Female Misogyny
KeskusteluFeminist Theory
Liity LibraryThingin jäseneksi, niin voit kirjoittaa viestin.
Tämä viestiketju on "uinuva" —viimeisin viesti on vanhempi kuin 90 päivää. Ryhmä "virkoaa", kun lähetät vastauksen.
1LolaWalser
Really hesitated--for years--about starting this discussion. Really need it.
Heterosexual women, women with male children, any women anywhere with male relatives, friends, acquaintances--we all have our own spectrum of contacts and relationships with men that involve our interest, affection, loyalty.
When, why and how does that compromise our fight for equality? What can we do about it?
Heterosexual women, women with male children, any women anywhere with male relatives, friends, acquaintances--we all have our own spectrum of contacts and relationships with men that involve our interest, affection, loyalty.
When, why and how does that compromise our fight for equality? What can we do about it?
2KCampana
Interesting question! In general, I think that my contact with men helps me to be a better feminist. It pushes me to articulate my positions and think more deeply about what my positions are, and why I hold them.
However, at times, it can be exhausting. I get very tired of re-explaining things that seem pretty basic to me to men, and trying to do it in a way that will be amenable to them. I would sometimes like to be firmer and hold them more accountable for doing the work of empathizing, instead of me having to do the work of getting them to empathize.
I think that is what I struggle with the most-- I wish that people would listen to women and what they say about their experiences in society, but the pragmatist in me knows that we require male allies (and especially white, cis, straight male allies) because they tend to be the people that society takes seriously. Minority members are usually dismissed as "whining" when they bring up these issues. It's a bummer, but it's also a reality in my experience.
However, at times, it can be exhausting. I get very tired of re-explaining things that seem pretty basic to me to men, and trying to do it in a way that will be amenable to them. I would sometimes like to be firmer and hold them more accountable for doing the work of empathizing, instead of me having to do the work of getting them to empathize.
I think that is what I struggle with the most-- I wish that people would listen to women and what they say about their experiences in society, but the pragmatist in me knows that we require male allies (and especially white, cis, straight male allies) because they tend to be the people that society takes seriously. Minority members are usually dismissed as "whining" when they bring up these issues. It's a bummer, but it's also a reality in my experience.
3southernbooklady
I think I am seriously compromised culturally -- I learned to like a helluva lot of stuff that is unapologetically misogynistic. My life -- the books I read and love, the movies and tv shows I watch -- not all of them and not even most of them would even pass the Bechdel Test, much less show any kind of feminist value. My wardrobe has its share of girly clothes and I have more than one pair of red high heeled shoes.
The only way I can think to come to terms with that is to approach it all now rather the way Lola does in her thread about science fictions books - "would I give this to a child?" Or, as I have learned to ask myself "What does this have to say to women?"
Once I've answered that question for myself, I decided it is on me to include that view whenever I'm talking to someone about, well, whatever it is we are talking about. So I guess I spend a lot of time trying to confront my own internalized misogyny.
The only way I can think to come to terms with that is to approach it all now rather the way Lola does in her thread about science fictions books - "would I give this to a child?" Or, as I have learned to ask myself "What does this have to say to women?"
Once I've answered that question for myself, I decided it is on me to include that view whenever I'm talking to someone about, well, whatever it is we are talking about. So I guess I spend a lot of time trying to confront my own internalized misogyny.
4LolaWalser
>2 KCampana:
Hi, welcome to LT and this group!
I was thinking more in the direction of "conflicts of interest" that arise in a situation (probably the most common one for any of us) where we have personal relationships with men, i.e those who belong to a class that oppresses us, whatever they do or don't do personally.
Hi, welcome to LT and this group!
I was thinking more in the direction of "conflicts of interest" that arise in a situation (probably the most common one for any of us) where we have personal relationships with men, i.e those who belong to a class that oppresses us, whatever they do or don't do personally.
5LolaWalser
>3 southernbooklady:
Some of my misogynistic thoughts would be admissible only if we met at midnight during a lunar eclipse in a darkened cellar thirty feet under wearing Trump masks over black burkas.
And that's those I recognise.
One way I use to figure out misogyny is to ask, when a woman does something misogynistic, "do I do that or some version of that"? In short, faults are much easier to recognise in other people, but if you really want to learn from them, you have to ask yourself how you tally up on the question.
Some of my misogynistic thoughts would be admissible only if we met at midnight during a lunar eclipse in a darkened cellar thirty feet under wearing Trump masks over black burkas.
And that's those I recognise.
One way I use to figure out misogyny is to ask, when a woman does something misogynistic, "do I do that or some version of that"? In short, faults are much easier to recognise in other people, but if you really want to learn from them, you have to ask yourself how you tally up on the question.
6Tid
Interesting thread. I've encountered much negativity in life from other women, but never ticked it up as misogyny before. It's strange because when men do unpleasant things to other men they are labelled :
- good old boys
- "it's what men do"
- anti-social
- closet gays
but a woman who does it is "frigid", "abuse victim", "time of the month" (yawn), or some such excuse.
I actually googled the term, which is 'misandry'. The fact the term is so rare seems to indicate EITHER that man-hating is rarer than woman-hating (I don't believe it is) OR that men - who think they rule the world - don't accept it exists, much as Queen Victoria refused to accept lesbianism existed.
- good old boys
- "it's what men do"
- anti-social
- closet gays
but a woman who does it is "frigid", "abuse victim", "time of the month" (yawn), or some such excuse.
I actually googled the term, which is 'misandry'. The fact the term is so rare seems to indicate EITHER that man-hating is rarer than woman-hating (I don't believe it is) OR that men - who think they rule the world - don't accept it exists, much as Queen Victoria refused to accept lesbianism existed.
7LolaWalser
Misandry is not symmetrical to misogyny. Gender crucially defines who suffers gender-based oppression, and it's not men.
Misogyny isn't necessarily nor even most frequently some personal "hatred of women". It's first of all an all-encompassing cultural depreciation of women that infiltrates every aspect of society and personal lives. That's what makes it so insidious and difficult to combat. The Germany of the Third Reich was steeped in Nazism and most people were antisemitic, but not that many were actually Hitlers.
Women are often as misogynistic as men, which is only to be expected given that we live on a viciously misogynistic planet, and propagate it just as men do. For instance, women who voted for Trump, whatever their rationalizations, have certainly strengthened misogynistic, sexist rhetoric in public, and even worse, seriously endangered women's rights not just in the US but all over the world (for example, there's at least one article discussing what will happen to the US foreign aid, some 400 million USD, that went to women's health and education on reproductive matters).
Misogyny isn't necessarily nor even most frequently some personal "hatred of women". It's first of all an all-encompassing cultural depreciation of women that infiltrates every aspect of society and personal lives. That's what makes it so insidious and difficult to combat. The Germany of the Third Reich was steeped in Nazism and most people were antisemitic, but not that many were actually Hitlers.
Women are often as misogynistic as men, which is only to be expected given that we live on a viciously misogynistic planet, and propagate it just as men do. For instance, women who voted for Trump, whatever their rationalizations, have certainly strengthened misogynistic, sexist rhetoric in public, and even worse, seriously endangered women's rights not just in the US but all over the world (for example, there's at least one article discussing what will happen to the US foreign aid, some 400 million USD, that went to women's health and education on reproductive matters).
8Tid
>7 LolaWalser:
I recognise everything you say, and it makes sense. But I'm a 'child of the 70s' (student days, I mean) and we really thought we were winning back then. Even our men friends were educated into being feminists (at least, in the Arts Faculties - the engineering departments were still pretty unreconstructed).
It seems an irony that this all went into reverse during the time of Britain's first woman PM, Maggie "the Witch" Thatcher. But though strong, she was no feminist, and probably wouldn't have understood the term or the writings of Greer and Coon. But even so, there was a brief moment, in the 70s, when we thought, we really thought, that women were at last trouncing the millennia-old myth of "less than equal".
I recognise everything you say, and it makes sense. But I'm a 'child of the 70s' (student days, I mean) and we really thought we were winning back then. Even our men friends were educated into being feminists (at least, in the Arts Faculties - the engineering departments were still pretty unreconstructed).
It seems an irony that this all went into reverse during the time of Britain's first woman PM, Maggie "the Witch" Thatcher. But though strong, she was no feminist, and probably wouldn't have understood the term or the writings of Greer and Coon. But even so, there was a brief moment, in the 70s, when we thought, we really thought, that women were at last trouncing the millennia-old myth of "less than equal".
9LolaWalser
The relative success of right wing and conservative women in politics is owed to misogyny and has everything to do with their use and affirmation of general misogyny. They are few, but under-representation and tokenism doesn't bother them, on the contrary, they interpret their "rara avis" status as a confirmation of their own special worth, unattainable for most women.
Their message is frequently (for fundamentalists and ultra-conservatives, usually) blatantly misogynistic, and men love to hear that sort of thing from women--women who denigrate women are seen as objective and honest.
The cruel and uncaring aspect of conservative politics ironically affords these women a space to be as "bitchy" as they like--hey, that's the platform. Women like Thatcher can't murder too many opponents for their base.
In contrast, on the left, atavistic misogyny kicks in to sabotage progressive women at every step. Just being in politics is an expression of "bitchiness"--of being a fighter, someone who talks, talks back, someone who makes deals, someone who, in short, behaves like a politician. And behaving like a politician is OK for men, whom double standard praises for ambition, cunning, "game-playing" and aggressiveness, and the women who adopt the conservative agenda of cruelty and selfishness. But intolerable in "good" women.
The worst obstacles to progressive women are in their own parties.
Their message is frequently (for fundamentalists and ultra-conservatives, usually) blatantly misogynistic, and men love to hear that sort of thing from women--women who denigrate women are seen as objective and honest.
The cruel and uncaring aspect of conservative politics ironically affords these women a space to be as "bitchy" as they like--hey, that's the platform. Women like Thatcher can't murder too many opponents for their base.
In contrast, on the left, atavistic misogyny kicks in to sabotage progressive women at every step. Just being in politics is an expression of "bitchiness"--of being a fighter, someone who talks, talks back, someone who makes deals, someone who, in short, behaves like a politician. And behaving like a politician is OK for men, whom double standard praises for ambition, cunning, "game-playing" and aggressiveness, and the women who adopt the conservative agenda of cruelty and selfishness. But intolerable in "good" women.
The worst obstacles to progressive women are in their own parties.
10southernbooklady
Sigh. Time to dig out my Andrea Dworkin again:
"Antifeminism" -- Andrea Dworkin, in Right Wing Women
Antifeminism can accommodate reform: a recognition that some forms of discrimination against women are unfair to women or that some kinds of injustice to women are not warranted ( or entirely warranted) by the nature of women. But underneath the apparent civility, there are facile, arrogant assumptions: that the remedies are easy, the problems frivolous; that the harm done to women is not substantial nor is it significant in any real way; and that the subordination of women to men is not in and of itself an egregious wrong. This assessment is maintained in the face of proved atrocities and the obvious intractability of the oppression.
"Antifeminism" -- Andrea Dworkin, in Right Wing Women
11Tid
>10 southernbooklady:
Hear hear - that nails it.
>9 LolaWalser:
In contrast, on the left, atavistic misogyny kicks in to sabotage progressive women at every step.
I have some difficulty with this (as far as British politics is concerned) though I do see where you're coming from. For example there was great respect for the feminist pacifist Vera Brittain, and some - though less - for her daughter Shirley Williams. The final stage of the recent election to leader of the Tory Party boiled down to 2 women, though neither impresses as feminist (indeed, one stood down after accusing the other - the awful Theresa May - of not understanding parents as she has no children herself .. which does seem to underline your general point).
Hear hear - that nails it.
>9 LolaWalser:
In contrast, on the left, atavistic misogyny kicks in to sabotage progressive women at every step.
I have some difficulty with this (as far as British politics is concerned) though I do see where you're coming from. For example there was great respect for the feminist pacifist Vera Brittain, and some - though less - for her daughter Shirley Williams. The final stage of the recent election to leader of the Tory Party boiled down to 2 women, though neither impresses as feminist (indeed, one stood down after accusing the other - the awful Theresa May - of not understanding parents as she has no children herself .. which does seem to underline your general point).
12LolaWalser
>11 Tid:
Respect for individual women, whatever that even means in the context of generalised second-class status, is neither here nor there, one can find plenty of counter-examples all too easily. From what I see and hear, the UK seems to be even more virulently sexist than North America, on par with France and Italy.
Respect for individual women, whatever that even means in the context of generalised second-class status, is neither here nor there, one can find plenty of counter-examples all too easily. From what I see and hear, the UK seems to be even more virulently sexist than North America, on par with France and Italy.
13Tid
>12 LolaWalser:
There you've defined my difficulty with this thesis! You just used the word 'sexism' which is the word I would have used all along, to define something that's endemic in society, institutionalised, casual - it also takes in the LGBT community who are more high-profile than us but do need protection. 'Misogyny' I would define as a clinical condition, where sexism - being more casual and subtly endemic and widespread - can be susceptible to re-education, though it's hard work, and a constant struggle.
There you've defined my difficulty with this thesis! You just used the word 'sexism' which is the word I would have used all along, to define something that's endemic in society, institutionalised, casual - it also takes in the LGBT community who are more high-profile than us but do need protection. 'Misogyny' I would define as a clinical condition, where sexism - being more casual and subtly endemic and widespread - can be susceptible to re-education, though it's hard work, and a constant struggle.
14Tid
You might, you WILL, be interested in this..
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/15/alt-right-manosphere-mains...
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/15/alt-right-manosphere-mains...
15southernbooklady
more than economics, alt-right seems linked with anti-intellectualism.
17LolaWalser
This article touches on the nature of Trump's female voters through new studies of "benevolent" and hostile sexism:
Why misogyny won
That bolded bit shouldn't be misunderstood, though--it's what people SAY to surveyors that's recorded. But you can bet your last dollar that even those men who don't verbally support sexism, not only profit from it, but would be very annoyed if a given sexist privilege or advantage were taken away. This is typical especially for educated men in such countries, those who know what's the civilised thing to say--even if they feel in no way obliged to behave in a civilised way.
Why misogyny won
...Glick worked with Princeton University’s Susan Fiske to develop a groundbreaking assessment of hostile and benevolent sexism. (And of how those two attitudes combine, Voltron-like, to form the cognitively dissonant state of “ambivalent sexism.”)
Glick’s and Fiske’s work, along with two decades of social science research that has used and expanded on it, tells us a lot about why sexist bias against women is still so pervasive.
And it tells us why women themselves often buy into these ideas, too.
Male dominance actually requires a pretty delicate balance, Glick said. If men want to maintain the control over women they’ve enjoyed for thousands of years, and continue their species, and satisfy their desires for heterosexual love and companionship, they can’t just use brute force. They need women to actually like them and not resent their dominance.
...
The basic agreement is that as long as women cater to men’s needs, men will protect and cherish women in return. If women have few good options for independent success, this is a pretty good deal — which explains why in more overtly sexist societies where women have fewer opportunities, cross-national studies show that women endorse benevolent sexism at even higher rates than men do.
That bolded bit shouldn't be misunderstood, though--it's what people SAY to surveyors that's recorded. But you can bet your last dollar that even those men who don't verbally support sexism, not only profit from it, but would be very annoyed if a given sexist privilege or advantage were taken away. This is typical especially for educated men in such countries, those who know what's the civilised thing to say--even if they feel in no way obliged to behave in a civilised way.
19LolaWalser
>18 Tid:
Um, I don't see how at all. That article focusses on men, very specifically the young men who are attracted to the alt-right groups; the thread is about female misogyny.
I don't mean to be a thread police heavy, but it's a little early for digressions. And as this topic is bound to be especially painful for women (as I said, I hesitated a long time before broaching it), I'd hate to see it snowed under other stuff that's more than adequately addressed elsewhere.
Perhaps more context to the group's discussions might help? You can start threads on any question that interests you in particular, but if you'd like some general orientation first, there are several long threads that should (I think) give one a good idea about what we talk about when we talk about misogyny and sexism.
For instance: Discrimination against women, global examples; on "women" writers (and more); Representation of women in the media, stage back and front... but it's really the background if not the main theme in pretty much everything we discuss.
If that's too daunting, a short rough principle would be that misogyny is the ideology of the patriarchy and sexism is its practice. This is not a dictionary definition (as far as I know), nor are dictionary definitions especially important or helpful. They don't drive understanding of complex social phenomena; more often than not, they reflect and express them (the recent example of the OED using the phrase "rabid feminist" to illustrate the usage of "rabid" being a case in point).
There is a lot of overlap in how people use the terms "misogyny" and "sexism", as well as "misogynistic" and "sexist", reflecting their profound connection. It's best not to fetishise words. We use these words to describe the living reality, not vice versa.
Um, I don't see how at all. That article focusses on men, very specifically the young men who are attracted to the alt-right groups; the thread is about female misogyny.
I don't mean to be a thread police heavy, but it's a little early for digressions. And as this topic is bound to be especially painful for women (as I said, I hesitated a long time before broaching it), I'd hate to see it snowed under other stuff that's more than adequately addressed elsewhere.
Perhaps more context to the group's discussions might help? You can start threads on any question that interests you in particular, but if you'd like some general orientation first, there are several long threads that should (I think) give one a good idea about what we talk about when we talk about misogyny and sexism.
For instance: Discrimination against women, global examples; on "women" writers (and more); Representation of women in the media, stage back and front... but it's really the background if not the main theme in pretty much everything we discuss.
If that's too daunting, a short rough principle would be that misogyny is the ideology of the patriarchy and sexism is its practice. This is not a dictionary definition (as far as I know), nor are dictionary definitions especially important or helpful. They don't drive understanding of complex social phenomena; more often than not, they reflect and express them (the recent example of the OED using the phrase "rabid feminist" to illustrate the usage of "rabid" being a case in point).
There is a lot of overlap in how people use the terms "misogyny" and "sexism", as well as "misogynistic" and "sexist", reflecting their profound connection. It's best not to fetishise words. We use these words to describe the living reality, not vice versa.
20Tid
>19 LolaWalser:
My mistake, arising out of the way I use LT. Let me explain...
I first go through My Posts, dealing with new posts in the threads where I've participated and replying where appropriate. Then I go to Hot Topics to see what's trending and whether there's something I really want to see or take part in.
In this approach, Groups become somewhat irrelevant and I don't really discriminate at all between the different groups -- I just see topics and dive in to certain ones.
Now I see that this particular group where we're discussing misogyny is Feminist Theory; I honestly hadn't seen that before until now. I do still feel that the above post - about how young white men are radicalised towards misogyny and hatred of women - is relevant, but if you think not, then I accept that moderation and withdraw with no hard feelings.
My mistake, arising out of the way I use LT. Let me explain...
I first go through My Posts, dealing with new posts in the threads where I've participated and replying where appropriate. Then I go to Hot Topics to see what's trending and whether there's something I really want to see or take part in.
In this approach, Groups become somewhat irrelevant and I don't really discriminate at all between the different groups -- I just see topics and dive in to certain ones.
Now I see that this particular group where we're discussing misogyny is Feminist Theory; I honestly hadn't seen that before until now. I do still feel that the above post - about how young white men are radicalised towards misogyny and hatred of women - is relevant, but if you think not, then I accept that moderation and withdraw with no hard feelings.
21LolaWalser
>20 Tid:
The article is certainly relevant to the group's theme (and I think has been posted here before--or maybe it was in Pro & Con, I read it the day it was published), but this thread is about Female Misogyny.
I'm not a moderator, I'd just like the thread to stay on topic for a while at least. It's an important topic.
The article is certainly relevant to the group's theme (and I think has been posted here before--or maybe it was in Pro & Con, I read it the day it was published), but this thread is about Female Misogyny.
I'm not a moderator, I'd just like the thread to stay on topic for a while at least. It's an important topic.
23LolaWalser
I saw somewhere that Trump's counselor Kellyanne Conway tweeted a picture of her little daughter wishing her to become the first female POTUS in... 2053.
If only she'd had the grace--decency--brains... to say even just "second" (third, or fourth, or...)
If only she'd had the grace--decency--brains... to say even just "second" (third, or fourth, or...)
24sparemethecensor
>23 LolaWalser: Based on the misogyny that has been vocalized about women in politics in the last year, perhaps she thinks that's how long it will take before Americans find a female president anything but laughable.
25LolaWalser
>24 sparemethecensor:
To be sure--and doesn't that bitch get that she's contributed to it? A giant FUCK YOU VERY MUCH to the Trump-voting majority of white women, and Conway first of all.
To be sure--and doesn't that bitch get that she's contributed to it? A giant FUCK YOU VERY MUCH to the Trump-voting majority of white women, and Conway first of all.
26sparemethecensor
>25 LolaWalser: It reminds me of a conversation I had many years ago with someone who said that Republicans weren't sexist since Condoleezza Rice was the Secretary of State. As though being OK with one token woman (as well as token African-American) who carefully fits to the mold they lay out, meant that they could never be sexist or racist at all.
You can think one person is "one of the good ones" and it necessitates thinking that the rest are, well, bad.
I don't know how Conway lives with herself. She must be a true believer.
You can think one person is "one of the good ones" and it necessitates thinking that the rest are, well, bad.
I don't know how Conway lives with herself. She must be a true believer.
27LolaWalser
They are all Smurfettes in their heads, extra super special for being in the boys' clubs, but never questioning why it's a boys' club in the first place.
Handmaidens to dickheads.
Handmaidens to dickheads.
28southernbooklady
"We no longer have to be politically correct"
CT politician has an argument with a woman, follows her to her office, and reaches between her legs as she tries to leave the room and pinches her in the groin.
CT politician has an argument with a woman, follows her to her office, and reaches between her legs as she tries to leave the room and pinches her in the groin.
30MarthaJeanne
>29 Tid: The page you are looking for cannot be found.
31Tid
Yeah, I know. I've had to link to a very similar one (there's a lot of cartoons on this theme!!)
33Taphophile13
Trump has expanded the global gag order
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2017/01/trump_s_global_...
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2017/01/trump_s_global_...
34LolaWalser
Um, I hate saying this, but it simply wouldn't be fair seeing that I had cautioned Tid about it: the thread is not about that. And that's the last I'll mention it, so carry on as you please now. Evidently nobody wants to talk about female misogyny--fair enough.
35southernbooklady
I think I meant to post in the "discrimination" thread. sorry about that.
36LolaWalser
>35 southernbooklady:
No biggie, I wouldn't have mentioned it if it hadn't been for the exchange with Tid! The topic is dead, and frankly, I'm sick of this whole site for twenty reasons... nobody need fear I'll be prodding and nannying anything anymore.
No biggie, I wouldn't have mentioned it if it hadn't been for the exchange with Tid! The topic is dead, and frankly, I'm sick of this whole site for twenty reasons... nobody need fear I'll be prodding and nannying anything anymore.
37Tid
>33 Taphophile13: >34 LolaWalser:
I'm not sure it's off-topic? It seems quite clear from a first read of that article that Trump's broadening of the gag order could be - almost certainly IS - a reaction against the women's marches against him 3 days ago, which makes it a very definitely misogynistic act.
I'm not sure it's off-topic? It seems quite clear from a first read of that article that Trump's broadening of the gag order could be - almost certainly IS - a reaction against the women's marches against him 3 days ago, which makes it a very definitely misogynistic act.
38norabelle414
>37 Tid: Given what we are going through right now, and what is inevitably coming, it might be worth making a whole new thread for "the government vs. women" or something like that.
39norabelle414
>1 LolaWalser: To return to the original post a bit, I often find it easier to befriend men who are members of other marginalized groups. Although of course a gay man or a man of color is just as capable of female oppression as any other, personally I feel a little more trusting of them. That is probably my own bias showing.
40lorax
>37 Tid:
It is unquestionably a misogynistic act. However, to the best of my knowledge Trump is not female, so it is not *female* misogyny.
It is unquestionably a misogynistic act. However, to the best of my knowledge Trump is not female, so it is not *female* misogyny.
41southernbooklady
In terms of female misogyny it might be worth talking about the right-wing female response to the Women's March. But honestly, I'm still so heartsick about the whole situation that I can barely stand to read their objections. At best, they seemed apathetic -- as apathetic to the march as to the inequities in their own lives. At worst, the response was to ridicule -- to scoff at pink hats, complain about the vulgarity, lament the lack of respect the marchers had for the elected head of state. Nowhere do they seem to acknowledge the march was a direct response to Trump's own, blatant, boasting lack of respect for women. They seemed to miss the point of the march entirely. Worse, they dismissed the reality that upwards of three million people across the planet -- but mostly right here in the US -- were so upset about Trump's election that they felt called to march. THREE MILLION PEOPLE. You can't just dismiss with comments about pink hats and sour grapes. Three million people should tell you that something, something serious, is being said and is worth listening to.
42sturlington
>41 southernbooklady: I was elated after the march. I've crashed now. If anything, I'm more depressed than after the election. I think it was the elected Democrats taking no notice of the march that was the final straw. I guess we have to gird ourselves for the long hall.
Anyway, I'm sorry, Lola, this is still in the wrong thread. I just felt the need to vent a little. I guess female misogyny doesn't concern me as much anymore as the all-out attack on women's rights that is just getting started.
Anyway, I'm sorry, Lola, this is still in the wrong thread. I just felt the need to vent a little. I guess female misogyny doesn't concern me as much anymore as the all-out attack on women's rights that is just getting started.
43LolaWalser
I can't forget that 53% majority of white women voting for Trump!
Anyway, it's just a topic, don't mean to push it over anything else--and I know it probably feels even worse to talk about now than ever before.
On a somewhat uplifting note, I was glad to hear this young black woman say that she stopped resisting the feminist "label", seeing that she fights for what feminism fights for:
Angela Rye Talks Trump's Inauguration, Alternative Facts & The Impact of The Women's March
The whole video is about 17 minutes (and well worth hearing), skip to 8:15 to hear the bit about feminism.
Anyway, it's just a topic, don't mean to push it over anything else--and I know it probably feels even worse to talk about now than ever before.
On a somewhat uplifting note, I was glad to hear this young black woman say that she stopped resisting the feminist "label", seeing that she fights for what feminism fights for:
Angela Rye Talks Trump's Inauguration, Alternative Facts & The Impact of The Women's March
The whole video is about 17 minutes (and well worth hearing), skip to 8:15 to hear the bit about feminism.
44Tid
>43 LolaWalser:
She is good. I didn't quite understand what she meant about what "white feminism" has done to both African-American women, but men too, but I confess I don't know too much about American politics (in the wider sense).
She is good. I didn't quite understand what she meant about what "white feminism" has done to both African-American women, but men too, but I confess I don't know too much about American politics (in the wider sense).
45LolaWalser
I'm not qualified to give a proper answer, but in brief, racist societies--which is any white society, and in very practical terms any multiracial, white-dominant society such as the US but the UK (Canada, Australia, Europe...) as well--add dimensions of oppression to "mere" sexism for non-white women. (Class, disability, sexual orientation etc. are other factors complicating understanding of any fight for emancipation.)
Googling "intersectionality", which is a concept created by a black woman as part of criticism of "white feminism", might give some insight.
From one of the links I found:
Insofar white feminists (in general) contributed to reproducing "the racist status quo" they damaged black women and men.
Googling "intersectionality", which is a concept created by a black woman as part of criticism of "white feminism", might give some insight.
From one of the links I found:
Fighting sexism in a profoundly racist society
Because of the historic role of slavery and racial segregation in the United States, the development of a unified women’s movement requires recognizing the manifold implications of this continuing racial divide. While all women are oppressed as women, no movement can claim to speak for all women unless it speaks for women who also face the consequences of racism—which place women of color disproportionately in the ranks of the working class and the poor. Race and class therefore must be central to the project of women’s liberation if it is to be meaningful to those women who are most oppressed by the system.
Indeed, one of the key weaknesses of the predominantly white US feminist movement has been its lack of attention to racism, with enormous repercussions. Failure to confront racism ends up reproducing the racist status quo.
Insofar white feminists (in general) contributed to reproducing "the racist status quo" they damaged black women and men.
46Lyndatrue
From one of my favorite human beings on the planet: "I couldn’t stand being sorry and black at the same time, it’s so redundant in the modern world." Ntozake Shange speaks for us all. I wept the first time I heard those words. I heard them before I'd read them, and I cannot understand how anyone could see that play, and not be moved.
ETA: When I speak of the play, I mean the original play, and not the PBS stripped down adaptation from 1982, and not Tyler Perry's whatever that was.
ETA: When I speak of the play, I mean the original play, and not the PBS stripped down adaptation from 1982, and not Tyler Perry's whatever that was.
47Tid
>45 LolaWalser:
That makes sense - it's a very multi-layered issue. So (predominantly white) feminism has damaged African-American men ... how? By subtly implying that women, especially white women, have more important issues to deal with than racism, thus excluding A-A men?
That makes sense - it's a very multi-layered issue. So (predominantly white) feminism has damaged African-American men ... how? By subtly implying that women, especially white women, have more important issues to deal with than racism, thus excluding A-A men?
48LolaWalser
>47 Tid:
The nitty-gritty answer, which I can't provide, would look at the history of feminist movements and consider how much their accomplishments included or didn't include black women and fighting for the rights of black women, and by extension, black people in general (it's not like women, black or any other, can isolate themselves from problems affecting their men--family, relatives, children...)
But yes, the charge is that white feminism was a predominantly white, middle-class-led movement that didn't pay attention, not sufficiently anyway, to forms of discrimination that didn't affect white, middle-class women. The point, however, is less to berate historical feminists--who were likely no better, on the whole, than their male counterparts--than simply to notice that those past achievements did little or nothing for many other women.
In Canada for instance, white women got the vote by the end of the WWI, but Asian women--and men--did not, until after WWII. First Nations people (native Americans in US usage) didn't get the vote until the sixties.
P.S. Should have googled earlier--universal white women's suffrage in Canada actually wasn't achieved until 1940, with Québec (figures! Grrr, Catholics.) being the last to gain it. But most provinces got it much earlier, around WWI.
The nitty-gritty answer, which I can't provide, would look at the history of feminist movements and consider how much their accomplishments included or didn't include black women and fighting for the rights of black women, and by extension, black people in general (it's not like women, black or any other, can isolate themselves from problems affecting their men--family, relatives, children...)
But yes, the charge is that white feminism was a predominantly white, middle-class-led movement that didn't pay attention, not sufficiently anyway, to forms of discrimination that didn't affect white, middle-class women. The point, however, is less to berate historical feminists--who were likely no better, on the whole, than their male counterparts--than simply to notice that those past achievements did little or nothing for many other women.
In Canada for instance, white women got the vote by the end of the WWI, but Asian women--and men--did not, until after WWII. First Nations people (native Americans in US usage) didn't get the vote until the sixties.
P.S. Should have googled earlier--universal white women's suffrage in Canada actually wasn't achieved until 1940, with Québec (figures! Grrr, Catholics.) being the last to gain it. But most provinces got it much earlier, around WWI.
50LolaWalser
Sorry if this was posted before, search didn't turn it up. It's two months old but I was reminded of it as I was reading an optimistic article about how "women are pissed" and turning rage into action. I hope that's true but I will never be optimistic about white women again. Especially the sort described here:
New research shows that for white women, having a husband trumped the sisterhood
New research shows that for white women, having a husband trumped the sisterhood
51Guanhumara
Viestin kirjoittaja on poistanut viestin.
52LolaWalser
>51 Guanhumara:
Yes, implicit bias, including social attitudes (racism, sexism...) has been the object of research for a very long time now. I've posted this before, but it bears repeating--you can try some tests here (it's free): https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/
It's real and we even know, as your programme too shows, how and why it happens. That's why people are putting so much emphasis on representation and diversity, measures that are practical rather than "theoretical".
We still need "theory", i.e. education, but the latter's for naught if the environment keeps contradicting it.
Yes, implicit bias, including social attitudes (racism, sexism...) has been the object of research for a very long time now. I've posted this before, but it bears repeating--you can try some tests here (it's free): https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/
It's real and we even know, as your programme too shows, how and why it happens. That's why people are putting so much emphasis on representation and diversity, measures that are practical rather than "theoretical".
We still need "theory", i.e. education, but the latter's for naught if the environment keeps contradicting it.
54susanbooks
Susan Collins and my sister must have each other on speed dial
55sturlington
I think we need to just give up on the Congress as it currently stands. It's a waste of our time and energy. We need to focus on clearing out all the crusty old white men and their female foot soldiers of the patriarchy like Collins and Murkowski (who only voted no because she knew he would get confirmed without her vote), and moving in more women and possibly their male allies, if we can find any.
I actually feel pretty calm today. My turbulent emotions of the past two weeks have settled into a cool rage, but rage with a purpose. It's as if the crazed psychopath in the room has finally taken off his mask and shown us his true face. The gaslighting is over, at least for me, and I think for a lot of women. Now we can focus on the fight.
I actually feel pretty calm today. My turbulent emotions of the past two weeks have settled into a cool rage, but rage with a purpose. It's as if the crazed psychopath in the room has finally taken off his mask and shown us his true face. The gaslighting is over, at least for me, and I think for a lot of women. Now we can focus on the fight.
56LolaWalser
>55 sturlington:
Glad to hear you're doing OK. Whatever random strangers on the internet can do to help, please don't hesitate to say.
Yep it does look like the structural problems of your system will take some deep revision and repair. I don't claim to understand much of it, what seems most worrying to me is the way your elections are compromised by 1) gerrymandering 2) suppression of Dem voters 3) the electoral college. Not problems that can be solved overnight, just as they were carefully constructed over many years.
Glad to hear you're doing OK. Whatever random strangers on the internet can do to help, please don't hesitate to say.
Yep it does look like the structural problems of your system will take some deep revision and repair. I don't claim to understand much of it, what seems most worrying to me is the way your elections are compromised by 1) gerrymandering 2) suppression of Dem voters 3) the electoral college. Not problems that can be solved overnight, just as they were carefully constructed over many years.
57southernbooklady
>55 sturlington: . We need to focus on clearing out all the crusty old white men and their female foot soldiers of the patriarchy
In the US that requires massive election and redistricting reform, or those crusty old white men will always be replaced by soon-to-be crusty old white men.
In the US that requires massive election and redistricting reform, or those crusty old white men will always be replaced by soon-to-be crusty old white men.
58sturlington
>57 southernbooklady: Not going to be easy, that's for sure. Look at how long they have been working toward this. Look how gerrymandered our state is. And to tell you the truth, I'm seriously afraid that the next norm of democracy to be abandoned will be election norms, that the Republicans will figure out some way to stay in power despite losing elections, or they will stop holding elections. But giving up is not an option, at least not for me.
According to a UN report out this morning, disastrous effects of climate change will come earlier than expected, around 2040. My son will be in his early 30s then. I can't give up on his future. Everything is linked--oppression and capitalist greed and the desecration of the environment. We can't combat one without fighting them all.
According to a UN report out this morning, disastrous effects of climate change will come earlier than expected, around 2040. My son will be in his early 30s then. I can't give up on his future. Everything is linked--oppression and capitalist greed and the desecration of the environment. We can't combat one without fighting them all.
59southernbooklady
>58 sturlington: they will stop holding elections.
I think it is more that it is in the interests of people in power to encourage apathy and disinterest in the democratic process. I mean, in NC we're voting according to districting that has already been declared unconstitutional because no one was motivated enough to implement any timely reform. That doesn't encourage confidence in the process.
I think it is more that it is in the interests of people in power to encourage apathy and disinterest in the democratic process. I mean, in NC we're voting according to districting that has already been declared unconstitutional because no one was motivated enough to implement any timely reform. That doesn't encourage confidence in the process.
60LaurenRHalky
I certainly feel like we've hit an all time low as a country with dangerous consequences for ALL living things on this planet. Women, children, minorities and the poor however, bare a disproportional share of the burden of institutions and policies based on white male supremacy greed and fear.
My grandmother was a suffragist, in high school I worked for the feminist press. In college I co-founded a women's center @ an institution that had been all male for 150 years. Consciousness raising was not enough. Roe v Wade was not enough. Kavanaugh was confirmed despite the year's vital and painful work of the me too movement. Giving up seems a reasonable response.
Yet as Simone de Beauvior said in the Second Sex, power is not willingly given up by those who have it. As astounding as it seems, our work has just begun.
Hopefully we can keep each other going.
My grandmother was a suffragist, in high school I worked for the feminist press. In college I co-founded a women's center @ an institution that had been all male for 150 years. Consciousness raising was not enough. Roe v Wade was not enough. Kavanaugh was confirmed despite the year's vital and painful work of the me too movement. Giving up seems a reasonable response.
Yet as Simone de Beauvior said in the Second Sex, power is not willingly given up by those who have it. As astounding as it seems, our work has just begun.
Hopefully we can keep each other going.
61southernbooklady
>60 LaurenRHalky: our work has just begun
Ultimately, I agree with Lola and sturlington: you can't usually change the way people think, but you can change the
way their kids think.
Ultimately, I agree with Lola and sturlington: you can't usually change the way people think, but you can change the
way their kids think.
64Jesse_wiedinmyer
Ultimately, I agree with Lola and sturlington: you can't usually change the way people think, but you can change the
way their kids think.
If it makes you feel any better, you've done quite a bit to change the way I think.
way their kids think.
If it makes you feel any better, you've done quite a bit to change the way I think.
65John5918
>64 Jesse_wiedinmyer: you've done quite a bit to change the way I think
I'd like to second that sentiment.
I'd like to second that sentiment.
66Bookmarque
I’m not sure if this counts as misogyny, but it’s irritating and I think perpetuates ideas about women that men take advantage of.
In books written by women, and one particular book I had the misfortune to read recently, a man continually manhandles a woman. He doesn’t hit her or anything violent, but he moves her body the way he wants it not the way she does. They were having a semi-arguments, call them serious discussions with differing opinions. For example he takes her by the shoulders and turns her toward him, tilts her head so she faces him, grasps her arm to keep her from walking away. In this particular case it was done as a romantic overture and with those overtones, and I think make out sessions ensued, but OMFG if any man tried to do this with me I’d kick him to the curb.
In movies, tv and books this is pretty normal, but watch for it with men. How often do men try to physically restrain or control other men in the normal course of conversation/life? That is aside from physical altercations or escalating aggression. It’s really odd that men still think this is what women want or that they have a perfect right to do it.
Why women still put this into their scenes is beyond me. Do they like it? Do they think about it? Probably no to both, but it’s so ingrained that it must flow naturally. I wish it wasn’t.
In books written by women, and one particular book I had the misfortune to read recently, a man continually manhandles a woman. He doesn’t hit her or anything violent, but he moves her body the way he wants it not the way she does. They were having a semi-arguments, call them serious discussions with differing opinions. For example he takes her by the shoulders and turns her toward him, tilts her head so she faces him, grasps her arm to keep her from walking away. In this particular case it was done as a romantic overture and with those overtones, and I think make out sessions ensued, but OMFG if any man tried to do this with me I’d kick him to the curb.
In movies, tv and books this is pretty normal, but watch for it with men. How often do men try to physically restrain or control other men in the normal course of conversation/life? That is aside from physical altercations or escalating aggression. It’s really odd that men still think this is what women want or that they have a perfect right to do it.
Why women still put this into their scenes is beyond me. Do they like it? Do they think about it? Probably no to both, but it’s so ingrained that it must flow naturally. I wish it wasn’t.
67susanbooks
Yikes, what book is it, Bookmarque? Do you feel comfortable saying? If it's role play or BDSM, then I get it but otherwise, that's really troubling & I like that you're pointing it out.
68Bookmarque
It wasn't a sexual context at all. She turned away from him in anger or frustration or whatever and he turned her back to face him. Or she walked away and he kept her from doing that. More than once. It was a J.D. Robb book...one of those in the Death series. Maddening.
69Jesse_wiedinmyer
This puts me in mind of an incident I witnessed a few months back, standing outside of work. I'm standing there getting shit done and I hear some shouting in the distance, slowly getting louder. And I look down the street to see a man walking down the sidewalk, hustling away from the woman walking five feet behind him, shouting at his back. There a good half block away and I can make out her telling him what a complete and utter piece of shit he was from a quarter mile away. This goes on completely uninterrupted for the five minutes it takes him to close the distance to my work's parking lot, when he comes up and asks me for some cigarettes. I hand him some, listening to her uninterrupted screaming for the entirety of the time. He walks away, her trailing behind. He reverses course, she does the same. He reverses course again, she follows close behind screaming the entire time. After about 15 minutes of this, total, he finally turns around and yells "You know, you're not even supposed to be around me."
"No," she screams back, "YOU'RE the one with the restraining order." Shit was like a Zen Koan or something.
"No," she screams back, "YOU'RE the one with the restraining order." Shit was like a Zen Koan or something.
70sturlington
>69 Jesse_wiedinmyer: I'm missing your point.
I'm currently reading Down Girl by Kate Manne in which she frames misogyny not as hatred of women but as a system to preserve the patriarchy by enforcing patriarchal norms and policing women's behavior so that they don't violate those norms.
I'm currently reading Down Girl by Kate Manne in which she frames misogyny not as hatred of women but as a system to preserve the patriarchy by enforcing patriarchal norms and policing women's behavior so that they don't violate those norms.
71LolaWalser
>70 sturlington:
misogyny not as hatred of women but as a system to preserve the patriarchy by enforcing patriarchal norms and policing women's behavior so that they don't violate those norms.
Yes. To point out how unexceptional is that idea, we discussed as much in this very thread. Which (as I've only posted about a million times over the years, apologies) is how and why so many women are involved and implicated in propagating it. We are all raised by the system for the system.
>66 Bookmarque:
It's been a long while since I read in the relevant genres but that sort of thing seems like the perennial sexist cliché in commercial romantic fiction--the man "taking charge" and making up the woman's mind for her, and variants. Now, it could be argued (I suppose) that that behaviour only reflects what goes on in real life but whatever the case, it seems clear to me that constant exposure to such tropes, especially as they are echoed and amplified throughout culture, would also create expectations of such behaviour.
misogyny not as hatred of women but as a system to preserve the patriarchy by enforcing patriarchal norms and policing women's behavior so that they don't violate those norms.
Yes. To point out how unexceptional is that idea, we discussed as much in this very thread. Which (as I've only posted about a million times over the years, apologies) is how and why so many women are involved and implicated in propagating it. We are all raised by the system for the system.
>66 Bookmarque:
It's been a long while since I read in the relevant genres but that sort of thing seems like the perennial sexist cliché in commercial romantic fiction--the man "taking charge" and making up the woman's mind for her, and variants. Now, it could be argued (I suppose) that that behaviour only reflects what goes on in real life but whatever the case, it seems clear to me that constant exposure to such tropes, especially as they are echoed and amplified throughout culture, would also create expectations of such behaviour.
72sturlington
>71 LolaWalser: That's true, you made that very point. I had forgotten.
In her book, Manne discusses how framing misogyny as hatred of women lets many people who enforce it off the hook because as individuals they don't hate women. This includes women who uphold the system. It's similar to how many people claim they can't be racists even though they uphold racist systemic structures and norms because they don't personally hate non-white people. So basically the typically understood framing of misogyny as "hatred" and an individual moral choice is yet another way that misogyny is perpetuated because it utterly fails to address the reality that misogyny is baked into every part of the patriarchal system.
In her book, Manne discusses how framing misogyny as hatred of women lets many people who enforce it off the hook because as individuals they don't hate women. This includes women who uphold the system. It's similar to how many people claim they can't be racists even though they uphold racist systemic structures and norms because they don't personally hate non-white people. So basically the typically understood framing of misogyny as "hatred" and an individual moral choice is yet another way that misogyny is perpetuated because it utterly fails to address the reality that misogyny is baked into every part of the patriarchal system.
73LolaWalser
>72 sturlington:
I'm certainly not claiming that insight for my own, today I feel like it's something I've "always" known (and "preached" about for at least a decade) but I think it's one of those "discoveries" of feminism that have been around for so long they are part of the cultural furniture. It may even have derived from the insight about the institutional (i.e. generalised) nature of racism (an idea that's older than the civil rights movement).
I vaguely remember reading about/discussing Manne before--was it here?--not sure. I know I'd read about her in the Guardian or somewhere like that before and being critical about something... could have been that whole sense--possibly due to journalistic practice--of "no one has ever thought of this before" when, as I say, it's pretty much the every day furniture of feminist thought at this point, but I think there was something more concerning... anyway, it put me off looking for her work, but you remind me it would be worth having a proper academic treatment of the subject.
I'm certainly not claiming that insight for my own, today I feel like it's something I've "always" known (and "preached" about for at least a decade) but I think it's one of those "discoveries" of feminism that have been around for so long they are part of the cultural furniture. It may even have derived from the insight about the institutional (i.e. generalised) nature of racism (an idea that's older than the civil rights movement).
I vaguely remember reading about/discussing Manne before--was it here?--not sure. I know I'd read about her in the Guardian or somewhere like that before and being critical about something... could have been that whole sense--possibly due to journalistic practice--of "no one has ever thought of this before" when, as I say, it's pretty much the every day furniture of feminist thought at this point, but I think there was something more concerning... anyway, it put me off looking for her work, but you remind me it would be worth having a proper academic treatment of the subject.
74southernbooklady
>71 LolaWalser: To point out how unexceptional is that idea, we discussed as much in this very thread. Which (as I've only posted about a million times over the years, apologies) is how and why so many women are involved and implicated in propagating it. We are all raised by the system for the system.
James Baldwin talks about this in terms of race when he talks about "the great psychological collision" that happens when a black person realizes that his image of himself is in conflict with every image in white America of what a person is:
That notion -- that "none of it applies to you" -- is how I frame women's existence in patriarchy. And I'm as steeped in it as any woman. Every woman. One of my best friends, a hilarious person and like me a self-identified feminist, has lately been posting an endless stream of absurd adverts from the 50s and 60s on holiday entertaining and I find it impossible not to laugh at the weirdness of them. But they are targeted at women, naturally. So I'm laughing at women, and I'm conscious even as I'm laughing that such things aren't just absurd, they are awful. And really not funny at all.
James Baldwin talks about this in terms of race when he talks about "the great psychological collision" that happens when a black person realizes that his image of himself is in conflict with every image in white America of what a person is:
“One is born in a white country… when you open your eyes to the world, everything you see: none of it applies to you. You go to white movies and, like everybody else, you fall in love with Joan Crawford, and you root for the Good Guys who are killing off the Indians. It comes as a great psychological collision when you realize all of these things are metaphors for your oppression, and will lead into a kind of psychological warfare in which you may perish.”
That notion -- that "none of it applies to you" -- is how I frame women's existence in patriarchy. And I'm as steeped in it as any woman. Every woman. One of my best friends, a hilarious person and like me a self-identified feminist, has lately been posting an endless stream of absurd adverts from the 50s and 60s on holiday entertaining and I find it impossible not to laugh at the weirdness of them. But they are targeted at women, naturally. So I'm laughing at women, and I'm conscious even as I'm laughing that such things aren't just absurd, they are awful. And really not funny at all.
75LolaWalser
>74 southernbooklady:
Yeah, I'm actually inclined to think it's something every woman gets to know but doesn't necessarily verbalise. Because--and as Baldwin hints--it's so ENORMOUS. It's a feeling--and of course we tell ourselves feelings are deceptive--that the whole world hates you.
Come to think of it, and not that I'm seriously tracing a history of ideas here, just looking at analogies, antisemitism can provide that same insight. Kafka's world, which is too often stupidly reduced to "bureaucratic" and political metaphors, is actually the result of his feeling/insight that the whole world hates him, the Jew.
The malaise of the black person, the Jewish person, the female person, the root of their oppression, is in the whole "world", not (necessarily or only or most importantly) in the racist, antisemitic, misogynistic individual(s).
Yeah, I'm actually inclined to think it's something every woman gets to know but doesn't necessarily verbalise. Because--and as Baldwin hints--it's so ENORMOUS. It's a feeling--and of course we tell ourselves feelings are deceptive--that the whole world hates you.
Come to think of it, and not that I'm seriously tracing a history of ideas here, just looking at analogies, antisemitism can provide that same insight. Kafka's world, which is too often stupidly reduced to "bureaucratic" and political metaphors, is actually the result of his feeling/insight that the whole world hates him, the Jew.
The malaise of the black person, the Jewish person, the female person, the root of their oppression, is in the whole "world", not (necessarily or only or most importantly) in the racist, antisemitic, misogynistic individual(s).
76dypaloh
>74 southernbooklady:
Baldwin’s comment about rooting “for the good guys who are killing off the Indians” is mirrored in James Welch’s Killing Custer. Welch was young in the late 1940s and early 50s and the movies he saw at the theater on the Blackfeet Reservation included lots of Cowboy/Indian flicks. There’d be a showdown with a group of settlers fighting a “gigantic mob of Indians,” and right when massacre seemed imminent the cavalry would arrive with American flag flying and bugle blaring, and the Blackfeet audience would cheer the soldiers as they whipped those red men who were “the very embodiment of evil.” "Psychological collision" says it well. A triumph for the forces of demoralization.
Baldwin’s comment about rooting “for the good guys who are killing off the Indians” is mirrored in James Welch’s Killing Custer. Welch was young in the late 1940s and early 50s and the movies he saw at the theater on the Blackfeet Reservation included lots of Cowboy/Indian flicks. There’d be a showdown with a group of settlers fighting a “gigantic mob of Indians,” and right when massacre seemed imminent the cavalry would arrive with American flag flying and bugle blaring, and the Blackfeet audience would cheer the soldiers as they whipped those red men who were “the very embodiment of evil.” "Psychological collision" says it well. A triumph for the forces of demoralization.
77southernbooklady
>75 LolaWalser: Kafka's world, which is too often stupidly reduced to "bureaucratic" and political metaphors, is actually the result of his feeling/insight that the whole world hates him, the Jew.
Consigns him, in fact, to a subhuman status.
It's hard to verbalise, because such oppression is so all-encompassing that most attempts to do so come off as outrageous hyperbole. When Margaret Fuller wrote that all marriage is slavery of women, she was stating a basic truth that people were too mired in -- too dependent on -- to be willing to see. So she just comes off sounding batty, and not like a person who has mastered that paradigm shift in perception required to see how pernicious and flawed a society is that it has such an institution.
Consigns him, in fact, to a subhuman status.
It's hard to verbalise, because such oppression is so all-encompassing that most attempts to do so come off as outrageous hyperbole. When Margaret Fuller wrote that all marriage is slavery of women, she was stating a basic truth that people were too mired in -- too dependent on -- to be willing to see. So she just comes off sounding batty, and not like a person who has mastered that paradigm shift in perception required to see how pernicious and flawed a society is that it has such an institution.
78LolaWalser
>76 dypaloh:
Yes, "psychological collusion" is very much what the indoctrination in discriminatory systems aims for--to create willing victims of oppression.
>77 southernbooklady:
The story of so many "Cassandras"...
Yes, "psychological collusion" is very much what the indoctrination in discriminatory systems aims for--to create willing victims of oppression.
>77 southernbooklady:
The story of so many "Cassandras"...
79sturlington
>73 LolaWalser: I don't think in her book Manne is claiming that she's the first one to come up with this idea. Rather, she specifically says that she is explicating a feminist definition of misogyny in counterpoint to the common dictionary definition of the term. My sense is her intended audience is one that is not conversant with even basic feminist theory or tends to dismiss feminist theory. After all, one of her points is that it's more convenient for the system at large--and philosophy is very much a part of the male-dominated system--to define misogyny so narrowly because it lets those who participate in and support a misogynistic system off the hook since they don't personally "hate" women. Such people are being purposely obtuse about the term.
Anyway, she does give credit for the idea to the feminist theorists that were writing before her.
To bring this back around to the thread topic, she makes the point that misogyny is not applied broadly to all women, but applied selectively to specific women or groups of women targeted for threatening the patriarchal system or going "out of bounds." Of course, those targets change constantly and rapidly, and no woman is exempt. But because misogyny is not in fact a general hatred of all women, some women who feel they benefit from aspects of the patriarchal system can perpetuate it and punish other women for violating it even though they are women themselves and couldn't possibly "hate" their own gender. And of course a lot of this female misogyny is directed across lines of race or class or sexual orientation.
Anyway, she does give credit for the idea to the feminist theorists that were writing before her.
To bring this back around to the thread topic, she makes the point that misogyny is not applied broadly to all women, but applied selectively to specific women or groups of women targeted for threatening the patriarchal system or going "out of bounds." Of course, those targets change constantly and rapidly, and no woman is exempt. But because misogyny is not in fact a general hatred of all women, some women who feel they benefit from aspects of the patriarchal system can perpetuate it and punish other women for violating it even though they are women themselves and couldn't possibly "hate" their own gender. And of course a lot of this female misogyny is directed across lines of race or class or sexual orientation.
80LolaWalser
>79 sturlington:
some women who feel they benefit from aspects of the patriarchal system can perpetuate it and punish other women for violating it even though they are women themselves and couldn't possibly "hate" their own gender.
It may sound bleak but I don't think anyone in a misogynistic society can escape being misogynist to a degree, and those women DO hate their own gender--their actions speak to it. There's no difficulty for them. It's easy and convenient because the misogynistic society provides plenty of justification, not just favours and prizes, to them as well as to men.
And as you say directing that hatred "across lines of race or class or sexual orientation"... is a very handy outlet. Gets one points with the masters at the same time as it provides a vent.
some women who feel they benefit from aspects of the patriarchal system can perpetuate it and punish other women for violating it even though they are women themselves and couldn't possibly "hate" their own gender.
It may sound bleak but I don't think anyone in a misogynistic society can escape being misogynist to a degree, and those women DO hate their own gender--their actions speak to it. There's no difficulty for them. It's easy and convenient because the misogynistic society provides plenty of justification, not just favours and prizes, to them as well as to men.
And as you say directing that hatred "across lines of race or class or sexual orientation"... is a very handy outlet. Gets one points with the masters at the same time as it provides a vent.
81sturlington
>80 LolaWalser: Gets one points with the masters at the same time as it provides a vent.
Yes, exactly. I think the phrase I've been seeing on twitter lately is "foot soldiers of the patriarchy."
I agree with you that we are all misogynistic to a degree just from being indoctrinated in the culture since we were born. Just as we are all racist to a degree. It really is exhausting trying to even recognize all the indoctrination, much less try to overcome it.
Yes, exactly. I think the phrase I've been seeing on twitter lately is "foot soldiers of the patriarchy."
I agree with you that we are all misogynistic to a degree just from being indoctrinated in the culture since we were born. Just as we are all racist to a degree. It really is exhausting trying to even recognize all the indoctrination, much less try to overcome it.
Join to post
