Which gender are you?

[General Patton]

Can you imagine what would happen if I said something like "I drink female tears" anywhere popular on the internet? (Of course, things being the way they are on this board and elsewhere, I have to qualify that I absolutely wish to do no such thing.)

Can you imagine what would happen if the internet feminists knew that male tears was slang for semen?
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.p ... male+tears

[guruilla]

Can you imagine what would happen if I said something like "I drink female tears" anywhere popular on the internet? (Of course, things being the way they are on this board and elsewhere, I have to qualify that I absolutely wish to do no such thing.)

Can you imagine what would happen if the internet feminists knew that male tears was slang for semen?
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.p ... male+tears

Classic. Someone knew.

[Project Willow]

I will try. First off, full disclosure (and I am sure no surprise to anyone), I am not versed in feminist rhetoric or history.

Okay, so this is a major problem we are having here. Both you and Slomo are arguing with me as if you can predict my opinion and what I am going to say. How can we have a conversation if your reactions to me are based on negative stereotypes and uninformed theorizing, if you come at me with presumptions instead of questions and a willingness to understand?

This is not the same as saying they were cut off from their own femaleness or under the thumb of the patriarchy, my impression was rather the reverse, that they found feminism to be an overly ideological imposition of set and rigid values and modes of behavior that did not allow for a deeper experience and expression of themselves as women. Simply put, I have always had the impression, through knowing these women, that feminism was more about a masculine expression that a true feminine one.

I don't believe in the gender binary, that there are true masculine or feminine "expressions" that we can disentangle from enculturation, and sex role socialization. Feminism's critique of gender aspects of these processes is a project that is far from complete. We hit backlash (and most certainly capitalist co-optation of the movement which exploited and propped up third wave ideology) long before women had the opportunity to define for ourselves how we can be female without living as sex objects or constantly engaging in gestures of submissiveness to men.

I’m not arguing that feminism does not have its good points, only that, like every ideology, it has been co-opted, and I think to some degree incepted, as a part of the larger social engineering program. I understand you don’t like it if I throw out facts that suggest this, such as about Bernays & smoking or about a deliberate strategy to push feminist ideas in order to get women into the workplace. But isn’t the honest approach to address these facts, rather than object to what you think I am implying by them—which is simply that feminism has more aspects to it than merely the liberation of women?

No, the honest approach is to learn more about the history of feminism so you can make a more educated assessment of what was happening in that example. Can you see how the over-simplification in your supposition is insulting and erasing of women's power and agency, and therefore worthy of more nuanced and learned exploration?

While I appreciate you taking the time to question me, and really value the chance to have a dialogue, this polarization of either/or is something I keep seeing at this board and it’s the very thing I was pointing at. You make it seem like, simply by questioning some of the historical and ideological elements of feminism, I am suggesting that “you and your sisters” “should have been happy being wholly dependent on a man, unable to vote, own property, get divorced, get an education, use our talents and our brains for anything else than serving a husband, and that my foremothers who fought and died so that future generations could live in greater freedom, who called themselves feminists, were really just manipulated by men all along.” Surely you know that’s a ridiculous assumption, one that puts an impossible burden on any man (in this case, me) who simply wants to look more deeply into the subject, and who is attempting to reconcile opposing viewpoints. It seems meant, unconsciously, to drive me into the “MCP” camp, and in the process to reinforce the stereotype of feminists as reactionary ballbusters who, when faced with anything less than blind unthinking agreement, cry "male domination."

It is not a ridiculous assumption. As I've already explained there are men here with all kinds of regressive and outright women hating views. I do not pretend to know what is in your mind, and have to ask when you make sweeping contradictory statements. Woven throughout your post is the suggestion that I am an unconscious tool of elite men and feminist ideologues, apparently because I am presenting views you either don't understand or don't agree with. The contention is patronizing and insulting to me as a woman and a human being.

Did you just say that I'm ignorant of psychology and the techniques of manipulation?

I’m sure you know loads about it and probably lots more than I do in certain areas. But it is one thing to know it, another to apply it. What I was trying to point to was a kind of ideological identification which a) leaves out all the ways in which unconscious trauma has shaped our beliefs and our very identities; b) prevents any real vulnerability, openness and hence deeper communication with those whose beliefs and identities have been differently shaped, by similar traumas.

I do not identify with an ideology out of some lack of insight or inability to connect lived experience, or evidence-based analysis with theory, it is quite the opposite, and you do not yet know enough about my particular views to make the presumption. I've already explained to you that recognition of trauma is the wellspring my feminism. It is the work of feminism to reveal the ways in which women in general are treated as lesser beings, in other words, to reveal sources of trauma, pain, and suffering. Feminism is also concerned with how male sex role socialization negatively impacts individual men.

Do you realize that I do practically nothing else but examine the ways in which unconscious trauma has shaped my beliefs and identit(ies), that this is my primary occupation and contribution over the past 30 years in art, writing, and activism? You seem to be assuming that I am clinging to reactionary stances out of unconscious emotionality and that I'm not thoughtful, insightful, or psychologically aware enough to discard aspects of theory that don't apply, or that might views are resistant to change. You do not know me, at all. What's more, I think these presumptions are manipulative in themselves. For example, I would not challenge Slomo to examine that perhaps his mother's mistreatment of him is the source of his anti-feminism. That would be condescending, paternalistic, and inappropriate in a venue like this.

As to the rest of your post, your contention about reactions to Freud's theories is incorrect, and on the central role of women's liberation in the founding of trauma studies, you're simply uninformed. On top of having done the requisite research, I lived through that history, I was part of it, I witnessed it.

[tapitsbo]

I appreciate your diagnosis of problems with what guruilla is saying, it's true that there is no psychological quick fix for the issues being discussed (or not discussed) here.

But if nobody is ever educated enough about feminist history to speak about it then it's inevitable that there will be a quantum feminist collapse where people's comments on feminism will reflect their experiences with it - knowledge of this unknowably arcane and esoteric entity "feminism" will need to be based solely on interactions with it, if criteria for sufficiently thorough knowledge of it are unattainable - interactions which sometimes may even include speaking to feminists, being educated in institutions about feminism, and reading about feminism (in my case these activities have left me with a certain picture of what feminism is that could doubtlessly be disputed endlessly, but which I nonetheless have to use for now as a kind of working model.)

There's also the issue of "actually existing feminism", which you may feel is hopelessly co-opted, but certainly has a lot more followers than obscure versions which are allegedly preferable. What are we supposed to call this overwhelmingly dominant phenomenon, if not feminism?

[backtoiam]

The phrase "sex object" can sometimes be a torpedo.

Many men consider females as sexually attractive. Actually that was a stupid thing to say. Most men find women attractive and that is not inappropriate to say that.

Men are also "sex objects" because most women find men sexually attractive. Not all but most. It sort of works that way usually.

The fact that this very basic little simple scenario is being use by mainstream media to confuse people and start conflict and confusion is very effective in starting conflict and confusion.

Social scientist types that seek to cause mayhem and agony so that it can be taken advantage of for profit and gain are nothing new and with the distribution of "information" through technology they "dare you" to deny the basic facts of life.

It becomes a bit hysterical because they dare you agree or disagree with the fact that some people are aligned in their born gender roles of sexual preference and some are not, and they dare you to have an opinion about the subject.

The people that decide to go outside of their natural born gender roles with their sexual preferences catch the most abuse perhaps because the think tank social scientists use them as a political football and it causes suffering for people who choose to live their life a little differently than some other people.

Everybody is a political football no matter what.

Either way they will call you a bigot for even daring to have an opinion or preference. This game of chaos could not be designed much better to keep conflict alive and well.

Dare to have a brain or sexual persuasion of any sort or fashion whatsoever and the chaos masters have already figured out a way to make that seem like bigot minded thought.

Its a no win situation for people that don't see the game and stumble into the mouse trap.

[guruilla]

But if nobody is ever educated enough about feminist history to speak about it then it's inevitable that there will be a quantum feminist collapse where people's comments on feminism will reflect their experiences with it - knowledge of this unknowably arcane and esoteric entity "feminism" will need to be based solely on interactions with it, if criteria for sufficiently thorough knowledge of it are unattainable - interactions which sometimes may even include speaking to feminists, being educated in institutions about feminism, and reading about feminism (in my case these activities have left me with a certain picture of what feminism is that could doubtlessly be disputed endlessly, but which I nonetheless have to use for now as a kind of working model.)

I have to second that; this isnt a thread about feminism, and if it were I would not be likely to participate in it, partially for the very sort of stipulations PW is making: I am not sufficiently interested in feminism per se to speak in any length or depth on it, much less to do the necessary reading.

In which case, PW may say, better not throw out challenging ideas such as that "feminism" as a movement may have served "the patriarchy" in ways most people aren't aware of. So then, am I not allowed to use the word feminism without doing the necessary reading first?

I can understand PW's objection to being categorized without much experience of her, of you, but on the other hand, I am not really responding to you but your posts; that's pretty much all I have to go on and even there, only a small percentage of the total number at this forum. So it may be a mistake to take my responses so personally, as a framing of you as an individual, woman or otherwise, when what is really happening is that I am talking about your methods of communicating and what they have so far communicated to me.

Also, the comments about psychology weren't directed at you specifically, and insofar as they included you, I was using the example of a seemingly unbridgeable (but from my point of view partially illusory) gulf between you and slomo, whom I view as two of the most intelligent and "robust" voices at this thread & forum. Maybe that was overly paternal of me, but you could also see it as fraternal or simply community-minded.

I don't believe in the gender binary, that there are true masculine or feminine "expressions" that we can disentangle from enculturation, and sex role socialization.

This is an interesting question and obviously central to this thread. I am not sure what I believe there, but I do believe that man the biological creature who also possesses (or belongs to) a psyche has a true expression that might be termed masculine, and the same with the female. On the other hand, without getting too new-agey, this only happens with and through an internal integration of, or "marriage" to, the opposite pole within oneself, i.e., when a man fully recognizes & "brings home" his anima, & when a woman makes space for her animus. So whatever the true masculine and the true feminine might look like, they would first of all be completely particular to that psyche, and secondly, have very little in common with enculturated roles. (Just summing this up so my position is clear, not for anyone's edification.)

Woven throughout your post is the suggestion that I am an unconscious tool of elite men and feminist ideologues, apparently because I am presenting views you either don't understand or don't agree with. The contention is patronizing and insulting to me as a woman and a human being.

Only if you choose to interpret this suggestion as a personal criticism. But if you were to ask me some questions about my meanings, you'd very soon learn that I would say we are all unconscious tools of ideology, to a man and woman. So again, what I was pointing out was not about you, per se, but about an area in which communication seemed to be breaking down, and why that might be so.

I've already explained to you that recognition of trauma is the wellspring my feminism.

You have, and I tried to explain why I don't relate to that particular position. So far recognition of my own trauma has not led to any sort of ideological identification ~ as far as I know.

It is the work of feminism to reveal the ways in which women in general are treated as lesser beings, in other words, to reveal sources of trauma, pain, and suffering.

Like slomo, I do not really believe this is so (tho I agree about the war on female sexuality), and even if it were, I would consider it a secondary issue to the undeniable truth that children in general are treated as lesser beings, and that this is the source of all trauma, pain and suffering, for men and women, down to the last one of us.

As to the rest of your post, your contention about reactions to Freud's theories is incorrect, and on the central role of women's liberation in the founding of trauma studies, you're simply uninformed. On top of having done the requisite research, I lived through that history, I was part of it, I witnessed it.

I don't recall contending anything about any reactions to Freud's theories. Here is what I said:

None of these women you cite would have been able to do the work they did without Freud, and we all know how unreliable and even untrustworthy Freud was (especially around sexual abuse of children). Facts do not have ideological content, though they can be used ideologically.

Are you disagreeing that Freud's work was foundational to psychology?

Regarding the other point, I wasn't so much contesting the role as questioning your choice of assigning cause and effect or choosing an arbitrary form of hierarchy based on ideological preference. It is logical that women who are questioning their status in society and ill-treatment at the hands of men would also be looking into childhood sexual abuse and trauma, and even that the two "movements" might proceed together. The sexual revolution occurred more or less congruent with the rise of rock n roll; does that mean rock and roll caused the sexual revolution? But anyway, I'm not sure what the point is: that I am supposed to be an advocate of feminism because something good came out of it? (See previous point about Christianity.)

Returning to your point about learning more about feminism, I don't want you to think that I am not interested at all; while my study time is already pretty booked up, am interested, and I am learning: by dialoguing here. My view is that there is almost infinitely more to be learned from interacting with human beings than with books.

[Heaven Swan]

tapistbo wrote

There's also the issue of "actually existing feminism", which you may feel is hopelessly co-opted, but certainly has a lot more followers than obscure versions which are allegedly preferable. What are we supposed to call this overwhelmingly dominant phenomenon, if not feminism?

Liberal Feminism

[tapitsbo]

No, I understand what that is.

Most Left feminists are clearly not liberals, and have very different positions from liberal feminists. They also typically sound nothing like radfems.

There's also the issue of historical second-wave feminism being a broad coalition of many contradictory ideas.

[slomo]

As I've already explained there are men here with all kinds of regressive and outright women hating views.

I think it's too much to ask to name specific names, but I imagine I am on that list because of the position I have taken in this thread and the other that I created. Whether or not I am one of the principal members of your list (I don't care that much), it strikes me that you are perhaps conflating criticism of feminism with actual misogyny. This is a common rhetorical tactic when feminism is criticized in other online arenas, and it isn't all that different from the conflation of criticism of Israel with outright anti-semitism (Hi AD!) It's quite a presumptuous view.

If a "women-hating view" is that social policy should be influenced by evidence and data and not solely on the feelings of a small group of individuals (I'm speaking of academic feminists, not women as a whole, because a great many women actually disagree with feminism), then I suppose I'm a misogynist. Oh well. However, the label of woman-hater probably does not match the experience of various female students I've mentored and supported over the years (I can't know for sure of course). If by "woman-hating view" you actually mean something much more abstract, then it is a really poor choice of terminology, one that does a great deal of harm to actual individuals.

[coffin_dodger]

Beyond 'he' and 'she': The rise of non-binary pronouns BBC News 7 Dec 2015

In the English language, the word "he" is used to refer to males and "she" to refer to females. But some people identify as neither gender, or both - which is why an increasing number of US universities are making it easier for people to choose to be referred to by other pronouns.

Kit Wilson's introduction when meeting other people is: "Hi, I'm Kit. I use they/them pronouns." That means that when people refer to Kit in conversation, the first-year student at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee would prefer them to use "they" rather than "she" or "he".

cont - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-34901704

[American Dream]

I would say that perhaps we shall only really be able to think about gender on the day when we can imagine non-gender. But if Newton could do it for falling apples, we should be able to do it for ourselves as women.

Rethinking sex and gender - Christine Delphy

[Luther Blissett]

Guruilla, you've only dated women who did not believe in the equality of the sexes? They all wanted to be subservient to men? Woah that's crazy.

[Luther Blissett]

Latinas make 43¢ on the dollar compared to white men in New Jersey.

http://www.fastcompany.com/3054258/stro ... r-wage-gap

[slomo]

Latinas make 43¢ on the dollar compared to white men in New Jersey.

http://www.fastcompany.com/3054258/stro ... r-wage-gap

Did the study adjust for hours, education, etc.? I doubt it.

If you want to talk about strategies (e.g. education incentives) for making nonwhite women more employable in high-paying fields, I'm all for it. I know plenty of women who are MDs (some of them latinas), and as a biracial person who chose a STEM field, I'm doing OK. But if you're suggesting that gender alone is the reason that nursing assistants and cleaning staff make less money than engineers and executives, then I think you hugely misunderstand economics and the class system in the US.

[Luther Blissett]

I'm interested in destroying capitalism so that debt and dominance are not even issues, sure.