a relationship if one allows it. It's a two-way street. Women have to be responsible for their own liberation to a large degree. To what degree you embrace the cultural norms of "masculine" and "feminine" behaviour is (or should be) an individual choice, and will determine the kind of relationship one has.

I had a SIL who was perfectly happy to have a very traditional gender-roled relationship with her hubby. She wasn't oppressed -- it was the way she wanted it.

Personally, I prefer a shared-housework/parenting-equal-partnership model for my marriage, but that's just what works for me. I know couples who work better on role-reversal. Whatever floats your boat...

I also don't think "nice guys" are boring. I have an extremely nice guy in my life, and boring just doesn't enter the equation. In fact, nice guys, the ones who care about how the woman in the relationship feels and what she wants tend to be adaptable enough to find themselves in a real partnership. Everybody wins.


From: Urban prairie. | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Timebandit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1448

posted 30 July 2002 04:46 PM      Profile for Timebandit     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Stepford Men...shudder.

'Zackly. I need somebody I can have the occasional good spat with...

Vive le difference!


From: Urban prairie. | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Black Dog
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2776

posted 30 July 2002 04:57 PM      Profile for Black Dog   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
That's what I'm talking about! If every guy adhered to every aspect of this silly list, how interesting would that be? I for one don't like having to watch every word and syllable for any "patriarchal" overtones.

I especially like the first question. If you let a woman take charge you're being patronizing. If you take charge you're being patriarchal. I guess a guy can't win.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Timebandit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1448

posted 30 July 2002 05:26 PM      Profile for Timebandit     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
I guess a guy can't win.

Ya gotta stop this competitive stuff, black dog -- It's just tooooooo patriarchal!


From: Urban prairie. | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Black Dog
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2776

posted 30 July 2002 05:30 PM      Profile for Black Dog   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Oops. I forgot: "win" denotes competition and competition is, like, bad for some reason. My bad .
From: Vancouver | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Timebandit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1448

posted 30 July 2002 05:33 PM      Profile for Timebandit     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Yeh, like women are never competitive.... LOLOL!
From: Urban prairie. | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 30 July 2002 07:34 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Now Zoot. The only reason women are competitive is because the patriarchy has the world set up so that women have to compete with each other in order to get ahead. The state of nature for a group of women without male influence is sharing and caring and lovebeads. Get with the program.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 30 July 2002 07:40 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
But I love men! I really looooooooove men. Er, wait. Is this the wrong area? Is this thing on? Hello? *tap, tap...*

*walks off, confused*


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
kropotkin1951
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2732

posted 30 July 2002 08:15 PM      Profile for kropotkin1951   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Now Zoot. The only reason women are competitive is because the patriarchy has the world set up so that women have to compete with each other in order to get ahead. The state of nature for a group of women without male influence is sharing and caring and lovebeads. Get with the program.

And of course if men did not have to compete for female companionship they would all be like me, into caring and sharing and cooperative living.
(where is the tongue-in-cheek smilie)


From: North of Manifest Destiny | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Timebandit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1448

posted 30 July 2002 10:44 PM      Profile for Timebandit     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
The state of nature for a group of women without male influence is sharing and caring and lovebeads. Get with the program.

Oh yeah? Well, my love beads are nicer than yours, so there!

Honestly, though, I've found as many or more competitive women in feminist groupings as in others... And women are as competitive as men. I just appreciate that men are more up front about it. At least you see the knife coming...


From: Urban prairie. | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
anna_c
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2845

posted 31 July 2002 05:57 PM      Profile for anna_c     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
I for one don't like having to watch every word and syllable for any "patriarchal" overtones

why not?


From: montreal | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Black Dog
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2776

posted 31 July 2002 06:09 PM      Profile for Black Dog   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Because I don't have a copy of "The Patriarchy for Dummies", so I'm not sure just what sorts of verbal landmines are out there. By this quiz's guidelines, a statement like "Women are more emotional than men" becomes hate speech. When, to me, it's quite innocuous.
From: Vancouver | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 31 July 2002 07:35 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I don't think it's hate speech. I think it's remarkably ignorant and essentialist and stereotypical, but not hate speech.

[ July 31, 2002: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Timebandit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1448

posted 31 July 2002 08:33 PM      Profile for Timebandit     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
why not?

Has it occurred to you that it's difficult to have an intimate relationship when you have to edit everything you say or think?

I'm hoping black dog doesn't actually think "Women are more emotional than men" as he seems to be reasonably intelligent, but if he really does, he should be able to say so to a woman he's intimate with. She might not like it, and he may have to deal with some fallout, but there it is. Part of the evolution of an equal relationship is to really know your partner.

I'd also like to point out that some women do not find patriarchy oppressive. If you do, don't date patriarchal men. It really is that simple.


From: Urban prairie. | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
vickyinottawa
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 350

posted 01 August 2002 10:56 AM      Profile for vickyinottawa   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
I'd also like to point out that some women do not find patriarchy oppressive. If you do, don't date patriarchal men. It really is that simple.

...this may explain why I haven't had a date in a while


From: lost in the supermarket | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Black Dog
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2776

posted 01 August 2002 02:34 PM      Profile for Black Dog   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
It seems what this amounts to is not a attack on patriarchy, but on sweeping generalizations, no?
From: Vancouver | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
tonguesincommon
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2903

posted 01 August 2002 02:46 PM      Profile for tonguesincommon        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
What an interesting point of view you have.

From: East Coast | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
kropotkin1951
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2732

posted 01 August 2002 02:47 PM      Profile for kropotkin1951   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
By this quiz's guidelines, a statement like "Women are more emotional than men" becomes hate speech.

quote:
I don't think it's hate speech. I think it's remarkably ignorant and essentialist and stereotypical, but not hate speech.

quote:
But men ARE privileged in every economic class when compared with their female counterparts.

A stereotype is a steorotype is a stereotype. The proper statement is most men are more privilaged in every economic class not the generic "men."


And this thread was created because I tried to impart that view in another thread. I am having a hard time with this format since I usually write something and then edit and rewrite the next day and here I end up with disjointed thoughts that are easily misunderstood.

[ August 01, 2002: Message edited by: kropotkin1951 ]


From: North of Manifest Destiny | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Rebecca West
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1873

posted 01 August 2002 04:15 PM      Profile for Rebecca West     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
It seems what this amounts to is not a attack on patriarchy, but on sweeping generalizations, no?
If we're striving for truth and accuracy, yeah, sweeping generalizations and stereotypes don't cut it, regardless of where they're directed. Where emotions are concerned, I've always maintained that no one is "more" or "less" emotional than someone else. I think that we're all emotional beings (unless we're catatonic or dead), but we experience those emotions and express them differently - as individuals and according to how we're socialized within the family and according to sex and perceived gender.

Even so, it's almost impossible to be totally inclusive, and when it's obvious that someone is attempting to be AS INCLUSIVE AS POSSIBLE UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, nitpicking is, like, rilly annoying and counterproductive and you never convince the person of your point that way. You just piss them off. So when I was reading those "guidelines", I was thinking, wow, if someone were constantly sitting me down to have a little chat about my 'patriarchal' behavior, I'd think they/he/she was the biggest asshole in the universe, and a total control freak to boot.


From: London , Ontario - homogeneous maximus | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
skadie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2072

posted 01 August 2002 04:40 PM      Profile for skadie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
I'd also like to point out that some women do not find patriarchy oppressive. If you do, don't date patriarchal men. It really is that simple.



Pshaw. I think the questionaire is more to make us think of how pervasive the patriarchy is. It could open men's and women's eyes to the who, what, when, and where of sexism.

Is there such a thing as an un-patriarchical man? Or woman for that matter?


From: near the ocean | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 01 August 2002 05:04 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
I think the questionaire is more to make us think of how pervasive the patriarchy is. It could open men's and women's eyes to the who, what, when, and where of sexism.

Nothing wrong with that. But it has an unfortunate flavour of being written by a would-be commissar...

quote:
Do you help your patriarchal and sexist friends to make change and help educate them? Or do you continue friendships with patriarchal and sexist men and act like there is no problem.

... a sincere commissar, mind you, one who believes that people can be, and should be, "educated" and "helped to make change" by pressure from outside. But a commissar, nonetheless.

I was also put off by things like this:

quote:
Have you politicized your ideas about child rearing and parenthood radical communities? Do you believe that individuals who are in the movement have children or that the movement has children?

If it's the "movement" that has children, count me out of it.


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
agent_saboteur
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2588

posted 01 August 2002 06:51 PM      Profile for agent_saboteur     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
i don't really see much of a problem with the questionnaire, with the exception of a couple of the questions.

overall i think it's good that the authors are airing their grievances. i also think we have to look at the context -- within anarchist scenes there is a shocking amount of hypocrisy, and one of the larger vortices of hypocrisy is among supposedly radical men who absolutely refuse to check themselves and live up to any of their purportedly anti-oppressive rhetoric. i'm sorry but i do expect a higher level of critique and pragmatic radicalism from anyone calling themself an anarchist.

looked at not as a rulebook but rather a jumping-off place from which to think about just how much we practice what we preach, i think it's pretty valuable. the truth is that many of the problems raised by the authors really are huge problems in the anarchist scene.

the one thing that really bothered me, though, was this:
34. Do you come on to your female friends even jokingly?

i mean, come on. conscious and considerate people can work their own boundaries out.


From: behind you | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Black Dog
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2776

posted 01 August 2002 07:23 PM      Profile for Black Dog   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I also give the women in my life enough credit to think that if I, or any man for that matter, were to cross their personal boundaries (whatever they may be) they would speak up to rectify the situation. That's part of the whole equality thing.
From: Vancouver | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
adlib
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2890

posted 01 August 2002 09:16 PM      Profile for adlib     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
I dunno. This sounds like a purity test to me. Some of the ideas of what is a feminist and what isn't in that list seem to me to be a little sectarian/partisan/dogmatic, as it ignores/elides a lot of debates. But that's always the case with purity tests of any stripe.

quote:
That wasn't a questionaire, that was the freaking Inquisition!!!!

Guys, guys... toiguesincommon said

quote:
It's meant simply as an excercise to examine one's relationship to patriarchy.

I seriously doubt it was written with the intention that men would fill out the questionnaire and count up points.

quote:
I try and speak up against racist and /or sexist statements in my daily life. That is why I post things like on the perspectives thread. When you generalize about any group you must be wrong about some of the group.

kropotkin1951- I suppose that explains the need for such questionnaires. So that men can avoid being sexist.

quote:
To me it is important to concentrate on ideas and building coalitions between like minded people not attacking others based on their physical traits

Noone is being "attacked" (?) for their physical traits, but some people are being called on their behaviour. What is it about that that disturbs you?

quote:
Which brings me to ask, again, how is a fella suppossed to behave these days? If we are sensetive we're "nice guys" and therefore boring. If we act like "typical" guys, we're oppresive jerks. In the old days roles unequal, but at least clearly defined. Now there's no such thing as gender roles (or there's not supposed to be). No wonder this post-feminist generation of males is so confused and clueless.

Really? I think it sounds pretty simple. It goes something like "don't be an asshole". It's the same way I (as a white person) work on my racist upbringing, and try not to take that out on the people of color around me.

The article about "nice guys" was talking about pseudo-nice guys, hence the quotes. Energy suckers, I call them. There's a huge gray area between being an aggressive dominating jerk and being a simpering baby. Liking yourself, treating other people well, being considerate without being obsessed, why is that so hard to understand?


From: Turtle Island ;) | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
adlib
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2890

posted 01 August 2002 09:33 PM      Profile for adlib     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Which brings me to ask, again, how is a fella suppossed to behave these days? If we are sensetive we're "nice guys" and therefore boring. If we act like "typical" guys, we're oppresive jerks.

Geez. It's not rocket science. All the articles are suggesting is that being a dominating asshole or a simpering baby are not the only choices. There's another option; being a confident, considerate individual. Insecure or narcissistic are actually not that different, they're really two sides of the same coin. Real self-worth is nothing like either, and leads to treating those around you better. Of course, I'm working on this too, with my own shit, but the goal is pretty clear to me.

quote:
the rest, if taken seriously, would represent a concerted effort to manicure the behavior of our interestingly flawed menfolk until they were mindless drones.

Interesting.... anti-sexist behaviour creates "mindless drones", but patriarchy makes for "interesting flaws". Are the men you know's *only* "flaws" that they are sexist? Is that what defines their personalities? If so, that's not really a statement of uniqueness in this world, is it?

quote:
Has it occurred to you that it's difficult to have an intimate relationship when you have to edit everything you say or think?

Yep. It's called being a het woman.
*ducks*

quote:
I also give the women in my life enough credit to think that if I, or any man for that matter, were to cross their personal boundaries (whatever they may be) they would speak up to rectify the situation. That's part of the whole equality thing.

Well, I give the people in my life that same credit. I also give them the credit that sometimes they get tired of me waiting for them to call me on my behavior. Cause you know, if women went around pointing out men's sexism all the time, we wouldn't have time to shit or shower. Sexism is a problem of men's behavior, so why don't men take some gd responsibility and stop being sexist assholes?

There are so many problems with that line of reasoning, but I don't have all day.

I wanted to point out that one important thing the article is saying is that sexism exists (and is rampant) in "activist" spheres. I want to add that I have personally seen *no* correlation whatsoever between whether or not a guy is an "activist" and the degree to which he is sexist. The only difference seems to be that activist dudes are much more attached to the idea that they aren't, and couldn't possibly be, sexist.


From: Turtle Island ;) | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Rebecca West
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1873

posted 02 August 2002 10:52 AM      Profile for Rebecca West     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
If it's the "movement" that has children, count me out of it.
Makes the whole social justice movement sound like a creepy cult, doesn't it?

From: London , Ontario - homogeneous maximus | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Rebecca West
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1873

posted 02 August 2002 11:07 AM      Profile for Rebecca West     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Interesting.... anti-sexist behaviour creates "mindless drones", but patriarchy makes for "interesting flaws".
Clearly I said nothing of the sort. If the only way you can prop up your dogma is by distorting what those who don't agree with you submit to this topic, then you are at a disadvantage. Most of us here are independent thinkers who don't suck back that kind of hackneyed rhetoric.

Standing up for yourself when someone is being oppressive or bullying or disrespectful is one thing. Policing the thoughts and behaviors of others who don't conform to a narrowly proscribed set of gendered social mannerisms is appallingly fascistic, and not conducive to constructive social change whatsoever.


From: London , Ontario - homogeneous maximus | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Black Dog
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2776

posted 02 August 2002 11:46 AM      Profile for Black Dog   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Left, right, radical or not: dogma is dogma. Extremism, even in the service of a cause like eliminating sexism, is going to alienate many who just want to get on with their lives and relationships as best they can. I understand the concerns and issues this quiz highlights, but I'm not comfortable having someone police my life, wheteher their cause is just or not. I'd rather, as a few people have pointed out, just be myself and operate on my own terms, no-one else's.
From: Vancouver | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
adlib
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2890

posted 02 August 2002 01:55 PM      Profile for adlib     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Clearly I said nothing of the sort. If the only way you can prop up your dogma is by distorting what those who don't agree with you submit to this topic, then you are at a disadvantage. Most of us here are independent thinkers who don't suck back that kind of hackneyed rhetoric.

Well, you've got quite the bee in your bonnet, haven't you? If that was not what you were saying, then why don't you just clarify, instead of jumping all over me?

quote:
Policing the thoughts and behaviors of others who don't conform to a narrowly proscribed set of gendered social mannerisms is appallingly fascistic, and not conducive to constructive social change whatsoever.


Absurd. Is it fascistic to say that people should not beat each other up, or describe *any* kind of problematic behavior? Especially seeing as the article was only pointing out things that men should think about, they were not suggesting that an anti-sexism thought police force should be established.

quote:
Left, right, radical or not: dogma is dogma. Extremism, even in the service of a cause like eliminating sexism, is going to alienate many who just want to get on with their lives and relationships as best they can.

What, exactly, is extremist or dogmatic about suggesting that activist men should try not to be sexist?

As for people who will be "alienated" when they're just "trying to get on with their lives", I have to wonder, which side are they on? If people really aren't interested in confronting their own oppressive behavior, than good riddance.

quote:
I understand the concerns and issues this quiz highlights, but I'm not comfortable having someone police my life, wheteher their cause is just or not. I'd rather, as a few people have pointed out, just be myself and operate on my own terms, no-one else's.

Police your life? Where is this "policing" idea coming from? The article is merely suggesting some examples of sexist behaviour that "activist" men engage in. No one can "force" men to stop being sexist, and there is certainly nothing by way of an institutional structure that in any way resembles a "police" force that is trying to do so.

Really, there is no basis for comparison. Saying such things makes you sound like you're concerned that feminists are out to "get you" or something.

The intention of the article seems to be just to point out sexist behaviours of male "activists". What's so scary about that?


From: Turtle Island ;) | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
kropotkin1951
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2732

posted 02 August 2002 02:09 PM      Profile for kropotkin1951   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Sexism is a problem of men's behavior, so why don't men take some gd responsibility and stop being sexist assholes?

No sexism is a problem of many men's behaviour not all men's behaviour. It is also a problem of many women's behaviour. The problem is how to change socital attitudes and denigrating all members of one sex weakens any argument and potentially closes the ears of people who need to hear the important message that sexism is not acceptable.

A woman in a power suit stealing my pension is the same as a man doing the same thing and they are both part of the patriarchy. And a man who works hard at fighting sexism doesn't deserve to be lumped in as part of the oppressors of women. The above statement implies that all men are sexist assholes. If that is your experience you should consider finding new male friends there are plenty of non-sexist men in this world even if they aren't in the majority.


From: North of Manifest Destiny | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Black Dog
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2776

posted 02 August 2002 02:15 PM      Profile for Black Dog   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Police your life? Where is this "policing" idea coming from? The article is merely suggesting some examples of sexist behaviour that "activist" men engage in.

This is a questionnaire for all men, activist or not (I certainly wouldn't characterize myself as such). Policing is policing whether someone else does it or I have to watch my own ass.
Plus, enlighten me as to how these are sexist behaviours.

quote:
15. Do you ever find yourself monitoring and limiting your behavior and speech in meetings and activist settings because you don't want to take up too much space or dominate the group? Are you aware of the fact that women do this all the time?

If women choose not to speak up, it's not my problem. Take some responsibility. Yes, I'm aware the "patriarchy" has conditioned women to be subservient, but that's not the case here on babble, thank goodness.

quote:
18. Can you only show affection and be loving to your partner in front of friends and family or only in private?

When/where I choose to engage in PDA's a personal matter, not a sexist/political issue. If I'm not comfortable, that's my problem.

quote:
25. Do you jump from relationship to relationship? Overlap them? Or do you take space and time for yourself in between each relationship to reflect on the relationship and your role in it? Do you know how to be alone? How to be single?

Again, interpersonal issues cannot all be attributed to sexism. There's all sort sof social/psychological factors at play that could have jack to do with the patriarchy.

quote:
32. Do you talk to your female friends about things you don't talk to your male friends about especially emotional issues?

I'm more comfortable talking to women about emotional issues not because I think they're more emotional or because I'm looking for a mother figure, but because I'm personally not as comfortable talking to my buddies about my problems when they're trying to watch the damn game. I don't see it as sexist.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
tonguesincommon
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2903

posted 02 August 2002 02:28 PM      Profile for tonguesincommon        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 

From: East Coast | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Black Dog
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2776

posted 02 August 2002 05:10 PM      Profile for Black Dog   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Oh, great answer.
From: Vancouver | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
tonguesincommon
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2903

posted 02 August 2002 07:24 PM      Profile for tonguesincommon        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 

From: East Coast | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
s-vendy
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2816

posted 02 August 2002 09:29 PM      Profile for s-vendy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Has anybody heard of Biology? Or did men make that up also?
From: here | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
adlib
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2890

posted 03 August 2002 05:35 PM      Profile for adlib     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
feminism 101, here we go...

quote:
No sexism is a problem of many men's behaviour not all men's behaviour. It is also a problem of many women's behaviour. The problem is how to change socital attitudes and denigrating all members of one sex weakens any argument and potentially closes the ears of people who need to hear the important message that sexism is not acceptable.

Sexism goes beyond individual behaviours, it is part of the institutional structure of society. But it is upheld by all men's behaviours who do not actively resist sexism, and no man has never been sexist. That is not to say that each individual man is "to blame" for sexism, but patriarchy exists despite everyone's "best intentions".

Women experience sexism in different ways, but one common effect is the internalization of sexism. A very different phenomenon than when men are sexist, because it is an expression of self-hate, not of hatred towards another person.

quote:
A woman in a power suit stealing my pension is the same as a man doing the same thing and they are both part of the patriarchy.

Women in positions of power within this system are not only interacting with others on the field of patriarchy, but also white-supremacy, classism, etc. Therefore, a rich white woman has class and race privilege, but not gender privilege. That she can take away your paycheck is not an expression of patriarchy, it is an expression of capitalism, which is based on classism as well as patriarchy and white supremacy. Certainly her experience in a position of power is different than it would be were she a man in the same position.

quote:
And a man who works hard at fighting sexism doesn't deserve to be lumped in as part of the oppressors of women. The above statement implies that all men are sexist assholes.

Maybe if men who purport to be anti-sexist spent more time working on ending sexism and less on defensiveness and fear of their sexism being acknowledged, there would be less sexist assholes.

quote:
If that is your experience you should consider finding new male friends there are plenty of non-sexist men in this world even if they aren't in the majority.

Actually, I like my male friends very much, thanks. They don't call themselves anti-sexist or feminist, they're just considerate, thoughful, rad people. But they're still sometimes sexist. I don't think they are bad people. Nobody's perfect, everyone is an asshole sometimes, and they're working on it. That's the difference I guess, there are sexist assholes and men who are sexist but working on it honestly.

quote:
Policing is policing whether someone else does it or I have to watch my own ass.

Following that line of reasoning, it would be the cop in your head that stops you from murdering people for the fun of it. In which case, I might be glad for it. Only if there is an institutional structure of support can it be "policing". Otherwise it's just called "trying not to be an asshole". Are you arguing that you should have the "freedom" to be sexist? Because you do. But don't expect people to be happy about it.


quote:
Plus, enlighten me as to how these are sexist behaviours.


quote:
15. Do you ever find yourself monitoring and limiting your behavior and speech in meetings and activist settings because you don't want to take up too much space or dominate the group? Are you aware of the fact that women do this all the time?


It is an expression of sexism that men do not have to be aware that women are constantly limiting their behaviour and speech for the sake of men. Also, if you see that men are dominating a group, and you don't say anything to stop it, that makes you complicit in the sexism.

quote:
quote:
18. Can you only show affection and be loving to your partner in front of friends and family or only in private?


When/where I choose to engage in PDA's a personal matter, not a sexist/political issue. If I'm not comfortable, that's my problem.


"The personal is political". A basic tenet of feminism. Being "uncomfortable" demonstrating affection is part of the masculine script. If men want to fight sexism, they have to stop being afraid of acting "womanly".

quote:
25. Do you jump from relationship to relationship? Overlap them? Or do you take space and time for yourself in between each relationship to reflect on the relationship and your role in it? Do you know how to be alone? How to be single?


Again, interpersonal issues cannot all be attributed to sexism. There's all sort sof social/psychological factors at play that could have jack to do with the patriarchy.


Could, but probably don't. See above. How you value intimate relationships as well as how you behave in them are strongly scripted, especially in hetero relationships.

quote:
32. Do you talk to your female friends about things you don't talk to your male friends about especially emotional issues?


I'm more comfortable talking to women about emotional issues not because I think they're more emotional or because I'm looking for a mother figure, but because I'm personally not as comfortable talking to my buddies about my problems when they're trying to watch the damn game. I don't see it as sexist.


LOL. If you don't see that as sexist, pray tell, what do you think sexism is?

What, and your female friends don't mind the interruption? Perhaps you could consider not centering all your get-togethers with your "buddies" around television sports events, then maybe you could talk about relationships, emotions, and hey!, why not talk about sexism...

quote:


quote:
Oh, great answer


I believe you two just proved my point from the previous post, thanks much. Not everyone has the time or the energy to try to convince men (or white people, or any other group of privilege) to change their behaviour. Sometimes it's just a waste of time, because they aren't arguing based on truth or an honest self-evaluation, but fear and defensiveness. Rightly so, of course, because all that privilege is pretty cozy.

The time it took me to write this e-mail I probably could have better spent in my garden. Everything I've said is elementary feminism, that you could easily learn yourself by reading a book or two. *shrug* What can I say, I felt like doing you a favor.

quote:
Has anybody heard of Biology? Or did men make that up also?

I've heard many things about Biology, none of them particularly relevant to the issue of sexist behavior...

[ August 03, 2002: Message edited by: adlib ]


From: Turtle Island ;) | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
tonguesincommon
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2903

posted 04 August 2002 01:15 AM      Profile for tonguesincommon        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
very nicely articulated, adlib.
thanks for the comments.
if you're ever inspired to write a review of the Manarchist 'questionnaire' we'd love to run it in our zine.
[email protected]

From: East Coast | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
anna_c
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2845

posted 05 August 2002 11:27 PM      Profile for anna_c     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
thank you adlib, for your informative post, i hope it does not fall on deaf ears. i have a couple of points to add.

one.

quote:
If women choose not to speak up, it's not my problem. Take some responsibility.

spivak (i think) once said that what is of import is not so much who gets to speak, but to whom people listen. culturally, we identify authority with masculinity, and this has a range of political repercussions. and, frankly, black_dog, insofar as the aim of most speech is communication, your reception of another's words is your "problem" (to use your idiom, black_dog). the question remains, to what extent are you fostering an environment in which the "accidental feature" of sex (i am using your humanist framework) does not translate into a political liability?

the imperative "take responsibility" obscures forms of psychological oppression to which women continue to be subject, equally nefarious to formal modes of oppression (e.g., inequality before the law).

two.

quote:
I'd also like to point out that some women do not find patriarchy oppressive.

marxist / marxian feminists would call this "false consciousness." philosopher sandra lee bartky has written a very interesting piece related to this issue, entitled "toward a phenomenology of feminist consciousness." this is the citation of the article:

Bartky, Sandra Lee. "Toward a Phenomenology of Feminist Consciousness." Social Theory and Practice 3 (1976): 425-439.

a very brief summary of this article, for those who are interested, is available here.

oh, and three.

quote:
Has it occurred to you that it's difficult to have an intimate relationship when you have to edit everything you say or think?

actually, i am acutelly aware of this.

[ August 05, 2002: Message edited by: anna_c ]


From: montreal | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Rebecca West
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1873

posted 06 August 2002 02:41 PM      Profile for Rebecca West     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Well, you've got quite the bee in your bonnet, haven't you? If that was not what you were saying, then why don't you just clarify, instead of jumping all over me?
Oh, I see. You distort what I say beyond all recognition in order to bait me, then you play the wounded innocent when I rise to the occasion. I don't often get sucked in by trolling, but you got me. Congrats, and thanks for the warning. If you ever feel like putting aside the bitchy head games and engaging in some serious debate, let me know.

Oh wait, don't. I'm no longer interested in debating anything with you.


From: London , Ontario - homogeneous maximus | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Black Dog
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2776

posted 06 August 2002 05:32 PM      Profile for Black Dog   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I'll admit, I'm not wel-versed in feminist theory and so forth. My personal definition of feminism is to allow women the same opportunities as anyone else, treat them with respect as equals, listen to what they say, etc. etc.
And here I thought that was good enough. It seems that I don't pass the feminism 101 litmus test, which makes me a sexist asshole by default I imagine.
quote:
"The personal is political". A basic tenet of feminism. Being "uncomfortable" demonstrating affection is part of the masculine script. If men want to fight sexism, they have to stop being afraid of acting "womanly".

and

quote:
Could, but probably don't. See above. How you value intimate relationships as well as how you behave in them are strongly scripted, especially in hetero relationships.

Well, geez, it'd be handy to see the script because I'd sure like to know how mine turns out. But now that I know there's only one explanation (patriarchal gender roles!) for all the intricacies of interpersonal relationships, that should make everything easier.

[ August 06, 2002: Message edited by: black_dog ]


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
aRoused
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1962

posted 07 August 2002 05:14 AM      Profile for aRoused     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
That's the difference I guess, there are sexist assholes and men who are sexist but working on it honestly.

Those are, apparently, our only two options, black_dog. Sad. I think I'll got relate to my friends (no gender specified) on a personal basis, taking into account their history as it is know to myself, and not clutter the field with worries about everything we (gender unspecified) say or do being inherently sexist (if generated by a male hominid) or feminist (if generated by a female homind).

adlib, a thought: if everything a man does/says is sexist, despite his "working on it", why, then, should we as men even bother trying to change, given that we'll never get over the hurdle of sexism you impose on us?


From: The King's Royal Burgh of Eoforwich | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 07 August 2002 09:32 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
That's the difference I guess, there are sexist assholes and men who are sexist but working on it honestly.

Funny. So many of the feminists I know reject binary modes of thinking, like mind/body, male/female, gay/straight, sexist-asshole/sexist-men-who-are-working-on-it.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
anna_c
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2845

posted 07 August 2002 03:18 PM      Profile for anna_c     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
interested in transcending this binary? you may wish to readthisshort article, complete with suggestions for further reading.
From: montreal | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
skadie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2072

posted 07 August 2002 05:44 PM      Profile for skadie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
We assume that individual men are not responsible for, and can't be blamed for, social structures and values such as the social construction of masculinity or the history of women's oppression. At the same time, individual men are responsible for their oppressive behaviour (such as violence) and can and should choose to change it.


Great link, Mr. Willy should really read it!


From: near the ocean | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
agent_saboteur
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2588

posted 13 August 2002 06:45 PM      Profile for agent_saboteur     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
I'd rather, as a few people have pointed out, just be myself and operate on my own terms, no-one else's.

in other words, the terms of the status quo. we are all influenced by culture. seems to me that our individuality lies not in rejecting any sort of norm or paradigm, but in choosing which ones we will let influence them and how we relate to them. "you can't be neutral on a moving train," as zinn said. to 'not choose' is to side with the dominant power scheme.

all this whining about men having to "police" their behaviour is also kind of silly. the implication here is that men do not constantly put pressure (knowingly or not) on wimmin to change their behaviour, or that when men do it, it's ok.

individuality is a poor excuse for not wanting to check sexist behaviour. moreso, since no one was even actually calling for men to police their behaviour, but just pointing out sexist behaviour they've witnessed (how dare they!?) it seems like some people are getting pretty defensive about something........


From: behind you | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca