a thought about men defending sexism...

[nashville_brook]

a question to ponder after reading this thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x358015


there's a certain contingent of guys who stalk the Women's Rights forum to pick fights. they also pile on any thread where women discuss sexism in general. these guys attack all women as being sexless "Dworkinites" if they dare critique anything as reinforcing patriarchal values. to them, a woman who finds sexism tasteless, is an undesireable woman -- or, that's the fulcrum of the argument most often leveled against us.

among politically aware women, a man who defends sexism would be shunned in real life. the only place for shunned men to defend sexism is annonymously, online.

guys who are comfortable with their power and sexuality don't pick these fights -- they might actually critique sexism themselves. politically aware women such as the ones found in DU Women's Right's forum, describe these men as "desirable" and seek relationships with them in real life. so, when it is said that feminist women are sexually less attractive, that's half true. we are less desireable to sexist men and find sexist men undesireable.

which begs the question:
why do these guys spend SO MUCH time posting to women they don't like, and who don't like THEM?

[Buzz Clik]

1. Well, if it's any consolation...

... there are similar ridiculous stalkers in the Religion forum, Environment forum, and others.

However, speaking as a reformed sexist pig, I fully agree that the ad in question was absolutely hideous.

[Deep13]

2. Hmmmm. Ummm. Well,...

... maybe it is like in 5th grade where they want to go out with you but are still afriad that their friends will not accept that they are into girls. If, at that age, boys gravitate to girls, it must be because they are effeminate. At that age, I recall it being "cool" to notice girls as sexual objects, but not as possible friends. So they get attention from you by being annoying while maintaining plausible deniability to the guys.

Sorry, that's the best I could do. Perhaps it has something to do with "cooties." :shrug:

[nashville_brook]

4. i totally "get" this -- they want to "beat us up" on the DU playground

this way, at least girls are noticing them.

[Jade Fox]

45. I think that's right on....

I've read the same thing said by a therapist: That boys must make just the choices you describe in order to survive and not become targets themselves.

[Deep13]

3. Just looked at the other thread about the ad.

Holy shit! Do yah think that might be a bad idea? Do yah think? Guess no one could come up with a good child-molestation ad, so they went with gang rape. Christ!

[nashville_brook]

6. it's completely sexist and a crappy ad aimed at trust-fund children

but, the passion in its defense! it's the Rape Of The Sabines! to critique this is to critique Tennessee Williams! those who don't like it are nazi book burners!

like, wow -- i say.

[Deep13]

9. Always thought the rape of the Sabines was reprehesible.

For the record, I oppose legally banning any form of print media except child exploitation and other situtations involving coercion. The company should have known better and it is astonishing that anyone would think that is a good idea for an ad.

For readers who do not know, the myth of the founding of Rome tells of Romulus and Remus founding the city with a bunch of soldiers and then realizing, apparently for the first time, that there isn't much of a future in a city of men. So they invited the Sabine women over on some pretext and proceeded to kidnap and rape them. Thus Rome's future is born of conquest and aggression. It is a myth, of course, but one that reflects some pretty depraved values. Romulus eventually slew his brother Remus (sound familiar?) to keep the monarchy for himself.

As a side note, the legal real estate principal of "first in time is first in right" comes from this (or rather the myth reflects the legal idea which is ancient in origin. To decide who would be king (this was before Rome was a republic) Romulus and Remus sat on opposite sides of the crown of a hill looking for signs from the gods. Romulous saw three birds heading toward him. A little while later, Remus saw six birds coming his way. Romulus claimed priority of time. Remus claimed superior number. They fought. Remus was killed. Blah blah blah.

[nashville_brook]

15. wow -- nicely put on the Romans. on censorship... i agree and

i rarely see anyone arguing that sexist speech should be "banned." more often it's "this is sexist, and here's why. lets not buy what they're selling" literally and figuratively.

dolce & gab are known for transgressive advertising. sooner or later it's going to lead to a discussion of where the boundary of good taste is. sooner or later a publication is going to refuse to run their ads. dolce & gab aren't being silenced -- they can sell their shoes in a different publication or change the concept -- point is, the only message dolce & gab care about is: buy these shoes.

lefties aren't known for advocating censorship, although many would love it if they could effectively make that charge against us (remember the bugaboo of "political correctness").

censorship happens when those in power squash a message thru might and monopoly -- as with corporate media censoring the truth regarding the march to war.

people expressing disgust/dismay with an advertising image doens't rise to censorship. it's debate.

and fodder for deconstruction.

:evilgrin:

[Deep13]

17. Yup. Didn't think you were advocating censorship.

I was just aware that my saying they should not have done it made me open to the charge.

[nashville_brook]

19. see, it's a difficult thing to talk about -- so easily manipulated

:hi:

[ThomCat]

5. People invest themselves in any system that benefits them.

And people rationalize their positions very, very well. That is why everyone thinks they are good ethical people, but so many people still allow injustices and attrocities at ever turn. :(

[nashville_brook]

10. kinda off topic -- but the idea of "investing yourself" in a system

became a wonderful evening conversation a couple of weeks ago. it was asserted that the problem with crass containerization of guns is that people INVEST themselves in being prepared to use them -- ergo, everyone they come in contact with is a potential threat.

in places where there isn't the investment in the containerization (such as Canada), there isn't the problem with gun violence.

once you literally buy something and then accessorize it, you start to congratulate yourself for your action. of course everyone on the street is a potential threat -- you've prepared yourself for that -- you've BOUGHT into it. congratulations, now you can live in fear -- because that's what happens. you don't get peace of mind with your concealed weapons permit. you get constant vigilance.

so, investing personally in a system of sexism means that you congratulate yourself as a champion of free speech. every mention of sexism is a threat to your freedom -- so you try to shut down discussion of sexism. suddenly there's no freedom -- only vigilance of your investment.

[Deep13]

13. Gotta tell you, I bought my first gun in November 2004.

I rembered Crystal Night and was determined not to be lynched by my Fundy, red-state neighbors who might be determined to rid their town of godless, Amurica-hating libruls. Since then it has become more of a hobby.

Frankly, I thought parts of this country were pretty scary long before I became a gun-owner and I still do. Americans have a tradition of relying on ourselves to a certain degree and possible crime victims are generally not content to rely on police protection which will necessarily not arrive until after the crime has been committed. You may be right for many people, but not all or perhaps even most of them.

[nashville_brook]

18. the discussion was centered on a really weird trend, imo, that people are ready

for an attack from a proverbial "gang of 27 ninjas." it's a young person thing, i think. these guys carry a gun to the grocery story... just in case. they have a gun in the car, because the gun on-person only has one clip and they might need to fight their way into the house (with the groceries), where they'll be able to use their AK-47 on the "gang of 27 ninjas." i confess, i never considered that the guy next to me at Publix might be packing heat -- or prepared for a firefight between the store and home. but people LIVE this way, and we chalked it up to a weird "consumerism." where life is accessorized and identities are formed around the gun -- and these make-believe ninjas. the overriding characteristic is overkill because that's what people are expecting to be thrown at them. so, we riffed on the thought that... "damn, even with all that weaponry, these guys STILL don't feel safe."

that's when it hit us -- they've INVESTED in not feeling safe. this is central florida and it's a bizarre form of xenophobia that has taken root in places like Palm Bay and parts of Orlando -- the diversity is wonderful and amazing to me. to other people it's very threatening. they see 3 asian guys together and "it's on!" a car full of young hispanic men send the car full young white guys next to them into panic mode. maybe the threats are real -- but i seriously doubt it. it's a drama that's being acted out.

now, i've been that pinko librul (hippie chick) in the mountains of east tennessee and can TOTALLY understand why you'd need to protect yourself. i always had the benefit of being "just a girl" but plenty of the skater guys and muscians i hung out with in college were attacked for nothing more than looking "strange."

[Sapere aude]

7. As a guy, I find feminist women very attractive, though I am married and not looking.

My mother-in-law and wife are both feminists. My sister-in-law is lesbian. I find these people more than willing to defend my rights too. They recognize that all men are not the same. When people struggle and gain their rights and recognition, the benefits accrue to me too.

[nashville_brook]

12. they've bought into the fallacy that "sexism" equals sexy -- and that

criticizing sexism is an affront to all men -- as if all men are being criticized when an issue of sexism is discussed.

it's a strange position to take -- to identify "men in general" with blatant sexism ("you're saying all men are rapists), and then demand that we stop our discussion because THEY are offended at a straw man representation.

it really makes you wonder what's up with these guys.

[Bluestar]

8. I find these guys in GD and the Political Forum as well

They are always happy to use derogatory terms about any woman, Democrat or Republican. It makes me sick on this supposed "enlightened" message board. I can only hope they are clever freepers who haven't yet been tombstoned.

[Carl21014]

11. I guess it depends what you consider sexism or feminist?

My wife works like most women work now a days. She not only works she makes more than I do. I stayed home for 7 years and raised 3 chldren while she went to work. It bothers me when I see clearly men doing the same job in her industry make more money. I have daughters I encourage to play sports, and I want them to think career before marriage. I hope my daughters are treated more fairly when they reach the workforce.

That said, I open doors. My wife calls me to lift things. She won't cut the lawn! She usually cooks now that I've gone back to work. I have to put things together that require assembly. She makes me taste treats :)

So I guess we still split things up in traditional man/women roles around the house. I don't think it makes me a sexist, just a husband who has his jobs and a wife who has hers. If she wants to complain there's a lawn mower with her name on it I'll swap for say laundry.

[Deep13]

14. possible definitions

Sexism (f.k.a. male chauvinism): The belief in basic patriarchal tribal organization and gender roles despite the fact that this is the 21st century. In this men are providers, protectors and leaders. Women attend to the children and are essentially property. That was not thought to be degrading in tribal times since ones life depended on property. Either gender may practice male chauvinism.

Feminism: A post-war social and political movement designed to remove cultural and legal barriers to female professional and social equality. Feminism is not anti-male, but is often perceived as such by men who lose traditional power over women.

[nashville_brook]

20. these are good definitions

[Donald Ian Rankin]

21. Post-war?

The hey-day of feminism - the period when as a movement it wielded most power, was most important in the popular consciousness, and achieved the most - was the end of the 19th and first third of the 20th century (at least here in the UK - I'm less well aquainted with American political history).

By the end of the second world war, feminism as a political movement as opposed to an ideology was less prominent in the UK than it had been thirty or forty years previously.

While there undoubtedly is a post-war social and political feminist movement, defining feminism as "post-war" strikes me as very strange indeed.


It's also worth noting that "sexism" and "male chauvinism" are emphatically not the same thing, and that your definition is a very restricted subset of either (it's possible to be a sexist without being a male chauvinist; it's possible to be either without advocating in the gender roles you describe). Also, the goals of feminism are arguably wider than "to remove cultural and legal barriers to female professional and social equality". And much of what these "definitions" contain is commentary, not definition.

I'm afraid I think these are fairly heavily flawed.

[Deep13]

22. I was implicitly drawing distinctions...

...based on my observations.

I drew a distinction between sufferage movement and the actual integration of the economic aspects of society. It was the increased economic activity of women in WWII that got the ball rolling. Before that, except for sufferage which was already enjoyed by women west of the Mississippi anyway and a few property rights, feminism was far from being realized. Before WWII we were largely an agrarian society which tends to support the patriarcal family organization. Afterward, we were more industrial. Increased occupational opportunities, co-education, declining birth rates created opportunities that had previously been denied.

In theory one may be a sexist in a manner other than what I described, but it is not typical. I was attempting to characterise a broad social preception, not the psychological pathology of any specific individual.

[nashville_brook]

16. :) none of that is sexist -- sexism is reinforcing male privilege/power

opening doors and mowing the lawn is just nice -- :) biology isn't necessarily destiny, but i often need help opening jars and lifting heavy things. :)

i'm a very tradition girl when it comes to my home life. i insist on doing the laundry and cooking -- i love doing these things. i want to have kids and stay home with them if at all possible (i'm actually pretty damn burnt out on being chewed up and spit out of the corporate grinder). i see this as the promise of feminism -- that we, men and women alike, aren't pushed into any role because of vestigial power structures or attitudes.

some of the best "moms" i know are dads. some of the best managers are women. feminist women often subscribe to Martha Stewart Living. :)

[Quantess]

27. I think you're great!

You raised your girls to be aware of what you and your wife are going through. You will find your career, don't worry, I would say that to a woman, too.

[Triana]

23. chest-beaters...they think it's all about THEM and if it's NOT...

...they MAKE it all about them - narcissistic tendencies, distraction from the issue (ie: the OP), detraction from the issue to change the focus to themselves, control over the discussion and the women involved in it, their own insecurity (which all the aforementioned behavior is based on)...I could go on.

But you are right! We do not find those types attractive and I'm just FINE with the fact that they will never find ME attractive. MY world is a better place sans the mysogenist types to whom every woman is rubber-stamped "hysterical" and thought to need to be "controlled" -- and who think that violence, rape and gang rape of women is "unfair" to - MEN. (?)

Because - again - CONTROL - as always, is what it all boils down to.

bytheway Happy International Womens' Day!

[mongo]

24. Wow. Take the log out of your own eye

In the thread in question, it was you who responded to EVERY POST you didn't like, made personal attacks, etc.

So why did you spend so much time posting to people you don't like and who don't like you?

[Quantess]

26. Hey, mongo!

I'm not sure we agree on everything about "women & men, etc", but I know that you and I agree on some things, for example, stupid stereotypes should be abolished.

And also, that women need to embrace their sexuality. Well, how true a statement is that?

[mongo]

28. I'll take it one step futher

People need to embrace their sexuality. Men are trapped into just as many gender norms about sex as women are -- many of which are not productive or conducive to forming good relationships.

Peace!

[redqueen]

30. Amen, buddy.

:hi:

[Katherine Brengle]

48. "Embracing your sexuality" does not mean "condoning sexism"

So I don't really see where that plays in this conversation.

[Katherine Brengle]

47. Because we're right.

Honestly.

There is a difference between defending oppressive institutions and fighting back against them - in one case the person is a self-involved asshat, and in the other the person is fighting for their basic human rights and the basic human rights of over half of the world population.

[omega minimo]

25. it's about power, not sex, isn't it?

[Cerridwen]

29. "Taming of the Shrew" syndrome?

It's a theory I'm playing around with. The premise of the play is to "tame" the "wild, unruly" sister who refuses to follow the rules and therefor upsets the "natural order," in this case, the "natural" order of which sister marries first.

The same idea plays out in "breaking" horses (sometimes associated more with girls than boys), "conquering" nature (frequently referred to as feminine), "conquering" nations (most of which are also referred to with...yep, feminine pronouns) and, well you get the gist and I bet many here could add more. It appears to be some sort of "rite of manhood" or some such.

It also goes along the same lines of criticisms in which feminists are told if they'd just "get" a "good man" they wouldn't be so "angry," read "sexually frustrated or frigid" in place of "anger."

So, on a smaller scale, we get guys trying to "prove" their "manhood" by "taming" the "shrew" they see in feminism and women who refuse to remain silent and play by the "rules" of "natural order."

My $0.02 (not adjusted to current dollar values) opinion.

[redqueen]

31. Maybe to work towards understanding?

I don't know that they're calling women who find sexism tasteless names... I think they probably recognize sexism themselves... the issue is the different things that we find sexist, and why we differ on them. Then again, if they do call people names, that's fucked up behavior.

I hope we can get rid of some of the vitriol and defensiveness and work towards real understanding, cause this name calling, defensiveness, and other various forms of childishness are sure not going to get us anywhere. It's helpful to vent, I know... but as progressives we should be willing to work harder to further our shared goals, and not get sidetracked into unnecessary arguments.

[bloom]

32. "the different things that we find sexist"

It generally boils down to the fact that the (defensive) men (that post about sexism) are unwilling to recognize male privilege/power/and the patriarchy in general.

As long as those people insist on being clueless and argumentative - there will be no "understanding". It's not up the the women in the Women's Rights forum (or GD or anywhere else) to hold the men's hand and kiss them to make it better. The burden is on the men in these forums to get a clue.

[Captain Hilts]

33. Hey DU offers as an avatar the rapist from Clockwork Orange, but no Molly Ivins/other progressive wm

[noamnety]

34. That's disturbing

changing my sig line, at least for a while, to ask about this.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

35. Wouldn't it be more effective to um...you know...PM the admins?

[noamnety]

36. I did that, too (nt)

[Captain Hilts]

37. I've done that. They don't seem to care. nt

[noamnety]

40. one of those moments that catches you off guard

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1060029&mesg_id=1064831

[ismnotwasm]

38. I love Andrea Dworkin

Jus' saying

And I'm not sexless by any means.

Generally I stay out of all that bullshit, because on-line, people seems to say the most godawfull shit, and then defend it but screaming first amendment rights, freedom of speech whatever. I amuse myself by guessing ages or certain personality traits.

There are a couple of men and women, (since I'm a so-called "radical" feminist, imagine my shock when I found that out. I thought I was a liberal feminist.) I completely disagree with on certain things, but they certainly don't come across as sexist per se, and seem to value freedom of thought and action as well as "alternative" (NOT being gay, I don't consider that alternative in any way shape or form, just a naturally and necessary part of human sexuality) sex ie. BDSM, as part of their own ideology. They don't connect certain acts or imagery to to women's subjugation as I do. If there was a way to engage in debate rather than what gets reduced to name calling, maybe some productive interactions would happen.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

39. It's hard to have a discussion when

The person becomes kneejerk defensive to the slightest criticism of whatever he enjoys or considers his privilege. They deride you as being PC and scream about how you're trying to censor them, as if you had demanded immediate government intervention. The minute they pull that First Amendment crap I pretty much know it's a waste of time. Somehow they got the idea that having Constitutional protection over something means that everyone should accept it.

[Iris]

41. omg. One poster who loved the ad said she was gang-raped when she was 13?

She thought the ad was sexy and loved the shoes.

That is some scary shit.

[iverglas]

42. yup

Much more of the same:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=770534

Sad as well as scary.

[Iris]

43. and one other bit not mentioned - teaching is predominately a traditional

profession that women are drawn to, yet posters acted shocked that a teacher might be naive and subserviant.

[Iris]

44. here's another nice one

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3307170&mesg_id=3307170

[Katherine Brengle]

46. Because they're terrified that if they don't defend their privilege, they'll lose it.

And they will lose it, you can bet they will - eventually.

[omega minimo]

49. They're Dittoheads

:thumbsdown:

[Jade Fox]

50. I think discussions about sexism......

make men feel guilty, plain and simple. They all know they've done some pretty indefensible things when it comes to women (or at least an awful lot of them have), and many go into a sort of hysterical denial that there is any problem at all, or equate one women screwing them over with systematized suppression of half the human race.