"I didn't say I hate feminists; I said I hate feminist."
November 7, 2013 8:06 AM Subscribe
'I like the rhythm and intent of "pathetic prehistoric rage-filled inbred assclown," but that's a lot to ask of a hashtag.' Joss Whedon talks about the word feminist at an Equality Now dinner.
I wuld [sic] like a word that says there was a shameful past before we realized that all people were created equal. And we are past that.
Except of course that we aren't. Even really basic tenants of feminism, like whether or not marital rape is "real rape," are openly not accepted by millions of people and by large swaths of our judicial and governmental systems. He's positing that we are past that and people accept the basic idea of gender equality, but I don't agree that the struggle is over in that way.
It's a nice idea I guess, but things just aren't there yet. As a man I'd say the question of whether or not I personally am a feminist isn't one that feels particularly relevant to me, but the question of how feminist ideals can become part of the basis of our society is absolutely and completely relevant. We aren't going to get there by playing linguistic games to find less challenging terms for the concept.
posted by Dip Flash at 8:17 AM on November 7, 2013 [23 favorites]
Except of course that we aren't. Even really basic tenants of feminism, like whether or not marital rape is "real rape," are openly not accepted by millions of people and by large swaths of our judicial and governmental systems. He's positing that we are past that and people accept the basic idea of gender equality, but I don't agree that the struggle is over in that way.
It's a nice idea I guess, but things just aren't there yet. As a man I'd say the question of whether or not I personally am a feminist isn't one that feels particularly relevant to me, but the question of how feminist ideals can become part of the basis of our society is absolutely and completely relevant. We aren't going to get there by playing linguistic games to find less challenging terms for the concept.
posted by Dip Flash at 8:17 AM on November 7, 2013 [23 favorites]
I enjoy listening to Whedon speak. His delivery is reminiscent of Louis CK minus the fuckshits and cockballs.
posted by echocollate at 8:18 AM on November 7, 2013 [3 favorites]
posted by echocollate at 8:18 AM on November 7, 2013 [3 favorites]
So what is Feminism/Feminist being replaced with? Equilism and Equillian are the first things to come to mind that lack the -ist and still get the point of: Equality (rights, responsibilities, respect, etc) should be the go-to thing.
So feminist includes the idea that believing men and women to be equal, believing all people to be people, is not a natural state. That we don't emerge assuming that everybody in the human race is a human, that the idea of equality is just an idea that's imposed on us. That we are indoctrinated with it, that it's an agenda.
Sadly, from the view of history I've been able to take away from classes, articles, and discussions this would seem to be the case. We have to expend energy arguing towards equality too often for me to think that its the hardwired, basal state for human interactions.
posted by Slackermagee at 8:29 AM on November 7, 2013
So feminist includes the idea that believing men and women to be equal, believing all people to be people, is not a natural state. That we don't emerge assuming that everybody in the human race is a human, that the idea of equality is just an idea that's imposed on us. That we are indoctrinated with it, that it's an agenda.
Sadly, from the view of history I've been able to take away from classes, articles, and discussions this would seem to be the case. We have to expend energy arguing towards equality too often for me to think that its the hardwired, basal state for human interactions.
posted by Slackermagee at 8:29 AM on November 7, 2013
So what is Feminism/Feminist being replaced with?
I'm pretty firmly in the camp that says it shouldn't be replaced, that it's the right word for the job.
posted by Bunny Ultramod at 8:41 AM on November 7, 2013 [35 favorites]
I'm pretty firmly in the camp that says it shouldn't be replaced, that it's the right word for the job.
posted by Bunny Ultramod at 8:41 AM on November 7, 2013 [35 favorites]
Joss Whedon is (mostly) dead to to me for how he treated Charisma Carpenter after she got pregnant on Angel. After hearing about that, I find it hard to take his claims of feminism seriously.
posted by nooneyouknow at 8:44 AM on November 7, 2013 [14 favorites]
posted by nooneyouknow at 8:44 AM on November 7, 2013 [14 favorites]
I'm not overly fond of the word either, but being firmly in that camp, I'll be damned if I left the creepy O'Reillys/Limbaughs/Becks/Whathaveyou rightwing assholes of the world win by utterly demonizing it a la "liberal."
posted by nevercalm at 8:48 AM on November 7, 2013 [5 favorites]
posted by nevercalm at 8:48 AM on November 7, 2013 [5 favorites]
This is how we understand society. The word racism didn't end racism. it contextualized it in a way that we still haven't done with this issue.
I think his linguistic analysis is fluffy at best, focused on the "feeling" of words, and not their underlying meaning, structure and history. The -ism and -ist suffix generally refers to ideologies, both positive and negative. So it feels, to me, that Whedon is muddying the topic. Also, "feminist" has more than 140 years of history behind the term, and it has been used as a focus point of sorts around the world. I don't think Whedon can cast it aside so easily.
posted by filthy light thief at 8:49 AM on November 7, 2013 [2 favorites]
I think his linguistic analysis is fluffy at best, focused on the "feeling" of words, and not their underlying meaning, structure and history. The -ism and -ist suffix generally refers to ideologies, both positive and negative. So it feels, to me, that Whedon is muddying the topic. Also, "feminist" has more than 140 years of history behind the term, and it has been used as a focus point of sorts around the world. I don't think Whedon can cast it aside so easily.
posted by filthy light thief at 8:49 AM on November 7, 2013 [2 favorites]
Yeah, Slackermagee, I hate to say it, but I think we are kind of generally predisposed to creating power heirarchies and our cultural prejudices reflect innate tendencies to group and rank not only things and ideas, but people. However, I don't think the specific manifestations of prejudice or the specific power structures we build up are hardwired. What we sort to the bottom of the pile could be anything, but we're going to sort things. But maybe we can at least avoid sorting people based on unfair criteria. Or maybe recognizing these tendencies honestly can help us devise strategies for minimizing their social harm.
That said, Jesus, Joss. This is a pointlessly provocative position to take and advertise, as it's so easily spun to sound bad and it doesn't solve any real problem anyone cares about. Bad PR move.
posted by saulgoodman at 8:49 AM on November 7, 2013 [3 favorites]
That said, Jesus, Joss. This is a pointlessly provocative position to take and advertise, as it's so easily spun to sound bad and it doesn't solve any real problem anyone cares about. Bad PR move.
posted by saulgoodman at 8:49 AM on November 7, 2013 [3 favorites]
Yeah, I'm usually a huge Joss fan and his last Equality Now speech was fanfuckingtastic, but this one was just a bit... weird and incoherent. Not bad exactly, just weird.
posted by kmz at 8:57 AM on November 7, 2013
posted by kmz at 8:57 AM on November 7, 2013
I'll be damned if I left the creepy O'Reillys/Limbaughs/Becks/Whathaveyou rightwing assholes of the world win by utterly demonizing it a la "liberal."
It's been a demonized term long before them. I'm reading about Alice Hastings Bradley Sheldon (better known as James Tiptree, Jr.), and I'm up to the post-WWII period of her life (Google books), when the excitement of women potentially becoming equals, but the end of the war brought everything back to the way things were before. Except more women were striving for something more than being quiet house-wives, and that clashed with major institutions:
I really wish Allie's piece "The Women-Haters" was available somewhere.
posted by filthy light thief at 9:00 AM on November 7, 2013
It's been a demonized term long before them. I'm reading about Alice Hastings Bradley Sheldon (better known as James Tiptree, Jr.), and I'm up to the post-WWII period of her life (Google books), when the excitement of women potentially becoming equals, but the end of the war brought everything back to the way things were before. Except more women were striving for something more than being quiet house-wives, and that clashed with major institutions:
Psychology books now pronounced working women "neurotic," unmarried women "unnatural," and educated women "sexually unfulfilled." ... Feminism ranked with Communism, anti-Semitism, nihilism, and anarcho-syndicalism as one of the "organized movements of the modern world gathered around the principle of hatred, hostility and violence."In short, those whathaveyou right-wingers are not spouting anything new.
I really wish Allie's piece "The Women-Haters" was available somewhere.
posted by filthy light thief at 9:00 AM on November 7, 2013
It takes enormous lavaballs chutzpah for a famous, privileged man to propose changing the basic terms of women's historical struggle for equality and respect in American society.
To begin with, this struggle is not his to tinker with. Changing the word to something gender-neutral takes the struggle away from the women who have fought for their rights and respect, and hands the revised movement, in part, to men. His heart may be in the right place, though I am not convinced it is, but in either case he's missing the point so freakin' completely that there is a gale force wind of the point blowing past him. And the delivery of the speech is so cloyingly disingenuous and cutesy, I can't believe no one in the audience was standing up and calling him out.
Honestly, I just lost a lot of respect for the man watching the video.
And, come on, if he hasn't been paying attention to the way the establishment (or the Right) eagerly appropriates the terms of political struggle against the status quo to turn an argument on its head, he's really naive about language and politics. A mealy mouthed "Equalian" or "Equalist" term, or whatever the hell he's proposing, would easily fit right in to a Scalia-penned decision on why men have the right to preserve advantages they have historically enjoyed in western society, in the name of equal right to keeping what they have or some other contortionist legal argument aided by a new term. (If you think that's hyperbole, I would refer you to the comment Scalia recently made about the 14th Amendment not just being for "the blacks" anymore.)
If you concede to a term that suggests the struggle for women's rights is about both women's and men's rights, then you've given up most of your rhetorical ground to the oppressing group. That's either naive or dumb.
Finally, maybe I misunderstood him, but if dude thinks "racism" is more okay because it's a past-oriented only word, then he's even more massively sheltered from the real world than I would have thought.
Go back to your fantasy universes, dude. Your script revisions for 21st c. America are a fail.
posted by aught at 9:03 AM on November 7, 2013 [43 favorites]
To begin with, this struggle is not his to tinker with. Changing the word to something gender-neutral takes the struggle away from the women who have fought for their rights and respect, and hands the revised movement, in part, to men. His heart may be in the right place, though I am not convinced it is, but in either case he's missing the point so freakin' completely that there is a gale force wind of the point blowing past him. And the delivery of the speech is so cloyingly disingenuous and cutesy, I can't believe no one in the audience was standing up and calling him out.
Honestly, I just lost a lot of respect for the man watching the video.
And, come on, if he hasn't been paying attention to the way the establishment (or the Right) eagerly appropriates the terms of political struggle against the status quo to turn an argument on its head, he's really naive about language and politics. A mealy mouthed "Equalian" or "Equalist" term, or whatever the hell he's proposing, would easily fit right in to a Scalia-penned decision on why men have the right to preserve advantages they have historically enjoyed in western society, in the name of equal right to keeping what they have or some other contortionist legal argument aided by a new term. (If you think that's hyperbole, I would refer you to the comment Scalia recently made about the 14th Amendment not just being for "the blacks" anymore.)
If you concede to a term that suggests the struggle for women's rights is about both women's and men's rights, then you've given up most of your rhetorical ground to the oppressing group. That's either naive or dumb.
Finally, maybe I misunderstood him, but if dude thinks "racism" is more okay because it's a past-oriented only word, then he's even more massively sheltered from the real world than I would have thought.
Go back to your fantasy universes, dude. Your script revisions for 21st c. America are a fail.
posted by aught at 9:03 AM on November 7, 2013 [43 favorites]
I think Jezebel might be overselling it a little by calling it the "Perfect speech on 'feminist.'" There's some good stuff in there, but it's kind of facile and glib (kind of like Whedon's dialogue sometimes I guess). It's tiresome that conservatives douchebags keep forcing liberals into semantic corners by demonizing words so they can dismiss any reasonable argument out of hand. I can see his point about feminist as a word. And I can sort of get behind the idea of "genderist" as a new word to describe people who treat women badly. But I'm tired of having to play this stupid game with the surface meanings of words instead of addressing the real issues they stand for. Words are powerful. Words have meaning. Blah blah blah. Sure they do. But the problem is the continued and persistent ACTIONS of backward-thinking assholes who seem to want to do everything in their power to reverse the progress of the last 50ish years. Fuck that. Fuck them. We don't need to get rid of the word "feminist" or retire it. We need it to be a fundamental aspect of our ethos. We need to internalize it. We need it to stick around until everybody is proud to self-apply it. And the people who've vilified the word or the ideas behind it need to be shamed and ridiculed.
posted by wabbittwax at 9:07 AM on November 7, 2013 [6 favorites]
posted by wabbittwax at 9:07 AM on November 7, 2013 [6 favorites]
Equalist is already taken -- that's the pro-non-bender movement.
posted by weston at 9:07 AM on November 7, 2013 [15 favorites]
posted by weston at 9:07 AM on November 7, 2013 [15 favorites]
I'd like to thank aught for saying coherently what I would only froth about.
Dear Joss: the first lesson of being an ally is: listen. There are hours and hours' worth of reading about the term feminist (especially if you add in the discussion around women of color/"womanist") written by feminists, out there. You seem like a smart man who should know better than to come bounding into the center of an incredibly sensitive political issue all "Hey ladies, I've got a great idea about the hard-fought, highly contested term for your struggle for equality that I have never had to endure, listen up!"
Please, go read some bell hooks or something. Please.
posted by emjaybee at 9:20 AM on November 7, 2013 [36 favorites]
Dear Joss: the first lesson of being an ally is: listen. There are hours and hours' worth of reading about the term feminist (especially if you add in the discussion around women of color/"womanist") written by feminists, out there. You seem like a smart man who should know better than to come bounding into the center of an incredibly sensitive political issue all "Hey ladies, I've got a great idea about the hard-fought, highly contested term for your struggle for equality that I have never had to endure, listen up!"
Please, go read some bell hooks or something. Please.
posted by emjaybee at 9:20 AM on November 7, 2013 [36 favorites]
It takes enormous lavaballs chutzpah for a famous, privileged man to propose changing the basic terms of women's historical struggle for equality and respect in American society.
The sad thing is that it really doesn't take much courage to say something as stupid as Whedon just came out with if you're a famous, privileged man like him. It falls squarely into the mealymouthed, both sides are bad, the truth's always in the middle of the most people's political prejudices, sounds vaguely reasonable and of course every rabid sexist dickhole will use this as "even the feminist Whedon doesn't like feminism".
It's Whedon's way of showing that he's on the right side, but not dangerous and it's depressingly predictable.
posted by MartinWisse at 9:21 AM on November 7, 2013 [11 favorites]
The sad thing is that it really doesn't take much courage to say something as stupid as Whedon just came out with if you're a famous, privileged man like him. It falls squarely into the mealymouthed, both sides are bad, the truth's always in the middle of the most people's political prejudices, sounds vaguely reasonable and of course every rabid sexist dickhole will use this as "even the feminist Whedon doesn't like feminism".
It's Whedon's way of showing that he's on the right side, but not dangerous and it's depressingly predictable.
posted by MartinWisse at 9:21 AM on November 7, 2013 [11 favorites]
I also bristled at the privileged man talking about the word, but I do see some of what he's trying to say. Specifically about the fact that young women often eschew the word without really understanding the meaning behind it. It always saddens me when women with rights and jobs and the vote say "I'm not a feminist". Also when they say we don't need feminism because we're equal now, despite the pay gap and restricted reproductive rights and rape culture and and and. And that's just in the Western world.
But I don't think a new word is the answer. I'd rather young people were taught it's a positive and valuable word, and a necessary struggle, so that their first exposure to the idea isn't the bullshit spouted by the O'Reillys and Limbaughs of this world.
posted by billiebee at 9:25 AM on November 7, 2013 [5 favorites]
But I don't think a new word is the answer. I'd rather young people were taught it's a positive and valuable word, and a necessary struggle, so that their first exposure to the idea isn't the bullshit spouted by the O'Reillys and Limbaughs of this world.
posted by billiebee at 9:25 AM on November 7, 2013 [5 favorites]
So would a good headline for this be "Whedon Mansplains 'Feminist'"?
His first point is a far from useless one -- it's similar to the point that's been made about 'atheist', to the effect of "we don't have, or need, a word for someone who doesn't believe in astrology".
But emjaybee's point about listening kind of resonates with me here. It's not only arrogant, it's stereotypically arrogant to suppose that your naive ruminations on a topic are the sermon on the mount to people who have to live the topic to some extent all their lives and have put rather more thought and reading into it than you have.
posted by George_Spiggott at 9:40 AM on November 7, 2013 [8 favorites]
His first point is a far from useless one -- it's similar to the point that's been made about 'atheist', to the effect of "we don't have, or need, a word for someone who doesn't believe in astrology".
But emjaybee's point about listening kind of resonates with me here. It's not only arrogant, it's stereotypically arrogant to suppose that your naive ruminations on a topic are the sermon on the mount to people who have to live the topic to some extent all their lives and have put rather more thought and reading into it than you have.
posted by George_Spiggott at 9:40 AM on November 7, 2013 [8 favorites]
I'm with aught and emjaybee... the reasons why hatemongers hate the word "feminist", as well as the reasons why young (white) women avoid the word "feminist" will survive the change of the word.
Words mean what communities can get them to mean, and if we taught history properly, not only might 'kids these days' understand the meaning of the term, they might understand its necessity.
No guarantees, though. ...current system benefits the powerful and therefore has backup protocols in place x1000.
Venceremos!
posted by allthinky at 9:42 AM on November 7, 2013
Words mean what communities can get them to mean, and if we taught history properly, not only might 'kids these days' understand the meaning of the term, they might understand its necessity.
No guarantees, though. ...current system benefits the powerful and therefore has backup protocols in place x1000.
Venceremos!
posted by allthinky at 9:42 AM on November 7, 2013
If I interpret some of the stances in this thread correctly, I'm being told that as a white, privileged male, I can't call myself a feminist?
What the hell should I call myself then?
Feminist:
A person that supports feminism.
Feminism:
1. the belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities
2. organized activity in support of women's rights and interests
I've never participated in organized activity in support of women's rights and interests - I've been told it's not my place to do those things - but I am, according to the first definition of feminism and the one definition of feminist - a true-blue feminist.
So, if I, in my privileged position, want to support my beliefs that "men and women should have equal rights and opportunities" - what am I?
posted by disclaimer at 9:47 AM on November 7, 2013 [2 favorites]
What the hell should I call myself then?
Feminist:
A person that supports feminism.
Feminism:
1. the belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities
2. organized activity in support of women's rights and interests
I've never participated in organized activity in support of women's rights and interests - I've been told it's not my place to do those things - but I am, according to the first definition of feminism and the one definition of feminist - a true-blue feminist.
So, if I, in my privileged position, want to support my beliefs that "men and women should have equal rights and opportunities" - what am I?
posted by disclaimer at 9:47 AM on November 7, 2013 [2 favorites]
So, if I, in my privileged position, want to support my beliefs that "men and women should have equal rights and opportunities" - what am I?
A: A feminist. As far as I can see everyone in the thread is arguing that Whedon is wrong.
posted by billiebee at 9:51 AM on November 7, 2013 [7 favorites]
A: A feminist. As far as I can see everyone in the thread is arguing that Whedon is wrong.
posted by billiebee at 9:51 AM on November 7, 2013 [7 favorites]
The problem with genderist is that it sounds like the punchline of a joke someone would make at the end of a comment here. [not GENDERIST][not WHEDONIST]
posted by wabbittwax at 9:55 AM on November 7, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by wabbittwax at 9:55 AM on November 7, 2013 [1 favorite]
If I interpret some of the stances in this thread correctly, I'm being told that as a white, privileged male, I can't call myself a feminist?probably this one:
I think you may be misreading something. Which comment do you think says this?
Dear Joss: the first lesson of being an ally is: listen. There are hours and hours' worth of reading about the term feminist (especially if you add in the discussion around women of color/"womanist") written by feminists, out there. You seem like a smart man who should know better than to come bounding into the center of an incredibly sensitive political issue all "Hey ladies, I've got a great idea about the hard-fought, highly contested term for your struggle for equality that I have never had to endure, listen up!"The implication seems to be that Whedon is outside the circle of feminists, and then naively bounds inside that circle. Why is Whedon outside that circle? It seems like the only answer is "because he is a man."
edit: formatting
posted by reverend cuttle at 9:56 AM on November 7, 2013 [2 favorites]
I don't anticipate this will be a popular comment, but I have a serious question:
Joss Whedon describes feminism as a fundamentally inclusive movement about gender equality. I've certainly seen that sentiment echoed here on MeFi. But the bristling at his comments seem to indicate that it's not the case, and that it's fundementally a women's struggle only, and men - by virtue of being men - are not welcome to participate, or least offer any sort of criticism or advice.
I'm a man. I tend to think of myself as fairly progressive - although perhaps not by MeFi standards - but I honestly want to ask people - who self-identify as feminisits and aren't my wife - what is a man's roll in all of it? Is there one at all other than just accepting the barbs?
My impression, pithy though it may be, is that men are welcome to join the fold, but they need to shut up because they are priveleged by virtue of being men, and thus their commentary is less valuable. See, for example, aught's comment above, which as of this posting is the most-favorited comment in the thread. Is Whedon fundmanetally wrong about what feminism is?
I ask because I earnestly believe in gender equality, but as a man, the few attempts I've made to show support (mostly in college) were met with the same sorts of gender discrimination and dismissiveness that (justifiably) angers women in the first place. And MeFi's threads on the issue sure haven't done anything to change that perception.
But, you know, I could just be wrong, too. Or expecting a simple answer to a complex issue.
posted by Vox Nihili at 9:59 AM on November 7, 2013 [3 favorites]
Joss Whedon describes feminism as a fundamentally inclusive movement about gender equality. I've certainly seen that sentiment echoed here on MeFi. But the bristling at his comments seem to indicate that it's not the case, and that it's fundementally a women's struggle only, and men - by virtue of being men - are not welcome to participate, or least offer any sort of criticism or advice.
I'm a man. I tend to think of myself as fairly progressive - although perhaps not by MeFi standards - but I honestly want to ask people - who self-identify as feminisits and aren't my wife - what is a man's roll in all of it? Is there one at all other than just accepting the barbs?
My impression, pithy though it may be, is that men are welcome to join the fold, but they need to shut up because they are priveleged by virtue of being men, and thus their commentary is less valuable. See, for example, aught's comment above, which as of this posting is the most-favorited comment in the thread. Is Whedon fundmanetally wrong about what feminism is?
I ask because I earnestly believe in gender equality, but as a man, the few attempts I've made to show support (mostly in college) were met with the same sorts of gender discrimination and dismissiveness that (justifiably) angers women in the first place. And MeFi's threads on the issue sure haven't done anything to change that perception.
But, you know, I could just be wrong, too. Or expecting a simple answer to a complex issue.
posted by Vox Nihili at 9:59 AM on November 7, 2013 [3 favorites]
gilrain: I much prefer your interpretation to my own.
posted by reverend cuttle at 10:03 AM on November 7, 2013
posted by reverend cuttle at 10:03 AM on November 7, 2013
The implication seems to be that Whedon is outside the circle of feminists, and then naively bounds inside that circle. Why is Whedon outside that circle? It seems like the only answer is "because he is a man."
No; he may well be inside the circle but he doesn't have admin rights to change the name of the movement others have been working hard on for decades.
posted by aught at 10:04 AM on November 7, 2013 [22 favorites]
No; he may well be inside the circle but he doesn't have admin rights to change the name of the movement others have been working hard on for decades.
posted by aught at 10:04 AM on November 7, 2013 [22 favorites]
The implication seems to be that Whedon is outside the circle of feminists, and then naively bounds inside that circle. Why is Whedon outside that circle? It seems like the only answer is "because he is a man."
There is being in the circle, and then there is saying "Hey, Circle, can I come in? Btw you guys are calling yourselves the wrong name! How about Square?"
Also, as a white person, I am anti-racist, but I accept that any contributions of mine to the movement are not on a par with those of POC. Imo it would be arrogant of me to suppose anything otherwise.
posted by billiebee at 10:06 AM on November 7, 2013 [7 favorites]
There is being in the circle, and then there is saying "Hey, Circle, can I come in? Btw you guys are calling yourselves the wrong name! How about Square?"
Also, as a white person, I am anti-racist, but I accept that any contributions of mine to the movement are not on a par with those of POC. Imo it would be arrogant of me to suppose anything otherwise.
posted by billiebee at 10:06 AM on November 7, 2013 [7 favorites]
"He may be inside the circle but he doesn't have admin rights to change the name" is one of the best metaphors I've seen that explain that situation, so thanks, aught.
posted by seyirci at 10:06 AM on November 7, 2013 [3 favorites]
posted by seyirci at 10:06 AM on November 7, 2013 [3 favorites]
The implication seems to be that Whedon is outside the circle of feminists, and then naively bounds inside that circle. Why is Whedon outside that circle? It seems like the only answer is "because he is a man."
No. The implication is not that he can't be a feminist because he's a man. The implication is that, despite identifying as a feminist, he is trying to set the terms of feminist discussion, and doing so from a place of privilege. There's room in feminist discussion for everyone's voice, because feminist issues affect everyone. But there's a difference between being part of the discussion, which is fine, and trying to dictate the terms of the discussion, which is less fine.
It just kind of smacks of a dude coming in and deciding he knows how to fix everything.
posted by FAMOUS MONSTER at 10:06 AM on November 7, 2013 [13 favorites]
No. The implication is not that he can't be a feminist because he's a man. The implication is that, despite identifying as a feminist, he is trying to set the terms of feminist discussion, and doing so from a place of privilege. There's room in feminist discussion for everyone's voice, because feminist issues affect everyone. But there's a difference between being part of the discussion, which is fine, and trying to dictate the terms of the discussion, which is less fine.
It just kind of smacks of a dude coming in and deciding he knows how to fix everything.
posted by FAMOUS MONSTER at 10:06 AM on November 7, 2013 [13 favorites]
He probably doesn't have admin rights. But who does? Who owns feminism?
posted by reverend cuttle at 10:07 AM on November 7, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by reverend cuttle at 10:07 AM on November 7, 2013 [2 favorites]
Whedon's argument against the term is ignorant of the larger debate among feminists and that his simple objections belie that he has done little to engage with the topic.
I pretty much agree with this, and it's just so weird and disappointing because he was a women's studies minor at Wesleyan and has been working with Equality Now for a very long time so he really should know better.
posted by kmz at 10:09 AM on November 7, 2013 [2 favorites]
I pretty much agree with this, and it's just so weird and disappointing because he was a women's studies minor at Wesleyan and has been working with Equality Now for a very long time so he really should know better.
posted by kmz at 10:09 AM on November 7, 2013 [2 favorites]
It takes enormous lavaballs chutzpah for a famous, privileged man to propose changing the basic terms of women's historical struggle for equality and respect in American society.
Yea, fuck him for having a penis and an opinion about nomenclature.
To begin with, this struggle is not his to tinker with. Changing the word to something gender-neutral takes the struggle away from the women who have fought for their rights and respect, and hands the revised movement, in part, to men.
How does conceiving of feminism as "good for humanity" as opposed to "good for women" hinder the objectives of feminism? How weirdly possessive. What purpose does it serve other than to prioritize the historicity of the movement over its worthy goals?
If you concede to a term that suggests the struggle for women's rights is about both women's and men's rights, then you've given up most of your rhetorical ground to the oppressing group. That's either naive or dumb.
Ah, the cut-off-your-nose-to-spite-your-face theory of political jockeying. Very savvy.
Go back to your fantasy universes, dude. Your script revisions for 21st c. America are a fail.
It's this attitude that sours people on the word "feminist," even as they warmly embrace its ends. Want to get serious about gender equality? Quit shooting yourself in the foot.
posted by echocollate at 10:12 AM on November 7, 2013 [6 favorites]
Yea, fuck him for having a penis and an opinion about nomenclature.
To begin with, this struggle is not his to tinker with. Changing the word to something gender-neutral takes the struggle away from the women who have fought for their rights and respect, and hands the revised movement, in part, to men.
How does conceiving of feminism as "good for humanity" as opposed to "good for women" hinder the objectives of feminism? How weirdly possessive. What purpose does it serve other than to prioritize the historicity of the movement over its worthy goals?
If you concede to a term that suggests the struggle for women's rights is about both women's and men's rights, then you've given up most of your rhetorical ground to the oppressing group. That's either naive or dumb.
Ah, the cut-off-your-nose-to-spite-your-face theory of political jockeying. Very savvy.
Go back to your fantasy universes, dude. Your script revisions for 21st c. America are a fail.
It's this attitude that sours people on the word "feminist," even as they warmly embrace its ends. Want to get serious about gender equality? Quit shooting yourself in the foot.
posted by echocollate at 10:12 AM on November 7, 2013 [6 favorites]
Whedon's heart is in the right place, but his foot is in his mouth. Which is not to say there aren't some good things in the speech.
posted by wabbittwax at 10:17 AM on November 7, 2013 [5 favorites]
I say with gratitude but enormous sadness, we will never not be fighting. I say to everybody on the other side of that line who believe that women are to be bought and trafficked or ignored... we will never not be fighting. We will go on, we will always work this issue until it doesn't need to be worked anymore.I can't argue with that sentiment. The stuff about the words is really just too cute, too easy, and too dismissive.
posted by wabbittwax at 10:17 AM on November 7, 2013 [5 favorites]
Yea, fuck him for having a penis and an opinion about nomenclature.
No, fuck him for being lazy and uninformed. Those are not the same thing.
posted by Dip Flash at 10:20 AM on November 7, 2013 [16 favorites]
No, fuck him for being lazy and uninformed. Those are not the same thing.
posted by Dip Flash at 10:20 AM on November 7, 2013 [16 favorites]
Joss Whedon describes feminism as a fundamentally inclusive movement about gender equality. I've certainly seen that sentiment echoed here on MeFi. But the bristling at his comments seem to indicate that it's not the case, and that it's fundementally a women's struggle only, and men - by virtue of being men - are not welcome to participate, or least offer any sort of criticism or advice.
I already got into this above, but this isn't really an accurate reading of what people are taking exception to. Feminism is everyone's struggle. Men are totally welcome to participate. But what Whedon's doing here comes off as trying not to participate, but to lead.
I'm a man. I tend to think of myself as fairly progressive - although perhaps not by MeFi standards - but I honestly want to ask people - who self-identify as feminisits and aren't my wife - what is a man's roll in all of it? Is there one at all other than just accepting the barbs?
A man's role in it is to start by listening. Feminism discusses issues that affect everyone, but at the core of it is the way our culture treats women, and the issues that grow out from that. So it makes sense to at least begin by acknowledging that women know more about women's lived experiences than a man might.
I mean, it needs to be a conversation. And men might get used to the way their voices are privileged in most discussions. They might get used to the way our society expects them, from day one, to be able to walk into any situation and know what's what and be listened to. So it can be a jarring experience to enter any discussion where you don't know everything and you need to start from square one.
So, again, the first thing to do is listen, and then maybe offer your thoughts, and then listen to the feedback you get on that. Some of it might take you out of your comfort zone a little, so the best thing to do - in my own experience, anyway - is to try to process new information carefully, after the visceral reaction has passed.
But "accepting the barbs?" No. No one has the right to make you feel like shit for who you are. But start by listening, and try to foster an understanding of issues where you're better off deferring to women's voices (hint: any time a woman is talking about what it's like being a woman). Being a feminist - being on the right side of any political movement, really - does not immunize someone against being a jerk or from being wrong about whatever. There's a difference between "You're trying to take over a conversation where other people know what's being talked about and you don't," and "You have no place in any of this and you're a man and men are dumb etc." You will almost never really be hearing the latter, but watch out: A lot of the time, when you hear the former, your brain is going to try to convince you you're hearing the latter. Like I say, move past the visceral reaction and try to hear what's being said when new ideas are presented to you.
My impression, pithy though it may be, is that men are welcome to join the fold, but they need to shut up because they are priveleged by virtue of being men, and thus their commentary is less valuable. See, for example, aught's comment above, which as of this posting is the most-favorited comment in the thread. Is Whedon fundmanetally wrong about what feminism is?
Again, see above.
I'd also venture that I disagree with him on a lot of the points he makes, and that they're pretty subjective but he's talking about them like they're objective fact. And they're not.
posted by FAMOUS MONSTER at 10:24 AM on November 7, 2013 [15 favorites]
I already got into this above, but this isn't really an accurate reading of what people are taking exception to. Feminism is everyone's struggle. Men are totally welcome to participate. But what Whedon's doing here comes off as trying not to participate, but to lead.
I'm a man. I tend to think of myself as fairly progressive - although perhaps not by MeFi standards - but I honestly want to ask people - who self-identify as feminisits and aren't my wife - what is a man's roll in all of it? Is there one at all other than just accepting the barbs?
A man's role in it is to start by listening. Feminism discusses issues that affect everyone, but at the core of it is the way our culture treats women, and the issues that grow out from that. So it makes sense to at least begin by acknowledging that women know more about women's lived experiences than a man might.
I mean, it needs to be a conversation. And men might get used to the way their voices are privileged in most discussions. They might get used to the way our society expects them, from day one, to be able to walk into any situation and know what's what and be listened to. So it can be a jarring experience to enter any discussion where you don't know everything and you need to start from square one.
So, again, the first thing to do is listen, and then maybe offer your thoughts, and then listen to the feedback you get on that. Some of it might take you out of your comfort zone a little, so the best thing to do - in my own experience, anyway - is to try to process new information carefully, after the visceral reaction has passed.
But "accepting the barbs?" No. No one has the right to make you feel like shit for who you are. But start by listening, and try to foster an understanding of issues where you're better off deferring to women's voices (hint: any time a woman is talking about what it's like being a woman). Being a feminist - being on the right side of any political movement, really - does not immunize someone against being a jerk or from being wrong about whatever. There's a difference between "You're trying to take over a conversation where other people know what's being talked about and you don't," and "You have no place in any of this and you're a man and men are dumb etc." You will almost never really be hearing the latter, but watch out: A lot of the time, when you hear the former, your brain is going to try to convince you you're hearing the latter. Like I say, move past the visceral reaction and try to hear what's being said when new ideas are presented to you.
My impression, pithy though it may be, is that men are welcome to join the fold, but they need to shut up because they are priveleged by virtue of being men, and thus their commentary is less valuable. See, for example, aught's comment above, which as of this posting is the most-favorited comment in the thread. Is Whedon fundmanetally wrong about what feminism is?
Again, see above.
I'd also venture that I disagree with him on a lot of the points he makes, and that they're pretty subjective but he's talking about them like they're objective fact. And they're not.
posted by FAMOUS MONSTER at 10:24 AM on November 7, 2013 [15 favorites]
Jesus tapdancing Dworkins, did I watch a different speech than everyone else? Whedon wasn't saying "we need to replace the word 'feminism' with something else." He literally says, "My problem with feminist is not the word. It's the question. It's the question. 'Are you now, or have you ever been, a feminist?'"
The whole point of his talk is that feminism and being a feminist is the standard, the foundation of a moral society, not a deviance from it. And then suggesting that we spend more time labeling the anti-feminists so that the average person doesn't have to self-identify as a feminist, they have to self-identify as not an anti-feminist. It's a playful proposal for a bit of sociolinguist judo to prevent the kind of maundering statements he paraphrases from Katy Perry, while also kicking the legs out from people who want to pull out an dictionary and cite the etymology of "misogynist" every time they get called out for being an anti-feminist.
Like he says:
posted by Panjandrum at 10:28 AM on November 7, 2013 [24 favorites]
The whole point of his talk is that feminism and being a feminist is the standard, the foundation of a moral society, not a deviance from it. And then suggesting that we spend more time labeling the anti-feminists so that the average person doesn't have to self-identify as a feminist, they have to self-identify as not an anti-feminist. It's a playful proposal for a bit of sociolinguist judo to prevent the kind of maundering statements he paraphrases from Katy Perry, while also kicking the legs out from people who want to pull out an dictionary and cite the etymology of "misogynist" every time they get called out for being an anti-feminist.
Like he says:
Genderist. I would like this word to become the new racist. I would like a word that says there was a shameful past before we realized that all people were created equal. And we are past that. And every evolved human being who is intelligent and educated and compassionate and to say I don't believe that is unacceptable.That may seem silly and idealist and uneccesary, but he's giving a talk a fundraising dinner, not defending his PhD dissertation. The idea that Whedon needs "go read some bell hooks" or "lurk more" is ridiculous. He's not saying anything that isn't found in current feminist thought and literature, so he doesn't deserve the kind of vitriol being shown here.
posted by Panjandrum at 10:28 AM on November 7, 2013 [24 favorites]
I interpreted his speech, when he got past his cutesy introduction, as not so much getting rid of "feminist" (with all of its pros and cons), but as adding "genderist" with a decidedly pejorative connotation.
edit: Panjadrum got there first.
posted by GrapeApiary at 10:29 AM on November 7, 2013
edit: Panjadrum got there first.
posted by GrapeApiary at 10:29 AM on November 7, 2013
As a woman, I wouldn't blithely suggest changing something so fundamental as terminology, at least not before doing a lot of research and seeking out earlier discussions and understanding the reasoning pretty thoroughly first.
It's not so much a problem with him being a man, except in the sense that men tend to do things like that a lot--just jump in and offer unsolicited, sort of naive opinions and interpretations. I.e., mansplaining. There's a reason that terminology spread so quickly.
And there is and has been for a while a great deal of controversy surrounding the word 'feminist.' Lots and lots of people have expressed a range of opinions on the subject. He doesn't give any real indication that he's even aware of the previous discussions or nuance on the topic.
And there are people who believe that men cannot be feminists--they usually suggest men call themselves 'allies' or they just tell them to fuck off, depending on how inclusive they are. It is not a mainstream or popular opinion, though, and I've never seen it anywhere but in forums specifically for that sort of thing. IOW, you are very unlikely to run across people talking about that unless you go looking for it.
Now, obviously I agree with his basic point that gender equality should be the default position, but I think it's a little naive to think that it is. Yes, we should treat misogynists as the regressive turds they are, but to take the position that it's a fringe thing is naive.There are misogynists all over the place, and one of the main anti-feminist tactics is to ignore that. (For example, you can find a LOT of people pushing the idea of 'equalism' as a gender equity movement, but it's all predicated on their belief that sexism is some sort of equally distributed thing. They think patriarchy is a silly, made up thing, and they tend to believe in massive family court inequities and false rape claims and stuff.)
posted by ernielundquist at 10:39 AM on November 7, 2013
It's not so much a problem with him being a man, except in the sense that men tend to do things like that a lot--just jump in and offer unsolicited, sort of naive opinions and interpretations. I.e., mansplaining. There's a reason that terminology spread so quickly.
And there is and has been for a while a great deal of controversy surrounding the word 'feminist.' Lots and lots of people have expressed a range of opinions on the subject. He doesn't give any real indication that he's even aware of the previous discussions or nuance on the topic.
And there are people who believe that men cannot be feminists--they usually suggest men call themselves 'allies' or they just tell them to fuck off, depending on how inclusive they are. It is not a mainstream or popular opinion, though, and I've never seen it anywhere but in forums specifically for that sort of thing. IOW, you are very unlikely to run across people talking about that unless you go looking for it.
Now, obviously I agree with his basic point that gender equality should be the default position, but I think it's a little naive to think that it is. Yes, we should treat misogynists as the regressive turds they are, but to take the position that it's a fringe thing is naive.There are misogynists all over the place, and one of the main anti-feminist tactics is to ignore that. (For example, you can find a LOT of people pushing the idea of 'equalism' as a gender equity movement, but it's all predicated on their belief that sexism is some sort of equally distributed thing. They think patriarchy is a silly, made up thing, and they tend to believe in massive family court inequities and false rape claims and stuff.)
posted by ernielundquist at 10:39 AM on November 7, 2013
"A mealy mouthed 'Equalian' or 'Equalist' term, or whatever the hell he's proposing..."
If you don't even know what term he is proposing (it's not "equalian"), then why are you writing at such length about what he said? You clearly didn't watch the speech.
"I'm pretty firmly in the camp that says it shouldn't be replaced, that it's the right word for the job."
Well, it is and it isn't. Whedon's argument is that it's the wrong word because it puts the emphasis in the wrong place.
As is demonstrated by this quote from an earlier comment:
"As a man I'd say the question of whether or not I personally am a feminist isn't one that feels particularly relevant to me..."
...as does the insistence by some to describe male feminists as mere "allies".
It's not at all about switching to a gender-neutral term, as aught wrote and the assumption upon which that comment was based. Nowhere in Whedon's speech does he mention anything remotely like a claim that the gender specificity of "feminism" is a problem. One of his two suggested (and discarded) alternatives is "misogynist", which is pretty unambiguous.
Whedon explains his motivation and reasoning at the beginning of his speech: "feminism" places the emphasis on an affirmative choice to advocate for the interests of women and not the emphasis on opposing the oppression of women. He doesn't say it that way, but that's what it amounts to.
He compares it to "racism". He's on to something important, which you can see if you think about how these words work within the context of public discussion. That's the point of his Katy Perry example: with the focus on "feminism", it is easier for someone to say that they're not a feminist. But everyone wants to deny that they're a racist.
Where I disagree with Whedon is that I think that "sexism" or "misogyny" both are pretty good and I pretty strongly think that "genderism" is no better than either of them and is actually worse with regard to how it would likely confuse people about trans* issues.
But the basic problem really is a problem. A large number of people shy away from the word "feminism" because they understand it to be the equivalent of something like female supremacy. And the sexists are quite happy to encourage that misconception.
And "sexism" isn't as stigmatized as "racism" is — which tells you something. But, as Whedon says, "misogyny" is too explicit, too pointed. Not only will people shy away from "women hating" as a term that applies to bigotry against women, it's also the case that the institutionalized bigotry and discrimination against women is not always and everywhere about hatred.
In my thirty years as a male feminist, I began self-identifying as a "feminist", then through a middle-period as an "anti-sexist", and then switched back to "feminist" because I felt that "anti-sexist" implied that I wasn't primarily concerned about the oppression of women, which I am and which I believe to be the essential problem. And "sexism" mostly connotes that to me, as the term for what I'm opposing, but "anti-sexism" seems to go out of its way to be gender-neutral ... and that's not the impression I wish to encourage.
But note how rarely "sexism" is used these days, even by we feminists. There's a reason that the cultural focus and markers lie mostly with "feminism" rather than "sexism", and that's because unlike the case with racism, our culture has yet to understand sexism as a culture-wide injustice that everyone has a responsibility to fight. It's still in the "oppressed group fighting for themselves" stage where not only do men and women both intuitively sense that there's something absurd about a "male feminist", but even a majority of women aren't comfortable with self-identifying as feminists. Whedon's mistake is that he's putting the cart before the horse. The very reason why people don't understand sexism to be the oppression of women and that it's the equivalent of the plague or nazism or his other examples, and that it's something we should instinctively disavow and shudder at, is because it's still not taken very seriously. Changing the word we use won't fix that. Whatever does fix that will, in turn, make "sexism" as morally dire as "racism", as he wishes.
While changing the term we use isn't going to help, I do think that changing how we think and talk about it will help. That's part of my oft-described distinction between opposing injustice and advocating for the oppressed. Not only is that about delineating the appropriate roles for a man, it also emphasises that everyone has a responsibility to fight the injustice that is the oppression of women, not just women. Are there many other things that men don't really have a place to do? Yes, there are roles that men shouldn't play. But opposing injustice? That's everyone's responsibility.
You can see how that distinction works with racism. These days, everyone will say that they oppose racism and if you were to ask them if it was their responsibility to fight racism, if they have an opportunity to do so, they'd probably say "yes". They wouldn't see that as being dependent upon whether they are personally a member of an oppressed race. Now, mind you, when you talk about particular things that someone might do, you'll find that some things a white person might do are perfectly fine and other things are far from fine. But, in general, people understand that they should be opposed to racism the same way they're opposed to, say, starvation or sickness. Who in the world wouldn't be opposed to that?
But people don't think that way about sexism. The term "feminism" complicates the matter not just because it seems to be about "yay women!" and not "boo misogyny", but also because it has sort of the same problem, but from the opposite direction, that "racism" has in the previous paragraph. That is to say, the term itself places the awareness within a context where the "ally" distinction actually matters quite a bit, a context where things one oughtn't do as an ally are fairly common. "Feminism" is in some sense, quite correctly, exclusionary.
So if we talk mostly about feminism, what we gain is the (correct) emphasis on women's rights and the oppression of women, but what we lose is the sense of natural universal inclusivity of fighting a social injustice because it's an injustice. If we talk mostly about sexism, what we gain is that natural universal inclusivity, but at the cost of the emphasis on the oppression of women and all the very important things which are women empowering themselves and raising the visibility of women's experiences.
Which is why my answer to Whedon, with regard to language in the civic context, is that we should loudly talk about both feminism and sexism.
"It's Whedon's way of showing that he's on the right side, but not dangerous and it's depressingly predictable."
No, you and others who interpreted his speech that way misunderstood. He really isn't at all concerned about feminism being gender-specific. Or, at least, not at all in the sense that you and aught and others seem to think. He's concerned as I just describe. Basically, without all the elaboration of what I just wrote, which he may not agree with, what he's saying is that "feminism" doesn't have the power that "racism" has in the sense of "look at this awful thing that we should automatically know to oppose". That's what he's going for. He thinks the focus should be on the bad thing we're opposing and that "feminism" obscures that on its face. And I think he is pretty clear that what we should be opposing is the oppression of women. He's not focusing on "racism" because it's superficially race-neutral, he's focusing on it because the term carries with it these days an essential wrongness that even blatant racists disavow.
"You seem like a smart man who should know better than to come bounding into the center of an incredibly sensitive political issue all "Hey ladies, I've got a great idea about the hard-fought, highly contested term for your struggle for equality that I have never had to endure, listen up!" Please, go read some bell hooks or something. Please."
Whedon minored in Women's Studies at Wellesley, I think. He has pretty strong academic credentials as a feminist. That doesn't mean that he's automatically right about anything, just that the assumption that he's a clueless man is false.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 10:40 AM on November 7, 2013 [36 favorites]
If you don't even know what term he is proposing (it's not "equalian"), then why are you writing at such length about what he said? You clearly didn't watch the speech.
"I'm pretty firmly in the camp that says it shouldn't be replaced, that it's the right word for the job."
Well, it is and it isn't. Whedon's argument is that it's the wrong word because it puts the emphasis in the wrong place.
As is demonstrated by this quote from an earlier comment:
"As a man I'd say the question of whether or not I personally am a feminist isn't one that feels particularly relevant to me..."
...as does the insistence by some to describe male feminists as mere "allies".
It's not at all about switching to a gender-neutral term, as aught wrote and the assumption upon which that comment was based. Nowhere in Whedon's speech does he mention anything remotely like a claim that the gender specificity of "feminism" is a problem. One of his two suggested (and discarded) alternatives is "misogynist", which is pretty unambiguous.
Whedon explains his motivation and reasoning at the beginning of his speech: "feminism" places the emphasis on an affirmative choice to advocate for the interests of women and not the emphasis on opposing the oppression of women. He doesn't say it that way, but that's what it amounts to.
He compares it to "racism". He's on to something important, which you can see if you think about how these words work within the context of public discussion. That's the point of his Katy Perry example: with the focus on "feminism", it is easier for someone to say that they're not a feminist. But everyone wants to deny that they're a racist.
Where I disagree with Whedon is that I think that "sexism" or "misogyny" both are pretty good and I pretty strongly think that "genderism" is no better than either of them and is actually worse with regard to how it would likely confuse people about trans* issues.
But the basic problem really is a problem. A large number of people shy away from the word "feminism" because they understand it to be the equivalent of something like female supremacy. And the sexists are quite happy to encourage that misconception.
And "sexism" isn't as stigmatized as "racism" is — which tells you something. But, as Whedon says, "misogyny" is too explicit, too pointed. Not only will people shy away from "women hating" as a term that applies to bigotry against women, it's also the case that the institutionalized bigotry and discrimination against women is not always and everywhere about hatred.
In my thirty years as a male feminist, I began self-identifying as a "feminist", then through a middle-period as an "anti-sexist", and then switched back to "feminist" because I felt that "anti-sexist" implied that I wasn't primarily concerned about the oppression of women, which I am and which I believe to be the essential problem. And "sexism" mostly connotes that to me, as the term for what I'm opposing, but "anti-sexism" seems to go out of its way to be gender-neutral ... and that's not the impression I wish to encourage.
But note how rarely "sexism" is used these days, even by we feminists. There's a reason that the cultural focus and markers lie mostly with "feminism" rather than "sexism", and that's because unlike the case with racism, our culture has yet to understand sexism as a culture-wide injustice that everyone has a responsibility to fight. It's still in the "oppressed group fighting for themselves" stage where not only do men and women both intuitively sense that there's something absurd about a "male feminist", but even a majority of women aren't comfortable with self-identifying as feminists. Whedon's mistake is that he's putting the cart before the horse. The very reason why people don't understand sexism to be the oppression of women and that it's the equivalent of the plague or nazism or his other examples, and that it's something we should instinctively disavow and shudder at, is because it's still not taken very seriously. Changing the word we use won't fix that. Whatever does fix that will, in turn, make "sexism" as morally dire as "racism", as he wishes.
While changing the term we use isn't going to help, I do think that changing how we think and talk about it will help. That's part of my oft-described distinction between opposing injustice and advocating for the oppressed. Not only is that about delineating the appropriate roles for a man, it also emphasises that everyone has a responsibility to fight the injustice that is the oppression of women, not just women. Are there many other things that men don't really have a place to do? Yes, there are roles that men shouldn't play. But opposing injustice? That's everyone's responsibility.
You can see how that distinction works with racism. These days, everyone will say that they oppose racism and if you were to ask them if it was their responsibility to fight racism, if they have an opportunity to do so, they'd probably say "yes". They wouldn't see that as being dependent upon whether they are personally a member of an oppressed race. Now, mind you, when you talk about particular things that someone might do, you'll find that some things a white person might do are perfectly fine and other things are far from fine. But, in general, people understand that they should be opposed to racism the same way they're opposed to, say, starvation or sickness. Who in the world wouldn't be opposed to that?
But people don't think that way about sexism. The term "feminism" complicates the matter not just because it seems to be about "yay women!" and not "boo misogyny", but also because it has sort of the same problem, but from the opposite direction, that "racism" has in the previous paragraph. That is to say, the term itself places the awareness within a context where the "ally" distinction actually matters quite a bit, a context where things one oughtn't do as an ally are fairly common. "Feminism" is in some sense, quite correctly, exclusionary.
So if we talk mostly about feminism, what we gain is the (correct) emphasis on women's rights and the oppression of women, but what we lose is the sense of natural universal inclusivity of fighting a social injustice because it's an injustice. If we talk mostly about sexism, what we gain is that natural universal inclusivity, but at the cost of the emphasis on the oppression of women and all the very important things which are women empowering themselves and raising the visibility of women's experiences.
Which is why my answer to Whedon, with regard to language in the civic context, is that we should loudly talk about both feminism and sexism.
"It's Whedon's way of showing that he's on the right side, but not dangerous and it's depressingly predictable."
No, you and others who interpreted his speech that way misunderstood. He really isn't at all concerned about feminism being gender-specific. Or, at least, not at all in the sense that you and aught and others seem to think. He's concerned as I just describe. Basically, without all the elaboration of what I just wrote, which he may not agree with, what he's saying is that "feminism" doesn't have the power that "racism" has in the sense of "look at this awful thing that we should automatically know to oppose". That's what he's going for. He thinks the focus should be on the bad thing we're opposing and that "feminism" obscures that on its face. And I think he is pretty clear that what we should be opposing is the oppression of women. He's not focusing on "racism" because it's superficially race-neutral, he's focusing on it because the term carries with it these days an essential wrongness that even blatant racists disavow.
"You seem like a smart man who should know better than to come bounding into the center of an incredibly sensitive political issue all "Hey ladies, I've got a great idea about the hard-fought, highly contested term for your struggle for equality that I have never had to endure, listen up!" Please, go read some bell hooks or something. Please."
Whedon minored in Women's Studies at Wellesley, I think. He has pretty strong academic credentials as a feminist. That doesn't mean that he's automatically right about anything, just that the assumption that he's a clueless man is false.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 10:40 AM on November 7, 2013 [36 favorites]
It's not just about prioritizing the historical roots of the movement over its goals, it's understanding that equity is very much different from popular notions of "equality". The problem with the often-misapplied notion of "equality" (as in the way its often used to say "let's give rights equally to everyone" and "let's give everyone an equal say at the table) is that it ignores that not all classes of people start from an equal grounding. A televised panel of equal numbers men and women on gendered issues specific to women in the context of a culture that upholds white male voices as central and has fourteen other panels on non-gendered topics that consist of only white men that day isn't exactly equal. Furthermore, a broad application of "good for humanity" often ensures that the most silenced and marginalized classes continue to get ignored - look at "human rights", for instance - even in America, LGBT people have only recently just begun to get some of the basic human rights granted to all "people".
Whedon makes the classic mistake of assuming that we can focus on "equality" without giving credence to equity. It's very easy to dismiss or minimize these issues as an ongoing thing when you yourself are not personally subject to them on an ongoing daily basis - this becomes very clear in Whedon's thinking when he starts talking about racism as if we lived in a post-racial society. Have we made overt forms of racism socially unacceptable? Certainly - but in doing so, we have largely ignored the covert forms of institutional and sociocultural racism that persist as a major issue to this day. That Whedon wants to see the same treatment that has been applied to "racism" also applied to "feminism" should be bone-chilling for any intersectional feminist - he is essentially saying he wants to polarize public discourse on sexism to the point that discussion of the status quo and of the core fundamental issues becomes taboo.
The term "feminism" purposely casts a spotlight on this dangerous notion of misapplied equality by bringing the focus to the more silenced class. In other words - "feminism" prioritizes equity. Does it say that men do not have a say at the table or are not personally impacted by patriarchy? No. But it doesn't make the mistake of giving men more power than women in the movement under a misguided notion of "equality".
posted by Conspire at 10:43 AM on November 7, 2013 [4 favorites]
Whedon makes the classic mistake of assuming that we can focus on "equality" without giving credence to equity. It's very easy to dismiss or minimize these issues as an ongoing thing when you yourself are not personally subject to them on an ongoing daily basis - this becomes very clear in Whedon's thinking when he starts talking about racism as if we lived in a post-racial society. Have we made overt forms of racism socially unacceptable? Certainly - but in doing so, we have largely ignored the covert forms of institutional and sociocultural racism that persist as a major issue to this day. That Whedon wants to see the same treatment that has been applied to "racism" also applied to "feminism" should be bone-chilling for any intersectional feminist - he is essentially saying he wants to polarize public discourse on sexism to the point that discussion of the status quo and of the core fundamental issues becomes taboo.
The term "feminism" purposely casts a spotlight on this dangerous notion of misapplied equality by bringing the focus to the more silenced class. In other words - "feminism" prioritizes equity. Does it say that men do not have a say at the table or are not personally impacted by patriarchy? No. But it doesn't make the mistake of giving men more power than women in the movement under a misguided notion of "equality".
posted by Conspire at 10:43 AM on November 7, 2013 [4 favorites]
But what Whedon's doing here comes off as trying not to participate, but to lead.
Why shouldn't he lead on this? He's a feminist speaking to other feminists about how how to eliminate the use of the word a pejorative by put the burden on people to identify as not-feminists, rather then the reverse. There's nothing uniquely requiring a male or female view on this.
posted by Panjandrum at 10:43 AM on November 7, 2013 [6 favorites]
Why shouldn't he lead on this? He's a feminist speaking to other feminists about how how to eliminate the use of the word a pejorative by put the burden on people to identify as not-feminists, rather then the reverse. There's nothing uniquely requiring a male or female view on this.
posted by Panjandrum at 10:43 AM on November 7, 2013 [6 favorites]
Whedon minored in Women's Studies at Wellesley, I think.
Plot twist! The real nomenclature mistake here is that we all thought he was male!
posted by RogerB at 11:06 AM on November 7, 2013 [1 favorite]
Plot twist! The real nomenclature mistake here is that we all thought he was male!
posted by RogerB at 11:06 AM on November 7, 2013 [1 favorite]
Ivan, your comment is both respectful and takes into account the larger discussion that goes on around these words; I don't think that Whedon's remarks have the same heft or thoughtfulness, at least, not the ones given here.
He starts off with a purely aesthetic reaction to the word "feminist", skims over some discussion of why it can be counterproductive (which is the part you expanded on) and finishes up with a suggestion for using "genderist." And I don't have a problem with him having ideas or opinions, but he is swimming in waters that are too deep and not grappling with the implications of his tossed-off suggestions.
He may have been a women's studies major, but that doesn't make him an expert on women's perspectives or feminism in general. If he wants to have a real conversation, he needs to get down from the podium and invite the many many feminist thinkers (most, but not all, women) who have grappled with this issue. In fact that would be an excellent forum; let the speakers speak about the word and it's benefits/failings/what they propose, let Whedon ask questions or handle the segues.
Feminism has been called dead, called evil, mocked, and hated for decades now, and is still not entirely respectable...and I don't think it's because people don't like the word, I think it's because they don't like the concept. Certainly the most dedicated haters of feminism are not going to be converted by the switch to a new term; and said switch could also have the effect of making us look weaker, like we are trying to be conciliatory or even deceptive about our goals as feminists.
Those of us who have had our lives saved by its ideals are, understandably, a little perturbed when yet another person whose connection to women's experiences is purely theoretical sees the term as an acceptable plaything for a tossed-off intellectual exercise mixed with jokes. I live in a state right now were women are grimly fighting to preserve even the barest right to control what happens to our own bodies. You will have to forgive me if I'm not in the mood for lighthearted arguments about how "feminist" is an insufficiently attractive word.
posted by emjaybee at 11:37 AM on November 7, 2013 [8 favorites]
He starts off with a purely aesthetic reaction to the word "feminist", skims over some discussion of why it can be counterproductive (which is the part you expanded on) and finishes up with a suggestion for using "genderist." And I don't have a problem with him having ideas or opinions, but he is swimming in waters that are too deep and not grappling with the implications of his tossed-off suggestions.
He may have been a women's studies major, but that doesn't make him an expert on women's perspectives or feminism in general. If he wants to have a real conversation, he needs to get down from the podium and invite the many many feminist thinkers (most, but not all, women) who have grappled with this issue. In fact that would be an excellent forum; let the speakers speak about the word and it's benefits/failings/what they propose, let Whedon ask questions or handle the segues.
Feminism has been called dead, called evil, mocked, and hated for decades now, and is still not entirely respectable...and I don't think it's because people don't like the word, I think it's because they don't like the concept. Certainly the most dedicated haters of feminism are not going to be converted by the switch to a new term; and said switch could also have the effect of making us look weaker, like we are trying to be conciliatory or even deceptive about our goals as feminists.
Those of us who have had our lives saved by its ideals are, understandably, a little perturbed when yet another person whose connection to women's experiences is purely theoretical sees the term as an acceptable plaything for a tossed-off intellectual exercise mixed with jokes. I live in a state right now were women are grimly fighting to preserve even the barest right to control what happens to our own bodies. You will have to forgive me if I'm not in the mood for lighthearted arguments about how "feminist" is an insufficiently attractive word.
posted by emjaybee at 11:37 AM on November 7, 2013 [8 favorites]
As a man, I must say that I find it tiresome that every time some MeFi discussion about feminism comes up, some dude has to come in all affronted and insist that the conversation should be about him and how the discussion is making him feel excluded or insufficiently valued.
Anyway, as to substance, if the word "feminist" sounds bad to Wheadon because it ends in "ist" and that sounds little/dark/black (er. . .) to him, he can just do what many of us do when we want to talk about feminism with an audience we know is primed to react negatively to the very word, and that is to just use synonyms. He's a writer, after all. He can talk about "fighting gender bias" or "working for gender equality" or "believing in egalitarianism" or "not being a jerk."
But the foundation of such conversations always has to be the insistence that we recognize and do something about the fact that our society continues to devalue women and the feminine. "Genderist" doesn't do this for me at all. A "genderist" would be an advocate for gender, whose enemy would be. . . what, an army of agender chauvinists? The term sounds like a euphamism to me, a way to say "Don't worry, defensive men, you're not excluded, and this is all about your trampled rights, too!"
I agree with those who have said that changing the title of a movement doesn't solve opposition to it.
posted by DrMew at 12:09 PM on November 7, 2013 [7 favorites]
Anyway, as to substance, if the word "feminist" sounds bad to Wheadon because it ends in "ist" and that sounds little/dark/black (er. . .) to him, he can just do what many of us do when we want to talk about feminism with an audience we know is primed to react negatively to the very word, and that is to just use synonyms. He's a writer, after all. He can talk about "fighting gender bias" or "working for gender equality" or "believing in egalitarianism" or "not being a jerk."
But the foundation of such conversations always has to be the insistence that we recognize and do something about the fact that our society continues to devalue women and the feminine. "Genderist" doesn't do this for me at all. A "genderist" would be an advocate for gender, whose enemy would be. . . what, an army of agender chauvinists? The term sounds like a euphamism to me, a way to say "Don't worry, defensive men, you're not excluded, and this is all about your trampled rights, too!"
I agree with those who have said that changing the title of a movement doesn't solve opposition to it.
posted by DrMew at 12:09 PM on November 7, 2013 [7 favorites]
I feel like this is probably a speech that has suffered greatly from being recorded and pulled out of its context at a benefit dinner. Genre is important. This whole thing is an after-dinner speech, literally and in form. The purpose is to entertain, and while there is something of a genuine proposal toward the end of the speech, this isn't Whedon issuing a serious manifesto to get rid of the word feminist--it doesn't take much Googling to find plenty of Whedon quotes where is using the term in a clearly approving way: talking about the need for feminism, or describing his mom as a great feminist. What makes this entertaining, to me, is that he is a self-described feminist at a large gathering of feminists playing around with a word that he knows they are all going to keep (and that he really wants to keep). He is as insistent on getting rid of the term "feminism" as he is on relabeling the dessert "taliban" because the term is so mellifluous. (Not at all.) This is speech is an amusement, not an agenda, and I suspect is clearly read that way to those in the room but is not so clear when you see it removed from context.
Having said all that, he does make a point with some bite to it, which is that we don't really have a term for people opposed to equality among the sexes that has as much rhetorical weight to the term we have for people opposed to equality among the races. No one wants to be a called a racist, which is why the people who support racist policies take such offense when the term is used. We've won a victory there: even racists don't want to be identified as racists, and that shifts the conversation mightily. "Sexist" just doesn't have the same stigma. Maybe it will, eventually, but it currently doesn't. (Genderist won't take off, either, and Joss knows that, I think.) My read of the speech is that none of this is an earnest proposal, but it does make interesting point: feminism is a perspective that must be adopted, whereas being a non-racist is assumed to be the default. We will assume that you are for equal rights for all races unless you show otherwise, but you have to intentionally call yourself a feminist. He's right to say that "nobody is born an 'ist.'" When people are as insulted to be called a "sexist" (or whatever term we use) as they are to be called a "racist," then we'll really be getting somewhere.
If I really thought that he was charging in, proposing to casually drop a term with enormous resonance for millions of people, I would be pretty annoyed with him, too. But I read the whole thing as a entertainer playing around with words to amuse the crowd and just make one significant point (and one point is about all the weight an after-dinner speech can bear): we need the word for being against equality for women to have the same weight as the word for being against equality for minorities. But it doesn't; we aren't there yet.
posted by Pater Aletheias at 12:52 PM on November 7, 2013 [12 favorites]
Having said all that, he does make a point with some bite to it, which is that we don't really have a term for people opposed to equality among the sexes that has as much rhetorical weight to the term we have for people opposed to equality among the races. No one wants to be a called a racist, which is why the people who support racist policies take such offense when the term is used. We've won a victory there: even racists don't want to be identified as racists, and that shifts the conversation mightily. "Sexist" just doesn't have the same stigma. Maybe it will, eventually, but it currently doesn't. (Genderist won't take off, either, and Joss knows that, I think.) My read of the speech is that none of this is an earnest proposal, but it does make interesting point: feminism is a perspective that must be adopted, whereas being a non-racist is assumed to be the default. We will assume that you are for equal rights for all races unless you show otherwise, but you have to intentionally call yourself a feminist. He's right to say that "nobody is born an 'ist.'" When people are as insulted to be called a "sexist" (or whatever term we use) as they are to be called a "racist," then we'll really be getting somewhere.
If I really thought that he was charging in, proposing to casually drop a term with enormous resonance for millions of people, I would be pretty annoyed with him, too. But I read the whole thing as a entertainer playing around with words to amuse the crowd and just make one significant point (and one point is about all the weight an after-dinner speech can bear): we need the word for being against equality for women to have the same weight as the word for being against equality for minorities. But it doesn't; we aren't there yet.
posted by Pater Aletheias at 12:52 PM on November 7, 2013 [12 favorites]
I think your read is correct, Pater Aletheias, I'm just surprised Whedon didn't see there'd be a big risk of his take on such a sensitive topic being popularly misinterpreted and causing a big confused popular uproar (and for what benefit really?).
posted by saulgoodman at 1:06 PM on November 7, 2013
posted by saulgoodman at 1:06 PM on November 7, 2013
My impression, pithy though it may be, is that men are welcome to join the fold, but they need to shut up because they are priveleged by virtue of being men, and thus their commentary is less valuable.
The problem with privilege is ignorance. I should listen more than I talk not because my voice has less value but for the same reason I listen more than I talk in conversations about jazz: I am not an expert and others are.
I am a white anglo-saxon protestant straight cis-male citizen of a Western country. The thing about privilege is that the more you have the more you get, like a privilege Katamari (getting the good education I received, relatively fair odds on the job market, etc). As a result, my life has been, shall we say, relatively unobstructed. As a result, I do not know what encountering obstructions is like from a first-person perspective.
If I didn't listen to people who have experienced obstruction I'd be useless as an ally regardless of my intentions. Why don't women get equal pay for equal work? I should probably ask someone who has experienced discrimination how the game was played on them rather than spouting off based on my own assumptions.
Am I an ally? A feminist? It's my experience that feminists don't much care what I call myself so long as I'm listening and learning, and acting based on what I hear.
posted by justsomebodythatyouusedtoknow at 1:17 PM on November 7, 2013 [9 favorites]
The problem with privilege is ignorance. I should listen more than I talk not because my voice has less value but for the same reason I listen more than I talk in conversations about jazz: I am not an expert and others are.
I am a white anglo-saxon protestant straight cis-male citizen of a Western country. The thing about privilege is that the more you have the more you get, like a privilege Katamari (getting the good education I received, relatively fair odds on the job market, etc). As a result, my life has been, shall we say, relatively unobstructed. As a result, I do not know what encountering obstructions is like from a first-person perspective.
If I didn't listen to people who have experienced obstruction I'd be useless as an ally regardless of my intentions. Why don't women get equal pay for equal work? I should probably ask someone who has experienced discrimination how the game was played on them rather than spouting off based on my own assumptions.
Am I an ally? A feminist? It's my experience that feminists don't much care what I call myself so long as I'm listening and learning, and acting based on what I hear.
posted by justsomebodythatyouusedtoknow at 1:17 PM on November 7, 2013 [9 favorites]
I think your read is correct, Pater Aletheias, I'm just surprised Whedon didn't see there'd be a big risk of his take on such a sensitive topic being popularly misinterpreted and causing a big confused popular uproar (and for what benefit really?).
Maybe he saw that and didn't care? Because the wisdom of inaction leads to lying in a box, supping on gruel, fearful of twitching a muscle lest you cause affront.
posted by Sebmojo at 1:22 PM on November 7, 2013 [1 favorite]
Maybe he saw that and didn't care? Because the wisdom of inaction leads to lying in a box, supping on gruel, fearful of twitching a muscle lest you cause affront.
posted by Sebmojo at 1:22 PM on November 7, 2013 [1 favorite]
nooneyouknow: Joss Whedon is (mostly) dead to to me for how he treated Charisma Carpenter after she got pregnant on Angel.
For those who would like context, here is video of Charisma Carpenter telling (as carefully and delicately as she can) the story of what happened to her when she chose to become pregnant while a member of the cast of Angel.
Please note all of the things she clearly cannot say, for fear of anything coming back to bite her in the ass, because that's how it works.
posted by tzikeh at 1:46 PM on November 7, 2013 [9 favorites]
For those who would like context, here is video of Charisma Carpenter telling (as carefully and delicately as she can) the story of what happened to her when she chose to become pregnant while a member of the cast of Angel.
Please note all of the things she clearly cannot say, for fear of anything coming back to bite her in the ass, because that's how it works.
posted by tzikeh at 1:46 PM on November 7, 2013 [9 favorites]
I do happen to like the word "feminazi", because it instantly and accurately conveys that the person using it isn't worth listening to.
posted by heathkit at 1:53 PM on November 7, 2013 [6 favorites]
posted by heathkit at 1:53 PM on November 7, 2013 [6 favorites]
I agree with those who have said that changing the title of a movement doesn't solve opposition to it.
Then I guess it's a good thing that neither Whedon nor anyone here is saying that.
posted by Panjandrum at 2:06 PM on November 7, 2013
Then I guess it's a good thing that neither Whedon nor anyone here is saying that.
posted by Panjandrum at 2:06 PM on November 7, 2013
Maybe he saw that and didn't care? Because the wisdom of inaction leads to lying in a box, supping on gruel, fearful of twitching a muscle lest you cause affront.
Sure, that's possible. I'm just not sure this particular hill is one I'd consider worth dying on. Seems like a relatively unimportant point to make, given the risk of misunderstanding. But then, writers do tend to be a little more focused on issues related to language use than the general public.
posted by saulgoodman at 2:16 PM on November 7, 2013
Sure, that's possible. I'm just not sure this particular hill is one I'd consider worth dying on. Seems like a relatively unimportant point to make, given the risk of misunderstanding. But then, writers do tend to be a little more focused on issues related to language use than the general public.
posted by saulgoodman at 2:16 PM on November 7, 2013
I say I'm a feminist for the same reason I say I'm a socialist — fuck stigma, those are good ideas and I'm not afraid to stand up for 'em.
posted by klangklangston at 2:35 PM on November 7, 2013 [11 favorites]
posted by klangklangston at 2:35 PM on November 7, 2013 [11 favorites]
Joss Whedon is known for breezy, snappy, "touché!"-style dialogue. Like, that is literally the thing that is named after him when other people do it. And he seems to do it so much because in real life he likes to say breezy, snappy, "touché!"-style things.
It's a writing style I dislike, in part because snappiness sometimes masks incorrectness by making it funny and sort of condescendingly so, like "look at how wrong you are because I am clever!", rather than "look at how wrong you are because you are wrong!". So I guess I'm not surprised that Joss would, in trying to talk about feminism, say a bunch of snappy, clever things that were also crossing a line for a lot of audience members.
There are some things where clever and snappy works really well, and feminism is not really one of them. It's a serious issue that requires serious discussion, and if you attempt to turn it into something whip-smart and entertaining, you risk crossing lines without even realizing that you're crossing them.
posted by Rory Marinich at 4:40 PM on November 7, 2013 [6 favorites]
It's a writing style I dislike, in part because snappiness sometimes masks incorrectness by making it funny and sort of condescendingly so, like "look at how wrong you are because I am clever!", rather than "look at how wrong you are because you are wrong!". So I guess I'm not surprised that Joss would, in trying to talk about feminism, say a bunch of snappy, clever things that were also crossing a line for a lot of audience members.
There are some things where clever and snappy works really well, and feminism is not really one of them. It's a serious issue that requires serious discussion, and if you attempt to turn it into something whip-smart and entertaining, you risk crossing lines without even realizing that you're crossing them.
posted by Rory Marinich at 4:40 PM on November 7, 2013 [6 favorites]
Wow, that's really terrible.
I mean, I love Joss Whedon's stuff, but this just isn't good.
I mean, look at just the first argument he articulates:
...you can't be born an ist. It's not natural. You can't be born a baptist; you have to be baptized. You can't be born an atheist or a communist or a horticulturalist. You have to have these things brought to you. So feminist includes the idea that believing men and women to be equal, believing all people to be people, is not a natural state. That we don't emerge assuming that everybody in the human race is a human, that the idea of equality is just an idea that's imposed on us. That we are indoctrinated with it, that it's an agenda.
The gripe here seems to be that there's something wrong with have a name for any theory that is true, or that one regards as "natural" or (I guess) a matter of common sense. This is an astoundingly insubstantial criticism. I think that empiricism is a natural position, but I don't insist that the theory go without a name in order to emphasize this fact... Furthermore, and sadly, it's not really clear that egalitarianism is a natural position. Humans have some egalitarian inclinations, but lots of inegalitarian ones. It takes some thinking to see that the former ones are reasonable and the latter aren't. Naturally--prior to moral reflection--it's not clear that we're very nice, we humans.
Whedon's main point here is roughly that the only alternative to being a feminist is being a sexist nut. But it really is about time for feminism to take seriously the fact that plenty of intelligent egalitarians are no longer comfortable describing themselves as feminists. That's been true of me for several years now, and it's true of many people I know. There are, among other parts, the common-sense, liberal branches of feminism, but there are other branches that are...not. I've explicitly been told by feminists that men can't be feminists, that liberals (i.e.: non-far-leftists) can't be feminists, and that people who don't subscribe to certain of the more outre theses of Continental philosophy can't be feminists. Hear enough of that sort of thing, and eventually you start thinking Hmmm...perhaps I'm not a feminist... Which in no way means that you're no longer an egalitarian about the sexes... But, of course, say that in a venue like this one, and you'll be branded a Neanderthal, regardless of what your views are, y'know, actually like... Worse, the typical reaction of many other feminists is to deny that such things ever happen, or deny that they happen with much frequency, or deny that they are significant. Criticism of feminism, even rather mild criticism, is commonly just not tolerated, and any such criticism is said to be directed only at "straw feminists"...because, apparently, feminism is the only political movement of all time that is immune to error...
So...though I think Joss is great at what he does for a living, I guess it seems to me, FWIW, that he ought to stick to that day job...
posted by Fists O'Fury at 5:31 PM on November 7, 2013
I mean, I love Joss Whedon's stuff, but this just isn't good.
I mean, look at just the first argument he articulates:
...you can't be born an ist. It's not natural. You can't be born a baptist; you have to be baptized. You can't be born an atheist or a communist or a horticulturalist. You have to have these things brought to you. So feminist includes the idea that believing men and women to be equal, believing all people to be people, is not a natural state. That we don't emerge assuming that everybody in the human race is a human, that the idea of equality is just an idea that's imposed on us. That we are indoctrinated with it, that it's an agenda.
The gripe here seems to be that there's something wrong with have a name for any theory that is true, or that one regards as "natural" or (I guess) a matter of common sense. This is an astoundingly insubstantial criticism. I think that empiricism is a natural position, but I don't insist that the theory go without a name in order to emphasize this fact... Furthermore, and sadly, it's not really clear that egalitarianism is a natural position. Humans have some egalitarian inclinations, but lots of inegalitarian ones. It takes some thinking to see that the former ones are reasonable and the latter aren't. Naturally--prior to moral reflection--it's not clear that we're very nice, we humans.
Whedon's main point here is roughly that the only alternative to being a feminist is being a sexist nut. But it really is about time for feminism to take seriously the fact that plenty of intelligent egalitarians are no longer comfortable describing themselves as feminists. That's been true of me for several years now, and it's true of many people I know. There are, among other parts, the common-sense, liberal branches of feminism, but there are other branches that are...not. I've explicitly been told by feminists that men can't be feminists, that liberals (i.e.: non-far-leftists) can't be feminists, and that people who don't subscribe to certain of the more outre theses of Continental philosophy can't be feminists. Hear enough of that sort of thing, and eventually you start thinking Hmmm...perhaps I'm not a feminist... Which in no way means that you're no longer an egalitarian about the sexes... But, of course, say that in a venue like this one, and you'll be branded a Neanderthal, regardless of what your views are, y'know, actually like... Worse, the typical reaction of many other feminists is to deny that such things ever happen, or deny that they happen with much frequency, or deny that they are significant. Criticism of feminism, even rather mild criticism, is commonly just not tolerated, and any such criticism is said to be directed only at "straw feminists"...because, apparently, feminism is the only political movement of all time that is immune to error...
So...though I think Joss is great at what he does for a living, I guess it seems to me, FWIW, that he ought to stick to that day job...
posted by Fists O'Fury at 5:31 PM on November 7, 2013
Whedon's main point here is roughly that the only alternative to being a feminist is being a sexist nut.
No, it's not. His point is the point you go on to make after these words, that 'feminist' is not currently a great word to help accomplish the social goal it embodies.
posted by Sebmojo at 5:42 PM on November 7, 2013
No, it's not. His point is the point you go on to make after these words, that 'feminist' is not currently a great word to help accomplish the social goal it embodies.
posted by Sebmojo at 5:42 PM on November 7, 2013
I actually really like the term feminist, because the second part of it (after the "woman are equal" part) is the "things we call feminine and female are valuable" part, which in my opinion is where the guys come in.
Embrace all things called "female" and "feminine," not as negative aspects, but as a positive part of your life. Value nurturing, and when people argue that we get better when we're "tough" consider that maybe being "gentle" is of value as well. Consider the value of being "pretty". Try being pretty. Embrace being emotional - all of your emotions; fear, sadness, melancholy, joy, giddiness, and yes, anger - but the anger and frustration in relationship with your other emotions, not as a substitute for them, even when the people around you disapprove of you expressing an emotion outside of anger.
Wear dresses - not as a joke but as an expression of enjoyment. One of my favorite feminine characters is in the Stardust movie - Captain Shakespeare - played by Robert De Niro. In his job, he is gruff and strong and very traditionally masculine. In his private life, he wears dresses and lovely cosmetics and is really awesome and feminine. It comes out through the course of the story that his crew ALL KNOWS about his private life and like him for him instead of disliking him, and I adore him - and them - for it.
Embrace uncertainty and physicality. Embrace being stuck in your body, and your relationship with it. Learn to look for the beauty in connection, and intimacy, and vulnerability. Spend time accessing your emotions, and experiencing them, and sharing them with others. In relationships with others, try to take on the traditionally "feminine" role. Ask "where is this relationship going?" of your partner. Take ownership of your half of the relationship, and maybe even a little more. Value the little things which make relationships - the things which are important to both of you, whether they are long talks, long walks, anniversaries, or beating up the enemy in a video game together - and take responsibility for maintaining those things.
Pay attention to how things get cleaned and maintained. Who tracks doctor's appointments? Who keeps track of how clean things are? Who knows where the dishes go? If there are children, who keeps track of important dates, important supplies, and the schedule? Who makes stops for things on the way home from work, and how can that be balanced? Studies have found that while the physical labor may be becoming more equitable in relationships, the mental planning and tracking often remains gendered female without either person noticing. If you're in a relationship with a woman, try to notice before she does and bring it up if there's an inequality.
There's a lot more to this - a lot more men can do - but honestly part of it is valuing figuring out what men can do to support the women in their lives without having to be told every time. It's not easy work, tracking what is going on with the people in our lives and trying to support them without being told what to do, but it's work worth doing.
posted by Deoridhe at 6:03 PM on November 7, 2013 [6 favorites]
Embrace all things called "female" and "feminine," not as negative aspects, but as a positive part of your life. Value nurturing, and when people argue that we get better when we're "tough" consider that maybe being "gentle" is of value as well. Consider the value of being "pretty". Try being pretty. Embrace being emotional - all of your emotions; fear, sadness, melancholy, joy, giddiness, and yes, anger - but the anger and frustration in relationship with your other emotions, not as a substitute for them, even when the people around you disapprove of you expressing an emotion outside of anger.
Wear dresses - not as a joke but as an expression of enjoyment. One of my favorite feminine characters is in the Stardust movie - Captain Shakespeare - played by Robert De Niro. In his job, he is gruff and strong and very traditionally masculine. In his private life, he wears dresses and lovely cosmetics and is really awesome and feminine. It comes out through the course of the story that his crew ALL KNOWS about his private life and like him for him instead of disliking him, and I adore him - and them - for it.
Embrace uncertainty and physicality. Embrace being stuck in your body, and your relationship with it. Learn to look for the beauty in connection, and intimacy, and vulnerability. Spend time accessing your emotions, and experiencing them, and sharing them with others. In relationships with others, try to take on the traditionally "feminine" role. Ask "where is this relationship going?" of your partner. Take ownership of your half of the relationship, and maybe even a little more. Value the little things which make relationships - the things which are important to both of you, whether they are long talks, long walks, anniversaries, or beating up the enemy in a video game together - and take responsibility for maintaining those things.
Pay attention to how things get cleaned and maintained. Who tracks doctor's appointments? Who keeps track of how clean things are? Who knows where the dishes go? If there are children, who keeps track of important dates, important supplies, and the schedule? Who makes stops for things on the way home from work, and how can that be balanced? Studies have found that while the physical labor may be becoming more equitable in relationships, the mental planning and tracking often remains gendered female without either person noticing. If you're in a relationship with a woman, try to notice before she does and bring it up if there's an inequality.
There's a lot more to this - a lot more men can do - but honestly part of it is valuing figuring out what men can do to support the women in their lives without having to be told every time. It's not easy work, tracking what is going on with the people in our lives and trying to support them without being told what to do, but it's work worth doing.
posted by Deoridhe at 6:03 PM on November 7, 2013 [6 favorites]
That's a lovely and thoughtful post, Deoridhe, and I agree with it strongly. But half of those statements would have you thrown out of social justice club, which is a core problem that is not going to go away by itself (or rather it is, but not in a way that's productive of the social change being sought).
The circular firing squad effect that Whedon is tactfully alluding to is not just an inevitable consequence, it's something that can and must be addressed from within.
posted by Sebmojo at 6:07 PM on November 7, 2013 [1 favorite]
The circular firing squad effect that Whedon is tactfully alluding to is not just an inevitable consequence, it's something that can and must be addressed from within.
posted by Sebmojo at 6:07 PM on November 7, 2013 [1 favorite]
Specifically about the fact that young women often eschew the word without really understanding the meaning behind it.
the reasons why young (white) women avoid the word "feminist"
For a movement that's all about (a) respecting women and (b) identifying, as a non-transitive verb, I feel like feminism could really work on respecting the choice of women who do not wish to identify as "feminist". Like, I've known some white male Libertarians, and for sure they are three horrible no-good things at once, but I think they'd manage to get that a fellow white male saying "I'm not a Libertarian" might be offering some indication of their non-Libertarian views and not merely displaying ignorance of what the word means or fear of stigma.
What's with parenthetical (white)? Are non-White young women more likely to identify as feminist, 'cause I'm curious about seeing the numbers broken out like that? Or just referencing non-White women who reject "feminism" for "womanism" on account of racism?
posted by save alive nothing that breatheth at 6:30 PM on November 7, 2013
the reasons why young (white) women avoid the word "feminist"
For a movement that's all about (a) respecting women and (b) identifying, as a non-transitive verb, I feel like feminism could really work on respecting the choice of women who do not wish to identify as "feminist". Like, I've known some white male Libertarians, and for sure they are three horrible no-good things at once, but I think they'd manage to get that a fellow white male saying "I'm not a Libertarian" might be offering some indication of their non-Libertarian views and not merely displaying ignorance of what the word means or fear of stigma.
What's with parenthetical (white)? Are non-White young women more likely to identify as feminist, 'cause I'm curious about seeing the numbers broken out like that? Or just referencing non-White women who reject "feminism" for "womanism" on account of racism?
posted by save alive nothing that breatheth at 6:30 PM on November 7, 2013
Or just referencing non-White women who reject "feminism" for "womanism" on account of racism?
I think it's referencing the fact that there are a lot of women of color who reject the feminist movement for other reasons that aren't about this one thing. Which is also a worthwhile discussion and critique of feminism but it's not this one.
posted by jessamyn at 6:36 PM on November 7, 2013 [5 favorites]
I think it's referencing the fact that there are a lot of women of color who reject the feminist movement for other reasons that aren't about this one thing. Which is also a worthwhile discussion and critique of feminism but it's not this one.
posted by jessamyn at 6:36 PM on November 7, 2013 [5 favorites]
I've often thought that Whedon's love for "strong female protagonists" is about as feminist as a dude choosing to play a female character in World of Warcraft.
posted by straight at 7:44 PM on November 7, 2013 [4 favorites]
posted by straight at 7:44 PM on November 7, 2013 [4 favorites]
I really tried avoiding this thread, but Deoridhe's response messed with my head.
I have a very hard time thinking of it as "feminist" to equate, even in part, "feminine" with "nurturing," "gentle," "pretty," "emotional," "dresses" and "cosmetics" and "cleaning."
There are many people who call themselves feminists who would never draw that equivalence, who in fact strongly oppose that equivalence. Many people would say that there is nothing inherently feminine about wearing makeup and being emotional, that those are obvious, historically contingent signs of patriarchal oppression.
posted by Nomyte at 8:47 PM on November 7, 2013 [1 favorite]
I have a very hard time thinking of it as "feminist" to equate, even in part, "feminine" with "nurturing," "gentle," "pretty," "emotional," "dresses" and "cosmetics" and "cleaning."
There are many people who call themselves feminists who would never draw that equivalence, who in fact strongly oppose that equivalence. Many people would say that there is nothing inherently feminine about wearing makeup and being emotional, that those are obvious, historically contingent signs of patriarchal oppression.
posted by Nomyte at 8:47 PM on November 7, 2013 [1 favorite]
I've often thought that Whedon's love for "strong female protagonists" is about as feminist as a dude choosing to play a female character in World of Warcraft.
No. Choosing to play a female character is completely different than writing a female character, having a female actor play them and putting them out into the world of television/film which is still dominated by male-centric narrative.
posted by crossoverman at 9:23 PM on November 7, 2013
No. Choosing to play a female character is completely different than writing a female character, having a female actor play them and putting them out into the world of television/film which is still dominated by male-centric narrative.
posted by crossoverman at 9:23 PM on November 7, 2013
Look, I really love Joss Whedon. He makes amazing media type stuff with awesome strong female protagonists. And he's probably the only TV producer/film director who can unilaterally make that happen without a bunch of dumb network suits trying to stop him.
But shut up, dude.
Like, seriously.
You are a middle aged white guy with more access than any woman on the planet with the possible exception of Oprah.
We do not care what you think about our word.
In fact, the fact that our word makes you uncomfortable is probably a good thing. I'd frankly be a little worried if you got up on stage somewhere and said that you LOVED the word "feminism", it didn't make you uncomfortable at all, you totally got it, and declared yourself the biggest feminist ever. I think if you did that, I would have to start agreeing with the intersectionalists who feel like the word is forever sullied by establishment white people, and next thing you know I'd be calling myself a womanist* or some shit.
So, thanks, Joss Whedon.
Thanks for reminding me that feminism belongs to me, and not to people like you.
*Not womanist-ist, it's just, the reason I kinda roll my eyes at intersectionalists dislike of the word feminist is, hey, look over there, our STAUCHEST white guy supporter is still freaked out by "feminist", so seriously it can't be nearly as bad as all that.
posted by Sara C. at 9:28 PM on November 7, 2013 [7 favorites]
But shut up, dude.
Like, seriously.
You are a middle aged white guy with more access than any woman on the planet with the possible exception of Oprah.
We do not care what you think about our word.
In fact, the fact that our word makes you uncomfortable is probably a good thing. I'd frankly be a little worried if you got up on stage somewhere and said that you LOVED the word "feminism", it didn't make you uncomfortable at all, you totally got it, and declared yourself the biggest feminist ever. I think if you did that, I would have to start agreeing with the intersectionalists who feel like the word is forever sullied by establishment white people, and next thing you know I'd be calling myself a womanist* or some shit.
So, thanks, Joss Whedon.
Thanks for reminding me that feminism belongs to me, and not to people like you.
*Not womanist-ist, it's just, the reason I kinda roll my eyes at intersectionalists dislike of the word feminist is, hey, look over there, our STAUCHEST white guy supporter is still freaked out by "feminist", so seriously it can't be nearly as bad as all that.
posted by Sara C. at 9:28 PM on November 7, 2013 [7 favorites]
Many people would say that there is nothing inherently feminine about wearing makeup and being emotional, that those are obvious, historically contingent signs of patriarchal oppression.
Well, a lot depends on how you define words, in a way, and the framework of a social justice discussion.
I am in no way saying that women or girls are solely feminine (nor men and boys solely masculine), and usually the objection feminists other than myself have to traditionally feminine things is that historically in Western Society, women were identified with feminine things to the exclusion of masculine things quite inaccurately. One part of feminism is rectifying this balance by pointing out that women can be as intellectual, aggressive, etc... as traditional "masculinity" demands of men. In fact, one of the main things feminism has historically done is broadened things so that women and girls could (very correctly) express their aggressive, individualistic, self-supportive qualities more openly (though women are still penalized for this in a way men are not - some of the catch 22 of wage inequalities hinges on women being punished for being aggressive in a business setting).
However, if you say "feminine" or look feminine up via google or a dictionary, the associations are very steady (similarly with masculine). I am explicitly saying these characteristics are NOT gender or sex related. While people-identified-as-female are traditionally rewarded for "feminine" and punished for "masculine" characteristics (and vice versa for people-identified-as-male), there is no evidence that this is anything more than socialization that literally begins at birth (see studies of how people treat infants randomly assigned a gender).
In my post, I was specifically referencing above where someone asked what men can do - in the face of women / girls becoming more balanced rather than stereotypical, and it is something that women (by virtue of implicit assumptions that we are a priori more feminine and that is part of what makes us valueless as women) cannot do - which is add value to traditionally feminine things by becoming more accurate in their presentation, embracing what is traditionally called "feminine" and thus shifting some of the inherent cache men have simply as a virtue of being male onto "feminine" things.
I identify this as a second half of feminism, and a half specifically of value to men, because I think that men cutting themselves off from self-nurturing, gentle, loving, pleasant social behavior both cuts them off from part of their own capacity, and also leads to things like not having satisfying relationships with others, self-harm through drug and alcohol abuse, and self-neglect which leads to higher incidences of accidents and untreated illnesses. It is a win/win situation in my view - men both help women by embracing traditionally "feminine" characteristics, and they become happier and healthier by doing so.
Also, as a self-reflective process, it short-circuits the cycle of mansplaining which causes so much acrimony between men and women while reinforcing that even within feminism, men should be in charge. That whole idea of being "in charge" and that being what men can/should do because they have always been expected to do it can be addressed in this way, I believe.
posted by Deoridhe at 11:40 PM on November 7, 2013 [1 favorite]
Well, a lot depends on how you define words, in a way, and the framework of a social justice discussion.
I am in no way saying that women or girls are solely feminine (nor men and boys solely masculine), and usually the objection feminists other than myself have to traditionally feminine things is that historically in Western Society, women were identified with feminine things to the exclusion of masculine things quite inaccurately. One part of feminism is rectifying this balance by pointing out that women can be as intellectual, aggressive, etc... as traditional "masculinity" demands of men. In fact, one of the main things feminism has historically done is broadened things so that women and girls could (very correctly) express their aggressive, individualistic, self-supportive qualities more openly (though women are still penalized for this in a way men are not - some of the catch 22 of wage inequalities hinges on women being punished for being aggressive in a business setting).
However, if you say "feminine" or look feminine up via google or a dictionary, the associations are very steady (similarly with masculine). I am explicitly saying these characteristics are NOT gender or sex related. While people-identified-as-female are traditionally rewarded for "feminine" and punished for "masculine" characteristics (and vice versa for people-identified-as-male), there is no evidence that this is anything more than socialization that literally begins at birth (see studies of how people treat infants randomly assigned a gender).
In my post, I was specifically referencing above where someone asked what men can do - in the face of women / girls becoming more balanced rather than stereotypical, and it is something that women (by virtue of implicit assumptions that we are a priori more feminine and that is part of what makes us valueless as women) cannot do - which is add value to traditionally feminine things by becoming more accurate in their presentation, embracing what is traditionally called "feminine" and thus shifting some of the inherent cache men have simply as a virtue of being male onto "feminine" things.
I identify this as a second half of feminism, and a half specifically of value to men, because I think that men cutting themselves off from self-nurturing, gentle, loving, pleasant social behavior both cuts them off from part of their own capacity, and also leads to things like not having satisfying relationships with others, self-harm through drug and alcohol abuse, and self-neglect which leads to higher incidences of accidents and untreated illnesses. It is a win/win situation in my view - men both help women by embracing traditionally "feminine" characteristics, and they become happier and healthier by doing so.
Also, as a self-reflective process, it short-circuits the cycle of mansplaining which causes so much acrimony between men and women while reinforcing that even within feminism, men should be in charge. That whole idea of being "in charge" and that being what men can/should do because they have always been expected to do it can be addressed in this way, I believe.
posted by Deoridhe at 11:40 PM on November 7, 2013 [1 favorite]
As a side note, I used "feminine" and "masculine" because those words have meanings with significant connotations in addition to the denotation which "fligaritate" and "miraregenite" don't have. I also believe, based on how taboos seem to work cross culturally, that it wouldn't take long for "fligaritate" to gain the connotations of weak/bad/silly/pathetic and "miraregenite" to gain the connotations of strong/good/serious/worthwhile if they were widely used to refer to what "feminine" and "masculine" currently refer too.
What I want to change is the stereotypes, the connotations that bolster the denotations, and I think in this case fighting over terminology to try for an elusive connotation-less set of words is a Sisyphean task. I am more than open to being disagreed with on this; sometimes seemingly Sisyphean tasks are both valuable and achievable.
On the topic of slurs, I have a different perspective as well, but while words associated with "feminine" are slurs (sissy, fairy, and a slew of homophobic slurs) I don't believe "feminine" itself is.
posted by Deoridhe at 11:54 PM on November 7, 2013
What I want to change is the stereotypes, the connotations that bolster the denotations, and I think in this case fighting over terminology to try for an elusive connotation-less set of words is a Sisyphean task. I am more than open to being disagreed with on this; sometimes seemingly Sisyphean tasks are both valuable and achievable.
On the topic of slurs, I have a different perspective as well, but while words associated with "feminine" are slurs (sissy, fairy, and a slew of homophobic slurs) I don't believe "feminine" itself is.
posted by Deoridhe at 11:54 PM on November 7, 2013
We do not care what you think about our word.
Who is we?
posted by Sebmojo at 4:31 AM on November 8, 2013 [3 favorites]
Who is we?
posted by Sebmojo at 4:31 AM on November 8, 2013 [3 favorites]
> I've explicitly been told by feminists that men can't be feminists, that liberals (i.e.: non-far-leftists) can't be feminists, and that people who don't subscribe to certain of the more outre theses of Continental philosophy can't be feminists. Hear enough of that sort of thing, and eventually you start thinking Hmmm...perhaps I'm not a feminist...
I don't disagree that there are indeed feminists out there who say these things and more, and I disagree with them as strongly as (I'm guessing) you do. For me, though, this doesn't stop me calling myself a feminist or seeing anything wrong with the term or with feminism as a movement. (Not saying particular parts of the movement don't have their problems, just that IMO this isn't one of them.)
Partly this is because I don't like the idea of any small part of the movement getting to define the whole thing, whether that's me they're excluding or somebody else. It detracts from the basic central philosophy of feminism to do that, and I feel that agreeing with them even to the point of saying "oh well maybe I don't belong here after all then" would somehow be legitimising it.
Mostly, though, it's because I see the fact that we don't all agree about stuff as a positive feature of the movement, not a problem to solve. We should disagree sometimes. It should be a broad movement with room for that kind of disagreement and debate. Disagreement and debate and being exposed to different viewpoints is how we learn and grow, both as individuals and as a movement concerned about how to apply its basic concepts to action in the wider world. And feminism especially should contain these things because it is such a very basic idea at its heart, so basic that all kinds of people are going to be lumped together under the same umbrella. I believe that women are people, first and foremost - and I also believe that slavery is wrong, that evolution via natural selection happened and continues to happen, and that the earth is round. I wouldn't expect to agree 100% with everything else about ethics, biology, history and our place in the universe with everyone else who believes the same things.
Yeah, this means feminism includes people I disagree very, very strongly with, to the point of thinking that they're acting like shitty human beings under the cloak of feminism. But, what's the alternative? I'd much rather belong to a broad group with room for disagreement than to a narrowly-defined doctrine with approved points of view on every detail, defined by the comfort levels of people who don't identify with it. That path leads to a static, stagnant, appeasing movement, more preoccupied with shutting up some 15-year-old feminist on Tumblr than addressing injustice in the world, and we don't need that.
posted by Catseye at 6:55 AM on November 8, 2013 [7 favorites]
I don't disagree that there are indeed feminists out there who say these things and more, and I disagree with them as strongly as (I'm guessing) you do. For me, though, this doesn't stop me calling myself a feminist or seeing anything wrong with the term or with feminism as a movement. (Not saying particular parts of the movement don't have their problems, just that IMO this isn't one of them.)
Partly this is because I don't like the idea of any small part of the movement getting to define the whole thing, whether that's me they're excluding or somebody else. It detracts from the basic central philosophy of feminism to do that, and I feel that agreeing with them even to the point of saying "oh well maybe I don't belong here after all then" would somehow be legitimising it.
Mostly, though, it's because I see the fact that we don't all agree about stuff as a positive feature of the movement, not a problem to solve. We should disagree sometimes. It should be a broad movement with room for that kind of disagreement and debate. Disagreement and debate and being exposed to different viewpoints is how we learn and grow, both as individuals and as a movement concerned about how to apply its basic concepts to action in the wider world. And feminism especially should contain these things because it is such a very basic idea at its heart, so basic that all kinds of people are going to be lumped together under the same umbrella. I believe that women are people, first and foremost - and I also believe that slavery is wrong, that evolution via natural selection happened and continues to happen, and that the earth is round. I wouldn't expect to agree 100% with everything else about ethics, biology, history and our place in the universe with everyone else who believes the same things.
Yeah, this means feminism includes people I disagree very, very strongly with, to the point of thinking that they're acting like shitty human beings under the cloak of feminism. But, what's the alternative? I'd much rather belong to a broad group with room for disagreement than to a narrowly-defined doctrine with approved points of view on every detail, defined by the comfort levels of people who don't identify with it. That path leads to a static, stagnant, appeasing movement, more preoccupied with shutting up some 15-year-old feminist on Tumblr than addressing injustice in the world, and we don't need that.
posted by Catseye at 6:55 AM on November 8, 2013 [7 favorites]
Choosing to play a female character is completely different than writing a female character, having a female actor play them and putting them out into the world of television/film which is still dominated by male-centric narrative.
True, casting female actors does more good for the world, but the way Whedon talks so much about how hot his female actors are and the male-gazy way he films them reminds me of the dudes who say they play female characters in games because they prefer to spend the game staring at a female backside.
I just don't know that his preference for female protagonists necessarily implies that he gets what feminism is about.
posted by straight at 7:58 AM on November 8, 2013
True, casting female actors does more good for the world, but the way Whedon talks so much about how hot his female actors are and the male-gazy way he films them reminds me of the dudes who say they play female characters in games because they prefer to spend the game staring at a female backside.
I just don't know that his preference for female protagonists necessarily implies that he gets what feminism is about.
posted by straight at 7:58 AM on November 8, 2013
Who is we?
Feminists.
Duh.
I'm willing to hear "I don't know maybe we should use a different word" from other people who identify as women and are united in the struggle to be seen as fully human. I don't agree, but sure, that's a conversation we can have. And, ultimately, I'm not married to the word feminist. If there's a good argument why we should be using something else, I could come around. I actually like womanist a lot, and if it were the most common word for what feminism currently describes, I would not only use it but be willing to die on its hill the way I'm willing to die on the hill of feminist.
But some white dude comes along telling me he doesn't approve of "feminist" and how about we think of another word so we can talk about it in a way he thinks is better?
Fuck that.
posted by Sara C. at 8:51 AM on November 8, 2013 [2 favorites]
Feminists.
Duh.
I'm willing to hear "I don't know maybe we should use a different word" from other people who identify as women and are united in the struggle to be seen as fully human. I don't agree, but sure, that's a conversation we can have. And, ultimately, I'm not married to the word feminist. If there's a good argument why we should be using something else, I could come around. I actually like womanist a lot, and if it were the most common word for what feminism currently describes, I would not only use it but be willing to die on its hill the way I'm willing to die on the hill of feminist.
But some white dude comes along telling me he doesn't approve of "feminist" and how about we think of another word so we can talk about it in a way he thinks is better?
Fuck that.
posted by Sara C. at 8:51 AM on November 8, 2013 [2 favorites]
he way Whedon talks so much about how hot his female actors are and the male-gazy way he films them reminds me of the dudes who say they play female characters in games because they prefer to spend the game staring at a female backside.
Eh, for what it's worth, that male gazey way of approaching a badass female character is, for the most part, the only way anyone is really able to get away with having badass female characters in mass media today. Unless we're talking about indie quirky stuff like Nicole Holofcener movies or underground comics or something.
You want to make a network TV show about a teenage girl who kills vampires? She's gonna have to be hot, and you're going to have to make that REALLY APPARENT in all your meetings with the network et al. The PR people are going to have that as one of your talking points on the press junket. I was just listening to an NPR interview with Shonda Rhymes about Scandal and its badass female lead where similar terms were used. With Rhymes you don't get the "male gaze" sort of vibe, but that's because she's a woman.
So, I don't know, the answer is probably more female showrunners, who at least sound less icky talking about their sexy female characters.
But unfortunately we are pretty far away from a time where a female TV series protagonist can be anything other than available for the male gaze.
I mean, until Melissa McCarthy gets her own show, I guess.
posted by Sara C. at 8:56 AM on November 8, 2013
Eh, for what it's worth, that male gazey way of approaching a badass female character is, for the most part, the only way anyone is really able to get away with having badass female characters in mass media today. Unless we're talking about indie quirky stuff like Nicole Holofcener movies or underground comics or something.
You want to make a network TV show about a teenage girl who kills vampires? She's gonna have to be hot, and you're going to have to make that REALLY APPARENT in all your meetings with the network et al. The PR people are going to have that as one of your talking points on the press junket. I was just listening to an NPR interview with Shonda Rhymes about Scandal and its badass female lead where similar terms were used. With Rhymes you don't get the "male gaze" sort of vibe, but that's because she's a woman.
So, I don't know, the answer is probably more female showrunners, who at least sound less icky talking about their sexy female characters.
But unfortunately we are pretty far away from a time where a female TV series protagonist can be anything other than available for the male gaze.
I mean, until Melissa McCarthy gets her own show, I guess.
posted by Sara C. at 8:56 AM on November 8, 2013
But shut up, dude.
We do not care what you think about our word.
Thanks for reminding me that feminism belongs to me, and not to people like you.
So feminism belongs to female feminists, and not to male feminists? I guess that's one position. I do find it kind of funny that you favorited Catseye's comment that said, "Partly this is because I don't like the idea of any small part of the movement getting to define the whole thing, whether that's me they're excluding or somebody else. It detracts from the basic central philosophy of feminism to do that" though.
posted by Amanojaku at 9:39 AM on November 8, 2013
We do not care what you think about our word.
Thanks for reminding me that feminism belongs to me, and not to people like you.
So feminism belongs to female feminists, and not to male feminists? I guess that's one position. I do find it kind of funny that you favorited Catseye's comment that said, "Partly this is because I don't like the idea of any small part of the movement getting to define the whole thing, whether that's me they're excluding or somebody else. It detracts from the basic central philosophy of feminism to do that" though.
posted by Amanojaku at 9:39 AM on November 8, 2013
But the problem with Whedon's speech is that he's not coming at it from a place of, "Look, I'm a feminist, but what if we called ourselves womanists instead?"
He's coming at it as someone who is not a self-avowed feminist, and whose explicit reaction to the word is negative and who, presumably, wants to use a word that is less about sex/gender. Like "equalist", which completely ignores the entire point of what feminism is about.
You don't have to be a woman to be a feminist, but you have to agree that feminism as a movement is about women. And it's probably better for you if you don't charge in and demand that we change the word for our movement as a condition of you joining it.
posted by Sara C. at 9:51 AM on November 8, 2013
He's coming at it as someone who is not a self-avowed feminist, and whose explicit reaction to the word is negative and who, presumably, wants to use a word that is less about sex/gender. Like "equalist", which completely ignores the entire point of what feminism is about.
You don't have to be a woman to be a feminist, but you have to agree that feminism as a movement is about women. And it's probably better for you if you don't charge in and demand that we change the word for our movement as a condition of you joining it.
posted by Sara C. at 9:51 AM on November 8, 2013
We do not care what you think about our word.
Respectfully, Sara, this is an example of the possessiveness I was referring to in my earlier post. It's strange to me. Feminism doesn't belong only to you or only to women, or even only to people who share your exact ideas about feminism. Society—all of us—are heavily invested in its success. I want my sons to embrace it, to own it, to internalize it. I want them to respect women as equal individuals. This idea that feminism is "yours" seems at odds with its goals. Do you not want partners? Do you not want allies? Is the price to toe the line of orthodoxy? My sense is there's anxiety over "the movement" being co-opted and subverted by men, male insights, male opinions, male contributions, and that makes me sad. Feminism isn't something we're trying to take away; it's something we're trying to share.
I see a disconnect between the emphasis placed on movement theory (see in this thread appeals to authority, e.g., bell hooks [whom I love], and glib rejoinders to "ignorance" or "laziness) and the very real, practical issue of persistently engaging people to change their views on women's equality, agency, co-humanity, right to choice, etc. Theory is well and good, but in practice isn't the aim to spread these ideas? To make them common and granted? To my mind, that requires both positive examples (representation) and persuasion.
The fact is that for feminism to succeed as a movement, it needs ambassadors who can live by example and persuade with warmth and generosity, not chastise, belittle, and get caught up in theoretical pedantry.
Thanks for reminding me that feminism belongs to me, and not to people like you.
Again, respectfully, feminism needs better ambassadors than this.
posted by echocollate at 9:55 AM on November 8, 2013
Respectfully, Sara, this is an example of the possessiveness I was referring to in my earlier post. It's strange to me. Feminism doesn't belong only to you or only to women, or even only to people who share your exact ideas about feminism. Society—all of us—are heavily invested in its success. I want my sons to embrace it, to own it, to internalize it. I want them to respect women as equal individuals. This idea that feminism is "yours" seems at odds with its goals. Do you not want partners? Do you not want allies? Is the price to toe the line of orthodoxy? My sense is there's anxiety over "the movement" being co-opted and subverted by men, male insights, male opinions, male contributions, and that makes me sad. Feminism isn't something we're trying to take away; it's something we're trying to share.
I see a disconnect between the emphasis placed on movement theory (see in this thread appeals to authority, e.g., bell hooks [whom I love], and glib rejoinders to "ignorance" or "laziness) and the very real, practical issue of persistently engaging people to change their views on women's equality, agency, co-humanity, right to choice, etc. Theory is well and good, but in practice isn't the aim to spread these ideas? To make them common and granted? To my mind, that requires both positive examples (representation) and persuasion.
The fact is that for feminism to succeed as a movement, it needs ambassadors who can live by example and persuade with warmth and generosity, not chastise, belittle, and get caught up in theoretical pedantry.
Thanks for reminding me that feminism belongs to me, and not to people like you.
Again, respectfully, feminism needs better ambassadors than this.
posted by echocollate at 9:55 AM on November 8, 2013
Feminism doesn't belong only to you or only to women
I never said it did.
But feminism belongs to feminists. Feminist, as a word, belongs to feminists.
Someone coming in from outside the movement telling us to change the word for our movement, because he doesn't like it?
Not cool.
posted by Sara C. at 9:58 AM on November 8, 2013
I never said it did.
But feminism belongs to feminists. Feminist, as a word, belongs to feminists.
Someone coming in from outside the movement telling us to change the word for our movement, because he doesn't like it?
Not cool.
posted by Sara C. at 9:58 AM on November 8, 2013
But feminism belongs to feminists. Feminist, as a word, belongs to feminists.
Feminism belongs to anyone who shares its goals and wants them for the world. If you like the word "feminist," by all means use it. But many feel it's problematic, and based on what I see and what I hear, they're not entirely wrong. It's worth considering, unless the word is more important to you than feminism.
posted by echocollate at 10:04 AM on November 8, 2013 [1 favorite]
Feminism belongs to anyone who shares its goals and wants them for the world. If you like the word "feminist," by all means use it. But many feel it's problematic, and based on what I see and what I hear, they're not entirely wrong. It's worth considering, unless the word is more important to you than feminism.
posted by echocollate at 10:04 AM on November 8, 2013 [1 favorite]
This idea that feminism is "yours" seems at odds with its goals.
To think that completely removes its power as a movement.
I mean, if nobody is allowed to identify with it, to call themselves feminist, to engage in feminist activism, if it just becomes a sort of catchphrase evoked to make us feel touchy feely about some nebulous idea about Girls Are Awesome or whatever, then what's the point?
Feminism is a thing. It exists. It has existed as a specific American political movement for about 150 years, and it can be argued to have existed for longer. Feminism has meaning. It refers to a specific group of people, doing specific types of political activities, for a united goal.
So, OK, if you're a dude, and you want to get on board this movement we call feminism, great! Welcome! You want to write a press release or order some porta-potties or figure out how to get a bus full of people to a rural state house? Great, we can use all the help we can get.
Oh. Wait. You're just here to tell use we're calling our movement by the wrong name? Despite the fact that you, yourself, do not belong to it?
So what you're saying is that you don't want to be part of our movement. You're just another in a long line of people telling us we're wrong. Right. Yep, you can fuck off.
posted by Sara C. at 10:08 AM on November 8, 2013 [5 favorites]
To think that completely removes its power as a movement.
I mean, if nobody is allowed to identify with it, to call themselves feminist, to engage in feminist activism, if it just becomes a sort of catchphrase evoked to make us feel touchy feely about some nebulous idea about Girls Are Awesome or whatever, then what's the point?
Feminism is a thing. It exists. It has existed as a specific American political movement for about 150 years, and it can be argued to have existed for longer. Feminism has meaning. It refers to a specific group of people, doing specific types of political activities, for a united goal.
So, OK, if you're a dude, and you want to get on board this movement we call feminism, great! Welcome! You want to write a press release or order some porta-potties or figure out how to get a bus full of people to a rural state house? Great, we can use all the help we can get.
Oh. Wait. You're just here to tell use we're calling our movement by the wrong name? Despite the fact that you, yourself, do not belong to it?
So what you're saying is that you don't want to be part of our movement. You're just another in a long line of people telling us we're wrong. Right. Yep, you can fuck off.
posted by Sara C. at 10:08 AM on November 8, 2013 [5 favorites]
To think that completely removes its power as a movement.
If you want to fetishize "the movement" over the goals of the movement, be my guest. I see the former existing to serve the later, not the other way around.
I mean, if nobody is allowed to identify with it, to call themselves feminist, to engage in feminist activism, if it just becomes a sort of catchphrase evoked to make us feel touchy feely about some nebulous idea about Girls Are Awesome or whatever, then what's the point?
You don't have to call yourself a "feminist" to engage in activism on behalf of feminism. The ideas and goals are independent of the word. They don't disappear when you stop referring to yourself as a "feminist."
So, OK, if you're a dude, and you want to get on board this movement we call feminism, great! Welcome! You want to write a press release or order some porta-potties or figure out how to get a bus full of people to a rural state house? Great, we can use all the help we can get.
I don't write press releases or picket state houses. I've lived in small, rural towns and I know how well that works to change minds. That's merely a disagreement on methods, though. I do my best to embody the ideals of the movement in action and words, and I donate generously to my local Planned Parenthood and to the women's clinic in Jackson, MS, my home town.
Oh. Wait. You're just here to tell use we're calling our movement by the wrong name? Despite the fact that you, yourself, do not belong to it?
I'm here to say that perception matters in any struggle, and that, in a strategic sense, these things are worth considering.
So what you're saying is that you don't want to be part of our movement. You're just another in a long line of people telling us we're wrong. Right. Yep, you can fuck off.
If that's what you've taken from everything I've said, then there's really nothing else I can say to divest you of that notion. I didn't post to fight with you. I wish you the best.
posted by echocollate at 10:22 AM on November 8, 2013
If you want to fetishize "the movement" over the goals of the movement, be my guest. I see the former existing to serve the later, not the other way around.
I mean, if nobody is allowed to identify with it, to call themselves feminist, to engage in feminist activism, if it just becomes a sort of catchphrase evoked to make us feel touchy feely about some nebulous idea about Girls Are Awesome or whatever, then what's the point?
You don't have to call yourself a "feminist" to engage in activism on behalf of feminism. The ideas and goals are independent of the word. They don't disappear when you stop referring to yourself as a "feminist."
So, OK, if you're a dude, and you want to get on board this movement we call feminism, great! Welcome! You want to write a press release or order some porta-potties or figure out how to get a bus full of people to a rural state house? Great, we can use all the help we can get.
I don't write press releases or picket state houses. I've lived in small, rural towns and I know how well that works to change minds. That's merely a disagreement on methods, though. I do my best to embody the ideals of the movement in action and words, and I donate generously to my local Planned Parenthood and to the women's clinic in Jackson, MS, my home town.
Oh. Wait. You're just here to tell use we're calling our movement by the wrong name? Despite the fact that you, yourself, do not belong to it?
I'm here to say that perception matters in any struggle, and that, in a strategic sense, these things are worth considering.
So what you're saying is that you don't want to be part of our movement. You're just another in a long line of people telling us we're wrong. Right. Yep, you can fuck off.
If that's what you've taken from everything I've said, then there's really nothing else I can say to divest you of that notion. I didn't post to fight with you. I wish you the best.
posted by echocollate at 10:22 AM on November 8, 2013
Also just so we're clear, if bell hooks or intersectionalist folks or whoever have a different word they like, that's fine. I don't think you have to call yourself a feminist or like the word feminist to be part of the movement.
But you have to be part of the movement first, and then we can have a conversation about what to call ourselves, or you can start calling yourself whatever, or whatever.
If you're a white guy who is explicitly not already part of our movement, and you're coming to some kind of gala event to give a speech about how the word "feminist" is no good?
Nope.
posted by Sara C. at 10:25 AM on November 8, 2013
But you have to be part of the movement first, and then we can have a conversation about what to call ourselves, or you can start calling yourself whatever, or whatever.
If you're a white guy who is explicitly not already part of our movement, and you're coming to some kind of gala event to give a speech about how the word "feminist" is no good?
Nope.
posted by Sara C. at 10:25 AM on November 8, 2013
echocollate, you get that I'm not talking to you, specifically, but addressing someone like Joss Whedon, a non-feminist, who has been invited to speak at some kind of fundraising gala or awards dinner or the like, right?
If you're just a person who considers yourself to be part of the movement of people who are actively working to grant full human status to women, then, yeah, sure, call yourself whatever you want. I don't care. See you at the Planned Parenthood rally or whatever.
posted by Sara C. at 10:27 AM on November 8, 2013
If you're just a person who considers yourself to be part of the movement of people who are actively working to grant full human status to women, then, yeah, sure, call yourself whatever you want. I don't care. See you at the Planned Parenthood rally or whatever.
posted by Sara C. at 10:27 AM on November 8, 2013
echocollate, you get that I'm not talking to you, specifically
Ah, the You you, not the me you. Thanks for clarifying. :)
Whedon was being honored by Equality Now for what they believed to be his work in the arts in furthering the goals of feminism through representation. I'm not sure your characterization of him is all that accurate, but others have contested that, so I guess it's open to debate.
posted by echocollate at 10:32 AM on November 8, 2013
Ah, the You you, not the me you. Thanks for clarifying. :)
Whedon was being honored by Equality Now for what they believed to be his work in the arts in furthering the goals of feminism through representation. I'm not sure your characterization of him is all that accurate, but others have contested that, so I guess it's open to debate.
posted by echocollate at 10:32 AM on November 8, 2013
Just because someone gives you an award for writing female characters who don't suck doesn't mean you have the right to come in and tell feminists we're using the wrong word to describe our movement.
If Whedon had framed his speech from a place of being a feminist, but thinking it's not the best word for X or Y reasons, OK. Not mad at it. Don't agree, but sure.
But he didn't. Joss Whedon isn't a feminist. He doesn't consider himself a feminist. He's not part of the feminist movement. And yet here he is, up on this stage, telling us our word is wrong, we're doing it all wrong, shut up and sit down and let the rich white guy tell you how to run the women's movement.
And, yeah, the fact that he's male definitely rankles a little. I think men can definitely be feminists, but there needs to be more of a helping and listening and doing role and less of a Let Me Tell You What You're Doing Wrong role. Any dude who comes into feminism and starts from a place of telling women they're doing the movement wrong, as opposed to coming into feminism and asking how many copies of this flyer to make, leaves a bad taste in my mouth, personally.
posted by Sara C. at 10:48 AM on November 8, 2013 [4 favorites]
If Whedon had framed his speech from a place of being a feminist, but thinking it's not the best word for X or Y reasons, OK. Not mad at it. Don't agree, but sure.
But he didn't. Joss Whedon isn't a feminist. He doesn't consider himself a feminist. He's not part of the feminist movement. And yet here he is, up on this stage, telling us our word is wrong, we're doing it all wrong, shut up and sit down and let the rich white guy tell you how to run the women's movement.
And, yeah, the fact that he's male definitely rankles a little. I think men can definitely be feminists, but there needs to be more of a helping and listening and doing role and less of a Let Me Tell You What You're Doing Wrong role. Any dude who comes into feminism and starts from a place of telling women they're doing the movement wrong, as opposed to coming into feminism and asking how many copies of this flyer to make, leaves a bad taste in my mouth, personally.
posted by Sara C. at 10:48 AM on November 8, 2013 [4 favorites]
You want to make a network TV show about a teenage girl who kills vampires? She's gonna have to be hot, and you're going to have to make that REALLY APPARENT in all your meetings with the network et al.
Dollhouse wasn't ruined by Elisha Dushku's "acting" because the network was obsessed with how hot that particular actor is.
posted by straight at 11:14 AM on November 8, 2013 [1 favorite]
Dollhouse wasn't ruined by Elisha Dushku's "acting" because the network was obsessed with how hot that particular actor is.
posted by straight at 11:14 AM on November 8, 2013 [1 favorite]
Yeah, the man's penchant for casting Eliza Dushku in things is something I just don't get.
Completely separate from his feminist bona fides, which he doesn't have considering that he himself claims not to be a feminist.
posted by Sara C. at 11:51 AM on November 8, 2013
Completely separate from his feminist bona fides, which he doesn't have considering that he himself claims not to be a feminist.
posted by Sara C. at 11:51 AM on November 8, 2013
He's coming at it as someone who is not a self-avowed feminist...
like Joss Whedon, a non-feminist...
But he didn't. Joss Whedon isn't a feminist. He doesn't consider himself a feminist. He's not part of the feminist movement.
Okay, I guess this is where I'm confused. He has self-identified as feminist on numerous occasions. What's giving you this impression?
Also just so we're clear, if bell hooks or intersectionalist folks or whoever have a different word they like, that's fine. I don't think you have to call yourself a feminist or like the word feminist to be part of the movement.
That is exactly what's happening here. He's "at an Equality Now dinner Monday where he'd been asked to speak because of his work on gender equality," talking about not liking the word "feminist," yet ... it's invalid. Why?
posted by Amanojaku at 12:05 PM on November 8, 2013
like Joss Whedon, a non-feminist...
But he didn't. Joss Whedon isn't a feminist. He doesn't consider himself a feminist. He's not part of the feminist movement.
Okay, I guess this is where I'm confused. He has self-identified as feminist on numerous occasions. What's giving you this impression?
Also just so we're clear, if bell hooks or intersectionalist folks or whoever have a different word they like, that's fine. I don't think you have to call yourself a feminist or like the word feminist to be part of the movement.
That is exactly what's happening here. He's "at an Equality Now dinner Monday where he'd been asked to speak because of his work on gender equality," talking about not liking the word "feminist," yet ... it's invalid. Why?
posted by Amanojaku at 12:05 PM on November 8, 2013
He has self-identified as feminist on numerous occasions. What's giving you this impression?
The video in the link this FPP is built around, where he got up and claimed not to be a feminist.
Doing things that don't suck for women isn't the same thing as being a feminist. I'm glad he got that award, but it doesn't make him a feminist any more than Norman Lear making Maude makes him a feminist. And I don't think there are many feminists who would consider Lear part of our ranks. Not because he's a misogynist, or anything, but because you have to do more than not be misogynist to be a feminist.
And the first thing you have to do to be considered a feminist is to consider yourself a feminist. Whedon doesn't. Ergo he's not one, and has no business telling us what to call our movement.
posted by Sara C. at 12:09 PM on November 8, 2013
The video in the link this FPP is built around, where he got up and claimed not to be a feminist.
Doing things that don't suck for women isn't the same thing as being a feminist. I'm glad he got that award, but it doesn't make him a feminist any more than Norman Lear making Maude makes him a feminist. And I don't think there are many feminists who would consider Lear part of our ranks. Not because he's a misogynist, or anything, but because you have to do more than not be misogynist to be a feminist.
And the first thing you have to do to be considered a feminist is to consider yourself a feminist. Whedon doesn't. Ergo he's not one, and has no business telling us what to call our movement.
posted by Sara C. at 12:09 PM on November 8, 2013
Joss Whedon isn't a feminist. He doesn't consider himself a feminist. He's not part of the feminist movement.
He is, he does, and he's apparently part of the movement enough that he was invited to speak at Equality Now, an organization that had previously honored him . Nowhere in the linked talk does Whedon say he does not consider himself a feminist, that is something you are reading into the talk which is not actually there. He in fact feels so strongly about being a feminist that he thinks is should be the default position of a person, shifting the onus of self-identification onto those who against feminism.
posted by Panjandrum at 12:16 PM on November 8, 2013 [3 favorites]
He is, he does, and he's apparently part of the movement enough that he was invited to speak at Equality Now, an organization that had previously honored him . Nowhere in the linked talk does Whedon say he does not consider himself a feminist, that is something you are reading into the talk which is not actually there. He in fact feels so strongly about being a feminist that he thinks is should be the default position of a person, shifting the onus of self-identification onto those who against feminism.
posted by Panjandrum at 12:16 PM on November 8, 2013 [3 favorites]
The video in the link this FPP is built around, where he got up and claimed not to be a feminist.
I can't watch the video, but the transcript doesn't say that at all. If you have a specific quote, I'd love to see it.
And the first thing you have to do to be considered a feminist is to consider yourself a feminist. Whedon doesn't. Ergo he's not one, and has no business telling us what to call our movement.
And yet, "if bell hooks or intersectionalist folks or whoever have a different word they like, that's fine. I don't think you have to call yourself a feminist or like the word feminist to be part of the movement." How do you reconcile that?
posted by Amanojaku at 12:18 PM on November 8, 2013
I can't watch the video, but the transcript doesn't say that at all. If you have a specific quote, I'd love to see it.
And the first thing you have to do to be considered a feminist is to consider yourself a feminist. Whedon doesn't. Ergo he's not one, and has no business telling us what to call our movement.
And yet, "if bell hooks or intersectionalist folks or whoever have a different word they like, that's fine. I don't think you have to call yourself a feminist or like the word feminist to be part of the movement." How do you reconcile that?
posted by Amanojaku at 12:18 PM on November 8, 2013
"I mean, until Melissa McCarthy gets her own show, I guess."
Rebel Wilson's show has been one of the persistently saddest shows on television. Hey, super awesome quick physical comedian! U R FAT AND LONELY LOL!
posted by klangklangston at 12:36 PM on November 8, 2013
Rebel Wilson's show has been one of the persistently saddest shows on television. Hey, super awesome quick physical comedian! U R FAT AND LONELY LOL!
posted by klangklangston at 12:36 PM on November 8, 2013
As regards Dollhouse, my understanding is that it was actually Eliza Dushku's development deal with the network to create a new show, and she brought Whedon on board. So it would have been impossible for that show to not star Eliza Dushku, and there's a strong argument for the idea that, in fact, the network was obsessed with how hot that particular actor is.
The opening of his speech sounds to me a lot like the aesthetic arguments people make against the term "cisgender", who say that they don't approve of the word because it sounds bad. I appreciate that this may be true, but I also think it's astonishingly irrelevant.
But yeah, I get that he's arguing that a word like feminism indicates that gender equality has to be instilled, as opposed to it being innate, and that it has become a bit of a wedge politically for people who have been taught to hate the word but would otherwise be onside. But I don't like the way he dismisses "sexism" as being the correct term for what he's describing, because it is basically what he's describing. There isn't a functional difference between the common definition of "sexism" and the way he defines "genderism". So I don't really get what the point of his new word is.
How does conceiving of feminism as "good for humanity" as opposed to "good for women" hinder the objectives of feminism?
There's already a word for people who believe philosophically and act politically that humans should be treated more like humans and that that would be good for humanity. I bet you can guess what it is from that previous sentence. Feminism does mean, specifically, improving the lot of women. As it turns out, that also improves the lot of men, and that's nice. Sometimes it doesn't improve the lot of people elsewhere in the gender continuum, and that's regrettable and should be addressed. But it does mean "good for women", and to abandon it in favor of a more gender-neutral term carries the strong implication that the lot of women has improved sufficiently and that something close to parity on all fronts has been achieved. That's not to say that "feminism" is an immutable term which can never be re-examined or replaced, but it is to say that that replacement had better continue to deal with the practical and political realities of the situation instead of bowdlerizing them.
You can see how that distinction works with racism. These days, everyone will say that they oppose racism and if you were to ask them if it was their responsibility to fight racism, if they have an opportunity to do so, they'd probably say "yes". They wouldn't see that as being dependent upon whether they are personally a member of an oppressed race. Now, mind you, when you talk about particular things that someone might do, you'll find that some things a white person might do are perfectly fine and other things are far from fine. But, in general, people understand that they should be opposed to racism the same way they're opposed to, say, starvation or sickness. Who in the world wouldn't be opposed to that?
Perhaps a conversation for another time, but this has not remotely been my experience at all. I take issue with Whedon's race and racism analogy because people do not act the way he seems to think they do. People do use the term "racism" to mean that which is past, but in the service of denying that there is now racism in the present or that an action which is not as racist as past actions is therefore not really racist. Because he is correct that we will never stop fighting, let me assure him that the only real accomplishment in redefining the term will be to trade one fight for another. You can't even look at a white guy who leaves a mixed-race teammate a voicemail in which he calls him racial slurs and say, hey, that white guy is a racist, without people jumping out of the woodwork to say, no, no he's not. If he isn't, who is? Let me assure Joss Whedon that the only thing white people have managed to do in redefining "racism" to mean "bad thing which you shouldn't do anymore" is that they have now made it much harder to call racist things racist, because people aren't racist anymore, obviously, everyone knows it's bad, right? I don't know that his overtures in a similar direction with regards to feminism will not have a similar outcome. But, if his feminist credentials are questionable, his anti-racist credentials are nonexistent, so I'm unsurprised by his toeing of the pat lefty party line or his lack of insight into the issues.
posted by Errant at 12:36 PM on November 8, 2013 [6 favorites]
The opening of his speech sounds to me a lot like the aesthetic arguments people make against the term "cisgender", who say that they don't approve of the word because it sounds bad. I appreciate that this may be true, but I also think it's astonishingly irrelevant.
But yeah, I get that he's arguing that a word like feminism indicates that gender equality has to be instilled, as opposed to it being innate, and that it has become a bit of a wedge politically for people who have been taught to hate the word but would otherwise be onside. But I don't like the way he dismisses "sexism" as being the correct term for what he's describing, because it is basically what he's describing. There isn't a functional difference between the common definition of "sexism" and the way he defines "genderism". So I don't really get what the point of his new word is.
How does conceiving of feminism as "good for humanity" as opposed to "good for women" hinder the objectives of feminism?
There's already a word for people who believe philosophically and act politically that humans should be treated more like humans and that that would be good for humanity. I bet you can guess what it is from that previous sentence. Feminism does mean, specifically, improving the lot of women. As it turns out, that also improves the lot of men, and that's nice. Sometimes it doesn't improve the lot of people elsewhere in the gender continuum, and that's regrettable and should be addressed. But it does mean "good for women", and to abandon it in favor of a more gender-neutral term carries the strong implication that the lot of women has improved sufficiently and that something close to parity on all fronts has been achieved. That's not to say that "feminism" is an immutable term which can never be re-examined or replaced, but it is to say that that replacement had better continue to deal with the practical and political realities of the situation instead of bowdlerizing them.
You can see how that distinction works with racism. These days, everyone will say that they oppose racism and if you were to ask them if it was their responsibility to fight racism, if they have an opportunity to do so, they'd probably say "yes". They wouldn't see that as being dependent upon whether they are personally a member of an oppressed race. Now, mind you, when you talk about particular things that someone might do, you'll find that some things a white person might do are perfectly fine and other things are far from fine. But, in general, people understand that they should be opposed to racism the same way they're opposed to, say, starvation or sickness. Who in the world wouldn't be opposed to that?
Perhaps a conversation for another time, but this has not remotely been my experience at all. I take issue with Whedon's race and racism analogy because people do not act the way he seems to think they do. People do use the term "racism" to mean that which is past, but in the service of denying that there is now racism in the present or that an action which is not as racist as past actions is therefore not really racist. Because he is correct that we will never stop fighting, let me assure him that the only real accomplishment in redefining the term will be to trade one fight for another. You can't even look at a white guy who leaves a mixed-race teammate a voicemail in which he calls him racial slurs and say, hey, that white guy is a racist, without people jumping out of the woodwork to say, no, no he's not. If he isn't, who is? Let me assure Joss Whedon that the only thing white people have managed to do in redefining "racism" to mean "bad thing which you shouldn't do anymore" is that they have now made it much harder to call racist things racist, because people aren't racist anymore, obviously, everyone knows it's bad, right? I don't know that his overtures in a similar direction with regards to feminism will not have a similar outcome. But, if his feminist credentials are questionable, his anti-racist credentials are nonexistent, so I'm unsurprised by his toeing of the pat lefty party line or his lack of insight into the issues.
posted by Errant at 12:36 PM on November 8, 2013 [6 favorites]
"So feminism belongs to female feminists, and not to male feminists?"
Uh, yeah, even male feminists should probably be listening to women on the whole one of the central tenets of feminism is allowing women to speak for themselves tip.
"Feminism doesn't belong only to you or only to women, or even only to people who share your exact ideas about feminism. Society—all of us—are heavily invested in its success. I want my sons to embrace it, to own it, to internalize it."
Yeah, you realize that for it to succeed, that means that it can't just be another political movement run out of the cockshop, right? Like, great, have your sons embrace it. But that doesn't mean that they've got as much skin in the game as an actual woman does.
"This idea that feminism is "yours" seems at odds with its goals."
Then you're confused about feminism or its goals.
"Do you not want partners? Do you not want allies?"
Yo, did you not parse "ally" to necessarily imply a supporting role rather than a dominant one?
"My sense is there's anxiety over "the movement" being co-opted and subverted by men, male insights, male opinions, male contributions, and that makes me sad. Feminism isn't something we're trying to take away; it's something we're trying to share."
Yeah, but part of that sharing requires recognizing your own privilege and "sharing" in a way that isn't about taking away ownership from women. Otherwise, you're doing thing where we "share" a game by keeping it at your house even though I bought it.
"Theory is well and good, but in practice isn't the aim to spread these ideas? To make them common and granted? To my mind, that requires both positive examples (representation) and persuasion. "
So? If your positive examples and persuasion require ignoring things that bell hooks has written, that's pretty bullshit.
"The fact is that for feminism to succeed as a movement, it needs ambassadors who can live by example and persuade with warmth and generosity, not chastise, belittle, and get caught up in theoretical pedantry. "
I'd like feminism better if you women weren't so bitchy about it.
"Again, respectfully, feminism needs better ambassadors than this."
Respectfully, man, what a fucking presumptuous and obnoxious tack to take.
posted by klangklangston at 12:44 PM on November 8, 2013 [6 favorites]
Uh, yeah, even male feminists should probably be listening to women on the whole one of the central tenets of feminism is allowing women to speak for themselves tip.
"Feminism doesn't belong only to you or only to women, or even only to people who share your exact ideas about feminism. Society—all of us—are heavily invested in its success. I want my sons to embrace it, to own it, to internalize it."
Yeah, you realize that for it to succeed, that means that it can't just be another political movement run out of the cockshop, right? Like, great, have your sons embrace it. But that doesn't mean that they've got as much skin in the game as an actual woman does.
"This idea that feminism is "yours" seems at odds with its goals."
Then you're confused about feminism or its goals.
"Do you not want partners? Do you not want allies?"
Yo, did you not parse "ally" to necessarily imply a supporting role rather than a dominant one?
"My sense is there's anxiety over "the movement" being co-opted and subverted by men, male insights, male opinions, male contributions, and that makes me sad. Feminism isn't something we're trying to take away; it's something we're trying to share."
Yeah, but part of that sharing requires recognizing your own privilege and "sharing" in a way that isn't about taking away ownership from women. Otherwise, you're doing thing where we "share" a game by keeping it at your house even though I bought it.
"Theory is well and good, but in practice isn't the aim to spread these ideas? To make them common and granted? To my mind, that requires both positive examples (representation) and persuasion. "
So? If your positive examples and persuasion require ignoring things that bell hooks has written, that's pretty bullshit.
"The fact is that for feminism to succeed as a movement, it needs ambassadors who can live by example and persuade with warmth and generosity, not chastise, belittle, and get caught up in theoretical pedantry. "
I'd like feminism better if you women weren't so bitchy about it.
"Again, respectfully, feminism needs better ambassadors than this."
Respectfully, man, what a fucking presumptuous and obnoxious tack to take.
posted by klangklangston at 12:44 PM on November 8, 2013 [6 favorites]
"If you want to fetishize "the movement" over the goals of the movement, be my guest. I see the former existing to serve the later, not the other way around."
Hey, if you want to ignore what a woman is saying in order to call yourself a feminist, be my guest. I see male feminists as existing to facilitate the goals of feminism, not tell women what those goals are.
"You don't have to call yourself a "feminist" to engage in activism on behalf of feminism. The ideas and goals are independent of the word. They don't disappear when you stop referring to yourself as a "feminist.""
Tactics are informed by identity. That's pretty much the biggest lesson from the '50s on in politics.
"I'm here to say that perception matters in any struggle, and that, in a strategic sense, these things are worth considering."
yo i just googled "tone argument" wassup
"If that's what you've taken from everything I've said, then there's really nothing else I can say to divest you of that notion. I didn't post to fight with you. I wish you the best."
You posted a bunch of condescending co-opting bullshit, and she called you on it. You can spend your time dabbing your internet tears with a hanky or you can try to learn from what she's saying.
Yeah, the man's penchant for casting Eliza Dushku in things is something I just don't get. "
SHE IS THE WORST ACTOR. I avoided Firefly for a long time in part because she's terrible. I was wrong about that, but right about every other thing she's ever been in.
posted by klangklangston at 12:50 PM on November 8, 2013 [2 favorites]
Hey, if you want to ignore what a woman is saying in order to call yourself a feminist, be my guest. I see male feminists as existing to facilitate the goals of feminism, not tell women what those goals are.
"You don't have to call yourself a "feminist" to engage in activism on behalf of feminism. The ideas and goals are independent of the word. They don't disappear when you stop referring to yourself as a "feminist.""
Tactics are informed by identity. That's pretty much the biggest lesson from the '50s on in politics.
"I'm here to say that perception matters in any struggle, and that, in a strategic sense, these things are worth considering."
yo i just googled "tone argument" wassup
"If that's what you've taken from everything I've said, then there's really nothing else I can say to divest you of that notion. I didn't post to fight with you. I wish you the best."
You posted a bunch of condescending co-opting bullshit, and she called you on it. You can spend your time dabbing your internet tears with a hanky or you can try to learn from what she's saying.
Yeah, the man's penchant for casting Eliza Dushku in things is something I just don't get. "
SHE IS THE WORST ACTOR. I avoided Firefly for a long time in part because she's terrible. I was wrong about that, but right about every other thing she's ever been in.
posted by klangklangston at 12:50 PM on November 8, 2013 [2 favorites]
There's already a word for people who believe philosophically and act politically that humans should be treated more like humans and that that would be good for humanity. I bet you can guess what it is from that previous sentence. Feminism does mean, specifically, improving the lot of women. As it turns out, that also improves the lot of men, and that's nice.
I didn't say that feminism = humanism. I suggested that the case for improving the lot of women as beneficial to women, men, and society at large is a different, more holistic, and more persuasive argument, just as the case for gay rights came to embrace an emphasis on gay families and the well-being of children. The emphasis on purity of terminology is bizarre to me. It's as if the ownership of the struggle is more important than the ends of the struggle.
posted by echocollate at 12:51 PM on November 8, 2013
I didn't say that feminism = humanism. I suggested that the case for improving the lot of women as beneficial to women, men, and society at large is a different, more holistic, and more persuasive argument, just as the case for gay rights came to embrace an emphasis on gay families and the well-being of children. The emphasis on purity of terminology is bizarre to me. It's as if the ownership of the struggle is more important than the ends of the struggle.
posted by echocollate at 12:51 PM on November 8, 2013
I avoided Firefly for a long time in part because she's terrible.
Wait, is she in that?
(Silently hoping she is, because that must mean there's an episode somewhere I haven't seen.)
posted by Sara C. at 1:06 PM on November 8, 2013
Wait, is she in that?
(Silently hoping she is, because that must mean there's an episode somewhere I haven't seen.)
posted by Sara C. at 1:06 PM on November 8, 2013
Nope, wait, I'm wrong on that. I'm thinking of Summer Glau, who is also a terrible actress.
posted by klangklangston at 1:10 PM on November 8, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by klangklangston at 1:10 PM on November 8, 2013 [1 favorite]
As regards Dollhouse, my understanding is that it was actually Eliza Dushku's development deal with the network
That was my take also, so I did not so much blame Joss Whedon for the fact that the show (which I watched in its entirety) was basically "Watch Dushku in her underwear get punched in the face" She is from Lexington (along with Amanda Palmer) and I think there is just something in the water there. I have no opinion on Whedon's speech, but I'm okay with him calling himself a feminist in broad terms.
posted by jessamyn at 1:11 PM on November 8, 2013
That was my take also, so I did not so much blame Joss Whedon for the fact that the show (which I watched in its entirety) was basically "Watch Dushku in her underwear get punched in the face" She is from Lexington (along with Amanda Palmer) and I think there is just something in the water there. I have no opinion on Whedon's speech, but I'm okay with him calling himself a feminist in broad terms.
posted by jessamyn at 1:11 PM on November 8, 2013
Yeah, I think there's a reason Summer Glau's career never really went anywhere after Firefly, despite the fact that just about everyone else from that cast went on to get regular roles on other series.
(Except for poor Sean Maher, who's been on at least two more failed series after Firefly.)
posted by Sara C. at 1:20 PM on November 8, 2013
(Except for poor Sean Maher, who's been on at least two more failed series after Firefly.)
posted by Sara C. at 1:20 PM on November 8, 2013
Mod note: Hi, we've reached the "go fuck yourself" point of the evening which means some people need to back away from this thread so other people can have a conversation. Contact us if you want to talk more about this.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 1:38 PM on November 8, 2013
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 1:38 PM on November 8, 2013
(Except for poor Sean Maher, who's been on at least two more failed series after Firefly.)"
Were either of those any good? The Playboy Club seemed terrible, but I didn't see the other.
posted by klangklangston at 1:39 PM on November 8, 2013
Were either of those any good? The Playboy Club seemed terrible, but I didn't see the other.
posted by klangklangston at 1:39 PM on November 8, 2013
Uh, yeah, even male feminists should probably be listening to women on the whole one of the central tenets of feminism is allowing women to speak for themselves tip.
I'm not sure how we get from "feminist men should listen to women and let them speak for themselves" to "Shut up dude, we don't care what you think, feminism belongs to me, not you," but like I said: I guess that's one position. I think patting yourself on the back as an inclusive, big-tent feminist after staking that ground is a bit rich, though. At least the small-tent feminists have the character to flat-out say, "Nope, not for you at all."
But maybe that was one of those "I completely disagree with this post" Favorites. I can only guess.
I can't watch the video, but the transcript doesn't say that at all. If you have a specific quote, I'd love to see it.
And the first thing you have to do to be considered a feminist is to consider yourself a feminist. Whedon doesn't. Ergo he's not one, and has no business telling us what to call our movement.
And yet, "if bell hooks or intersectionalist folks or whoever have a different word they like, that's fine. I don't think you have to call yourself a feminist or like the word feminist to be part of the movement." How do you reconcile that?
I'd still be interested in any response to this, whether it's one that explains how I'm misunderstanding or not. But maybe we're just too busy talking about TV now.
posted by Amanojaku at 1:53 PM on November 8, 2013
I'm not sure how we get from "feminist men should listen to women and let them speak for themselves" to "Shut up dude, we don't care what you think, feminism belongs to me, not you," but like I said: I guess that's one position. I think patting yourself on the back as an inclusive, big-tent feminist after staking that ground is a bit rich, though. At least the small-tent feminists have the character to flat-out say, "Nope, not for you at all."
But maybe that was one of those "I completely disagree with this post" Favorites. I can only guess.
I can't watch the video, but the transcript doesn't say that at all. If you have a specific quote, I'd love to see it.
And the first thing you have to do to be considered a feminist is to consider yourself a feminist. Whedon doesn't. Ergo he's not one, and has no business telling us what to call our movement.
And yet, "if bell hooks or intersectionalist folks or whoever have a different word they like, that's fine. I don't think you have to call yourself a feminist or like the word feminist to be part of the movement." How do you reconcile that?
I'd still be interested in any response to this, whether it's one that explains how I'm misunderstanding or not. But maybe we're just too busy talking about TV now.
posted by Amanojaku at 1:53 PM on November 8, 2013
I think patting yourself on the back as an inclusive, big-tent feminist after staking that ground is a bit rich, though.
Look, I'm all for a big tent for feminism.
But "let's let the dudes come in and tell us how to run things" is pretty much where that tent stops, for me.
posted by Sara C. at 2:17 PM on November 8, 2013 [2 favorites]
Look, I'm all for a big tent for feminism.
But "let's let the dudes come in and tell us how to run things" is pretty much where that tent stops, for me.
posted by Sara C. at 2:17 PM on November 8, 2013 [2 favorites]
Um also, Amanojaku, your explanation of your username is pretty interesting in light of this conversation.
posted by Sara C. at 2:18 PM on November 8, 2013
posted by Sara C. at 2:18 PM on November 8, 2013
Look, I'm all for a big tent for feminism.
If you'd be fine with "Bell Hooks or intersectionalist folks or whoever" saying they don't like the term or even go by it, but not an otherwise feminist man making the exact same point, then no, you're not.
But "let's let the dudes come in and tell us how to run things" is pretty much where that tent stops, for me.
Offering even the gentlest critique isn't the same as "telling you how to run things." That seems like a pretty fragile brand of feminism, and one I, personally, don't subscribe to. I don't think that means you're not a real feminist or you should shut up, though. Again: big tent.
Um also, Amanojaku, your explanation of your username is pretty interesting in light of this conversation.
You seem pretty eager to find excuses to disregard the opinions of people who disagree with you. "Whedon isn't a feminist." "This guy on the internet admits he can be fighty." It's in the profile for a reason. Whether that invalidates what I'm saying or means I'm engaging with you in bad faith is another matter, which I hope is apparent.
posted by Amanojaku at 3:11 PM on November 8, 2013
If you'd be fine with "Bell Hooks or intersectionalist folks or whoever" saying they don't like the term or even go by it, but not an otherwise feminist man making the exact same point, then no, you're not.
But "let's let the dudes come in and tell us how to run things" is pretty much where that tent stops, for me.
Offering even the gentlest critique isn't the same as "telling you how to run things." That seems like a pretty fragile brand of feminism, and one I, personally, don't subscribe to. I don't think that means you're not a real feminist or you should shut up, though. Again: big tent.
Um also, Amanojaku, your explanation of your username is pretty interesting in light of this conversation.
You seem pretty eager to find excuses to disregard the opinions of people who disagree with you. "Whedon isn't a feminist." "This guy on the internet admits he can be fighty." It's in the profile for a reason. Whether that invalidates what I'm saying or means I'm engaging with you in bad faith is another matter, which I hope is apparent.
posted by Amanojaku at 3:11 PM on November 8, 2013
"I'm not sure how we get from "feminist men should listen to women and let them speak for themselves" to "Shut up dude, we don't care what you think, feminism belongs to me, not you," but like I said: I guess that's one position."
Well, kinda through straw-manning and not listening to what women are saying is how we're getting there.
"I think patting yourself on the back as an inclusive, big-tent feminist after staking that ground is a bit rich, though. At least the small-tent feminists have the character to flat-out say, "Nope, not for you at all.""
This is such a weird, entitled simplification that I'm kinda baffled by it. Whedon argues in a glib manner that it shouldn't be "feminism" because, you know, the word's no fun and also it should be the norm, similar to the no need for atheist argument. Except that it's not the norm, that women still need to organize for political power, and that having a glib wank over the name ignores that women are the primary drivers of feminism because women know what women need better than men do.
It's like the colonialist assumption that many Western NGOs make about going into some village in Bumfuck, Zimbabwe and giving them a bunch of shoes or internet or whatever else, because hey, that's good for them and isn't development everyone's business? To which the answer is, yeah, but to do it right and not make things worse you actually have to listen to the people on the ground. Which Whedon's not doing, and most of the dudes here who are having trouble with this are not doing.
"Offering even the gentlest critique isn't the same as "telling you how to run things." That seems like a pretty fragile brand of feminism, and one I, personally, don't subscribe to. I don't think that means you're not a real feminist or you should shut up, though. Again: big tent."
Whedon was glib and dumb, women pointed out why his glib dumbness wasn't actually all that helpful, and now we got a bushel of bros all stanning for some imagined Big Tent of Feminism where it's not actually called Feminism and it's not women who are driving the priorities. That tent's so big that it's not feminism!
posted by klangklangston at 3:25 PM on November 8, 2013 [2 favorites]
Well, kinda through straw-manning and not listening to what women are saying is how we're getting there.
"I think patting yourself on the back as an inclusive, big-tent feminist after staking that ground is a bit rich, though. At least the small-tent feminists have the character to flat-out say, "Nope, not for you at all.""
This is such a weird, entitled simplification that I'm kinda baffled by it. Whedon argues in a glib manner that it shouldn't be "feminism" because, you know, the word's no fun and also it should be the norm, similar to the no need for atheist argument. Except that it's not the norm, that women still need to organize for political power, and that having a glib wank over the name ignores that women are the primary drivers of feminism because women know what women need better than men do.
It's like the colonialist assumption that many Western NGOs make about going into some village in Bumfuck, Zimbabwe and giving them a bunch of shoes or internet or whatever else, because hey, that's good for them and isn't development everyone's business? To which the answer is, yeah, but to do it right and not make things worse you actually have to listen to the people on the ground. Which Whedon's not doing, and most of the dudes here who are having trouble with this are not doing.
"Offering even the gentlest critique isn't the same as "telling you how to run things." That seems like a pretty fragile brand of feminism, and one I, personally, don't subscribe to. I don't think that means you're not a real feminist or you should shut up, though. Again: big tent."
Whedon was glib and dumb, women pointed out why his glib dumbness wasn't actually all that helpful, and now we got a bushel of bros all stanning for some imagined Big Tent of Feminism where it's not actually called Feminism and it's not women who are driving the priorities. That tent's so big that it's not feminism!
posted by klangklangston at 3:25 PM on November 8, 2013 [2 favorites]
Telling us what we should be calling our movement is, like, the definition of telling us how to run things.
posted by Sara C. at 3:29 PM on November 8, 2013 [3 favorites]
posted by Sara C. at 3:29 PM on November 8, 2013 [3 favorites]
Yeah, I think there's a reason Summer Glau's career never really went anywhere after Firefly
Have people forgotten The Sarah Connor Chronicles already? :(
posted by crossoverman at 3:35 PM on November 8, 2013
Have people forgotten The Sarah Connor Chronicles already? :(
posted by crossoverman at 3:35 PM on November 8, 2013
No, I forgot she was in that.
I take it back.
posted by Sara C. at 3:39 PM on November 8, 2013 [1 favorite]
I take it back.
posted by Sara C. at 3:39 PM on November 8, 2013 [1 favorite]
Well, kinda through straw-manning and not listening to what women are saying is how we're getting there.
Straw-man? Try a direct quote. You could at least read the thread if you're going to be kind of a dick about it.
...but to do it right and not make things worse you actually have to listen to the people on the ground. Which Whedon's not doing, and most of the dudes here who are having trouble with this are not doing.
I actually agree that Whedon's argument is dumb, but I don't think a feminist with a dumb argument is somehow now not a feminist who should shut up, particularly when that same argument would be tolerated from someone else. Again: if you're confused, feel free to actually read the thread.
Whedon was glib and dumb, women pointed out why his glib dumbness wasn't actually all that helpful, and now we got a bushel of bros
So ... what's the appropriate response to glib and dumb arguments? Because I could use that right about now.
posted by Amanojaku at 3:43 PM on November 8, 2013
Straw-man? Try a direct quote. You could at least read the thread if you're going to be kind of a dick about it.
...but to do it right and not make things worse you actually have to listen to the people on the ground. Which Whedon's not doing, and most of the dudes here who are having trouble with this are not doing.
I actually agree that Whedon's argument is dumb, but I don't think a feminist with a dumb argument is somehow now not a feminist who should shut up, particularly when that same argument would be tolerated from someone else. Again: if you're confused, feel free to actually read the thread.
Whedon was glib and dumb, women pointed out why his glib dumbness wasn't actually all that helpful, and now we got a bushel of bros
So ... what's the appropriate response to glib and dumb arguments? Because I could use that right about now.
posted by Amanojaku at 3:43 PM on November 8, 2013
So how about if he'd channelled his thoughts through a woman, would that have helped. A right-thinking woman of course not one of the ones that disagree with you.
posted by Sebmojo at 3:57 PM on November 8, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by Sebmojo at 3:57 PM on November 8, 2013 [1 favorite]
Whedon is far from telling telling anyone from how to run things. He's making a perfectly banal argument that the burden of self-identification should be on anti-feminists, not the people standing on the moral high ground. The idea that this position is somehow invalidated by him being a "him" is ridiculous.
Men's first duty in feminism may be to listen, but that's because so many topics within the movement touch on uniquely female concerns. This is not one of those topics; it's a meta-conversation about feminism being had among feminists. There's zero need for these words Whedon spoke to come from a woman and the idea that good ideas about feminism must necessarily come from a woman is both wrong and counterproductive.
Saying that Whedon was "[t]elling us what we should be calling our movement" is also wrong and counterproductive. He did no such thing and it implies that Whedon is not, and cannot be a feminist, and must instead be forever relegated to standing outside looking in on the movement, instead of being a part of it (a part that gets invited to speak at, honored by, a feminist organization who apparently had no problems with his talk judging by the applause).
posted by Panjandrum at 4:13 PM on November 8, 2013 [3 favorites]
Men's first duty in feminism may be to listen, but that's because so many topics within the movement touch on uniquely female concerns. This is not one of those topics; it's a meta-conversation about feminism being had among feminists. There's zero need for these words Whedon spoke to come from a woman and the idea that good ideas about feminism must necessarily come from a woman is both wrong and counterproductive.
Saying that Whedon was "[t]elling us what we should be calling our movement" is also wrong and counterproductive. He did no such thing and it implies that Whedon is not, and cannot be a feminist, and must instead be forever relegated to standing outside looking in on the movement, instead of being a part of it (a part that gets invited to speak at, honored by, a feminist organization who apparently had no problems with his talk judging by the applause).
posted by Panjandrum at 4:13 PM on November 8, 2013 [3 favorites]
Have people forgotten The Sarah Connor Chronicles already? :(
Glau played an emotionless robot in that, which was a good casting decision since that's basically her range as an actor. The Sarah Connor Chronicles were all about the titular character being played by Lena Headey, who could move an audience to tears with a dramatic reading of a list of things found under her couch if she so pleased.
posted by Panjandrum at 4:14 PM on November 8, 2013
Glau played an emotionless robot in that, which was a good casting decision since that's basically her range as an actor. The Sarah Connor Chronicles were all about the titular character being played by Lena Headey, who could move an audience to tears with a dramatic reading of a list of things found under her couch if she so pleased.
posted by Panjandrum at 4:14 PM on November 8, 2013
If I'm reading this thread right, there seem to be two major discussions going on at the moment, yes?
The first one is the discussion of "Wait! Men and women should be EQUALS! It really sucks that you women are telling us men what to do!" This is pretty much the attitude that I had before joining MetaFilter, and I was weaned off of it in the first couple of years that I was here.
Men and women SHOULD be equals. Right now, they're not. Women go through a ton of shit that men don't. They're frequently denied equal opportunities to men, they're subject to a bunch of absurd biases that men aren't afflicted with, and they exist in a culture that's determined to sexualize them in every single way that it can. It's pretty fucked up.
I am a man and I went through a whole lot of ugly things because of that fucked-up aspect of our society. It's not fun to be told at a young age that your manliness depends on how good you are at sleeping with women. Or to be told that if you talk to a woman, you'll be judged if that woman doesn't look good enough. It places all sorts of pressures on young boys and makes them behave in a bunch of confused and often nasty ways, and as a writer and artist I am constantly wondering how I can depict that particular crappiness in ways that will convey some of the pressures that I think aren't acknowledged nearly enough. Especially not to the young boys looking for some kind of a role model or inspiration in all this.
BUT! As awful as all that is, it's like a teenth of the shit young girls are subjected to, and the more I've talked to women my age about their experiences the more I realize that Jesus hot-potato Christ, there are some utterly horrific and nightmarish experiences that lots of women just sort of take for granted will happen to them. Young men my age often have a lot of weird-ass thoughts, beliefs, and attitudes regarding masculinity and women, but young women are as often as not a whole minefield of terrible experiences that haven't yet resolved into something they can get a grip on. I know a LOT of women in their early twenties who've experienced/are experiencing things so ridiculously awful that it seems to affect everything about who they are, how they perceive the world, etc. I've been led to believe that horrible shit will continue to happen to most women in our society for the rest of their lives, of a whole bunch of different frustrating and horrifying varieties.
As an aspiring feminist, a lot of what I can do as an ally is listen. Listen to all of the ways that our world is messed up that I never notice, and that oftentimes I unknowingly help perpetuate. Listen to what seems tough or unfair, what's broken, what's not likely to be fixed any time soon. Listening helps me suck a little bit less myself, and it helps me dedicate myself a little bit more to speaking up when somebody's doing something reprehensible even if it doesn't affect me. The nice thing about being a guy? I can walk away from this shit whenever I want to, take a breather, then come back in and start calling people out and calling crappy behavior crappy when I see it. I don't get called names when I tell people they're acting like pigs, because there aren't really names to target men who stand up for women the same way there are to target women who stand up for themselves. I can repeat the things I've been told and fight for them and get away (relatively) scot-free. About the worst I'll ever be accused of is being a feminist for the sake of trying to get laid, and boy is that a tame accusation compared to, say, rape threats. Yay privilege! Hooray!
Look, I get the impulse to tell feminists that "feminism" has a bad brand name, to try and come up with something better and more egalitarian and marketable. I studied marketing. I believe that marketing offers an insight into humanity and culture that's utterly necessary to anybody trying to communicate ideas to another person. I spend a lot of time thinking about feminism's brand and what to do with it, on my own, in private, because it is not my place to say otherwise.
Why? Because first off, I'm a spectator in this movement at best. I don't know what's best for women, except for maybe what they've told me. But I have to trust that they, as the wronged party here, will act in their own self-interest, which they know a whole lot better than I do.
Second off, it's because feminism as a brand can't be improved. I've written about this before on the blue. Either you accept the things feminism is saying—rape culture is real and a terrible threat to women everywhere, women are constantly treated to a double standard, etc.—or you don't. If you don't, then any name for a movement that's saying all these things won't change the fact that you disagree with these central tenets. Call the movement whatever you'd like. People who feel like women who get raped are asking for it will hate it no matter what it's called. And you can't spread that message in any fundamentally different way without changing the message itself. It's a problem that can't be fixed.
And third and maybe most important, it's because feminism exists for women. And it exists because of women. And it's a movement carried by women. What I can do as a man is listen to that movement, agree or disagree with it, declare myself a feminist or not, and aid it in whatever way I can. That doesn't make me the subject of the movement, or even an active practitioner in the same way that a woman, by virtue of being a woman, will be. I'm not gonna be subjected to the same vitriol when I stand up for it, I'm not gonna be affected as deeply by whether it enacts change. I have far less skin in the game. That means it's not my game to run.
And honestly? I'm glad that I'm not. This is spoiled and selfish of me, but good GOD I am happy not to have to put up with the shit that women do. The more I develop an understanding of how relatively paltry my struggles were in comparison to the ones that women experience on a systemic level, the more thankful I am that I didn't have to put up with any of that shit, because I suspect it would have crushed me. I prefer to play my fun little marketing games of "how do I incorporate this idea into a novel or a game or a design?", because it is soooo much easier and lower-risk than having to be part of a movement to just be treated like a goddamn human being. I get to feel like I'm helping and not deal with the soul-crushing grind of day-to-day systemic abuse! It's awesome! If you ever get a chance to think about major social dilemmas with this degree of detachment, I highly recommend the experience.
So when women say that this is what feminism is, this is how it works, and I should fuck off now, I take that as my queue to fuck off. Feminism is their thing and I am just the dude that gives a shit and asks how he can help. I care about these issues quite a lot now, and more all the time as I realize how endemic all these problems have become, but caring just makes me want to help out in even more ways. It does not make me a part of the movement, just as being a huge fan of a band does not mean I have the right to tell them how to make their music (yet another subtle distinction many people online seemingly fail to grasp).
That's the first discussion going on, and probably the more serious and important one. The second discussion happening here, as I see it, is the discussion of whether or not Joss Whedon knows how to write good TV and whether or not his shows are well-made and worth watching.
The answer to that discussion is, Joss Whedon sucks. Doctor Horrible was cloying and self-congratulatory, Firefly was fan-service-y tripe, and Buffy had a ratio of one admittedly very excellent episode to every ten awful ones. And those were the good seasons of Buffy. Which is to say, not most of the seasons of Buffy that ended up being made.
I'm glad I could wrap that discussion up, because I know many people have been wondering this for many, many years, and I'm sure that it comes as a relief to you all that one authoritative, expert voice can finally put to rest the questions of whether you are a terrible person for liking Joss Whedon shows and whether or not you should feel bad. The answers to which, of course, are yes and yes. Thank you and you're welcome and good night.
posted by Rory Marinich at 4:57 PM on November 8, 2013 [14 favorites]
The first one is the discussion of "Wait! Men and women should be EQUALS! It really sucks that you women are telling us men what to do!" This is pretty much the attitude that I had before joining MetaFilter, and I was weaned off of it in the first couple of years that I was here.
Men and women SHOULD be equals. Right now, they're not. Women go through a ton of shit that men don't. They're frequently denied equal opportunities to men, they're subject to a bunch of absurd biases that men aren't afflicted with, and they exist in a culture that's determined to sexualize them in every single way that it can. It's pretty fucked up.
I am a man and I went through a whole lot of ugly things because of that fucked-up aspect of our society. It's not fun to be told at a young age that your manliness depends on how good you are at sleeping with women. Or to be told that if you talk to a woman, you'll be judged if that woman doesn't look good enough. It places all sorts of pressures on young boys and makes them behave in a bunch of confused and often nasty ways, and as a writer and artist I am constantly wondering how I can depict that particular crappiness in ways that will convey some of the pressures that I think aren't acknowledged nearly enough. Especially not to the young boys looking for some kind of a role model or inspiration in all this.
BUT! As awful as all that is, it's like a teenth of the shit young girls are subjected to, and the more I've talked to women my age about their experiences the more I realize that Jesus hot-potato Christ, there are some utterly horrific and nightmarish experiences that lots of women just sort of take for granted will happen to them. Young men my age often have a lot of weird-ass thoughts, beliefs, and attitudes regarding masculinity and women, but young women are as often as not a whole minefield of terrible experiences that haven't yet resolved into something they can get a grip on. I know a LOT of women in their early twenties who've experienced/are experiencing things so ridiculously awful that it seems to affect everything about who they are, how they perceive the world, etc. I've been led to believe that horrible shit will continue to happen to most women in our society for the rest of their lives, of a whole bunch of different frustrating and horrifying varieties.
As an aspiring feminist, a lot of what I can do as an ally is listen. Listen to all of the ways that our world is messed up that I never notice, and that oftentimes I unknowingly help perpetuate. Listen to what seems tough or unfair, what's broken, what's not likely to be fixed any time soon. Listening helps me suck a little bit less myself, and it helps me dedicate myself a little bit more to speaking up when somebody's doing something reprehensible even if it doesn't affect me. The nice thing about being a guy? I can walk away from this shit whenever I want to, take a breather, then come back in and start calling people out and calling crappy behavior crappy when I see it. I don't get called names when I tell people they're acting like pigs, because there aren't really names to target men who stand up for women the same way there are to target women who stand up for themselves. I can repeat the things I've been told and fight for them and get away (relatively) scot-free. About the worst I'll ever be accused of is being a feminist for the sake of trying to get laid, and boy is that a tame accusation compared to, say, rape threats. Yay privilege! Hooray!
Look, I get the impulse to tell feminists that "feminism" has a bad brand name, to try and come up with something better and more egalitarian and marketable. I studied marketing. I believe that marketing offers an insight into humanity and culture that's utterly necessary to anybody trying to communicate ideas to another person. I spend a lot of time thinking about feminism's brand and what to do with it, on my own, in private, because it is not my place to say otherwise.
Why? Because first off, I'm a spectator in this movement at best. I don't know what's best for women, except for maybe what they've told me. But I have to trust that they, as the wronged party here, will act in their own self-interest, which they know a whole lot better than I do.
Second off, it's because feminism as a brand can't be improved. I've written about this before on the blue. Either you accept the things feminism is saying—rape culture is real and a terrible threat to women everywhere, women are constantly treated to a double standard, etc.—or you don't. If you don't, then any name for a movement that's saying all these things won't change the fact that you disagree with these central tenets. Call the movement whatever you'd like. People who feel like women who get raped are asking for it will hate it no matter what it's called. And you can't spread that message in any fundamentally different way without changing the message itself. It's a problem that can't be fixed.
And third and maybe most important, it's because feminism exists for women. And it exists because of women. And it's a movement carried by women. What I can do as a man is listen to that movement, agree or disagree with it, declare myself a feminist or not, and aid it in whatever way I can. That doesn't make me the subject of the movement, or even an active practitioner in the same way that a woman, by virtue of being a woman, will be. I'm not gonna be subjected to the same vitriol when I stand up for it, I'm not gonna be affected as deeply by whether it enacts change. I have far less skin in the game. That means it's not my game to run.
And honestly? I'm glad that I'm not. This is spoiled and selfish of me, but good GOD I am happy not to have to put up with the shit that women do. The more I develop an understanding of how relatively paltry my struggles were in comparison to the ones that women experience on a systemic level, the more thankful I am that I didn't have to put up with any of that shit, because I suspect it would have crushed me. I prefer to play my fun little marketing games of "how do I incorporate this idea into a novel or a game or a design?", because it is soooo much easier and lower-risk than having to be part of a movement to just be treated like a goddamn human being. I get to feel like I'm helping and not deal with the soul-crushing grind of day-to-day systemic abuse! It's awesome! If you ever get a chance to think about major social dilemmas with this degree of detachment, I highly recommend the experience.
So when women say that this is what feminism is, this is how it works, and I should fuck off now, I take that as my queue to fuck off. Feminism is their thing and I am just the dude that gives a shit and asks how he can help. I care about these issues quite a lot now, and more all the time as I realize how endemic all these problems have become, but caring just makes me want to help out in even more ways. It does not make me a part of the movement, just as being a huge fan of a band does not mean I have the right to tell them how to make their music (yet another subtle distinction many people online seemingly fail to grasp).
That's the first discussion going on, and probably the more serious and important one. The second discussion happening here, as I see it, is the discussion of whether or not Joss Whedon knows how to write good TV and whether or not his shows are well-made and worth watching.
The answer to that discussion is, Joss Whedon sucks. Doctor Horrible was cloying and self-congratulatory, Firefly was fan-service-y tripe, and Buffy had a ratio of one admittedly very excellent episode to every ten awful ones. And those were the good seasons of Buffy. Which is to say, not most of the seasons of Buffy that ended up being made.
I'm glad I could wrap that discussion up, because I know many people have been wondering this for many, many years, and I'm sure that it comes as a relief to you all that one authoritative, expert voice can finally put to rest the questions of whether you are a terrible person for liking Joss Whedon shows and whether or not you should feel bad. The answers to which, of course, are yes and yes. Thank you and you're welcome and good night.
posted by Rory Marinich at 4:57 PM on November 8, 2013 [14 favorites]
An idea is good, or bad, regardless of who speaks it. You may disagree.
posted by Sebmojo at 5:38 PM on November 8, 2013
posted by Sebmojo at 5:38 PM on November 8, 2013
Firstly, the "idea" to stop using the word feminism and instead switch to something else en masse is a bad idea, regardless of who speaks it.
Secondly, it's bad form for male feminists -- especially white, strait, cis, wealthy ones -- to go around spouting off about what they think of that particular topic. It's kind of the feminism equivalent to white people pontificating about the acceptability of the N word. It's a hot-button issue within feminism, definitely not Women's Movement 101 level debate, and a touchy subject specifically around people who are not movement insiders.
bell hooks and Alice Walker can reject the word "feminism". White dudes don't really get a say, sorry.
posted by Sara C. at 6:03 PM on November 8, 2013 [1 favorite]
Secondly, it's bad form for male feminists -- especially white, strait, cis, wealthy ones -- to go around spouting off about what they think of that particular topic. It's kind of the feminism equivalent to white people pontificating about the acceptability of the N word. It's a hot-button issue within feminism, definitely not Women's Movement 101 level debate, and a touchy subject specifically around people who are not movement insiders.
bell hooks and Alice Walker can reject the word "feminism". White dudes don't really get a say, sorry.
posted by Sara C. at 6:03 PM on November 8, 2013 [1 favorite]
there seem to be two major discussions going on at the moment
- The first one is the discussion of "Wait! Men and women should be EQUALS! It really sucks that you women are telling us men what to do!"
No one is saying this. There's an argument here that men who are feminists must necessarily accept a secondary role in ALL aspects of feminism, which is profoundly wrong. Anyone making this argument should basically abandon the idea that feminism helps men too, because they are essentially arguing that men must always have a secondary role in feminism. This ignores the fact that feminism has aimed at breaking down gendered roles and assumptions which are held on a societal basis. Feminism may have as its chief goal the equalization of men and women, but backing that ideal is an avalanche of thought on what gender is and how it forms our society. Saying that men must always be allies and never leaders denies this central part of feminism and makes it a movement which has no place for ideas put forth by men. If that's then case feminists should then stop citing Marx and Foucault.
- Second off, it's because feminism as a brand can't be improved.
Yes it can. This is actually the point of the talk. It'sis a feminist speaking to other feminists about the idea that the burden of self-identification should be shifted to onto those who oppose feminism, not feminists themselves. You can argue for or against this point, but saying that it is wholly irrelevant because the movement at this time is somehow un-improvable is to make the movement itself stagnant.
posted by Panjandrum at 6:24 PM on November 8, 2013
- The first one is the discussion of "Wait! Men and women should be EQUALS! It really sucks that you women are telling us men what to do!"
No one is saying this. There's an argument here that men who are feminists must necessarily accept a secondary role in ALL aspects of feminism, which is profoundly wrong. Anyone making this argument should basically abandon the idea that feminism helps men too, because they are essentially arguing that men must always have a secondary role in feminism. This ignores the fact that feminism has aimed at breaking down gendered roles and assumptions which are held on a societal basis. Feminism may have as its chief goal the equalization of men and women, but backing that ideal is an avalanche of thought on what gender is and how it forms our society. Saying that men must always be allies and never leaders denies this central part of feminism and makes it a movement which has no place for ideas put forth by men. If that's then case feminists should then stop citing Marx and Foucault.
- Second off, it's because feminism as a brand can't be improved.
Yes it can. This is actually the point of the talk. It'sis a feminist speaking to other feminists about the idea that the burden of self-identification should be shifted to onto those who oppose feminism, not feminists themselves. You can argue for or against this point, but saying that it is wholly irrelevant because the movement at this time is somehow un-improvable is to make the movement itself stagnant.
posted by Panjandrum at 6:24 PM on November 8, 2013
the "idea" to stop using the word feminism and instead switch to something else en masse is a bad idea
No one is suggesting this, and the idea that Whedon is suggesting this supplants the framing device he used to make strongly feminist statements with a focus on the irrelevant elements of the framing device itself. Stop attacking shadows of your own creation.
White dudes don't really get a say, sorry.
Then what is the point of "White dudes" or dudes of any color supporting feminism? Out of the goodness of their hearts? There's a reason feminism has had such broad success, and it's because it attacks the essentialist gender dichotomy of society. Both the social and philosophical progress feminism has made in shaping modern society has not been simply because it is equalizing men and women, but because it challenges the very idea that there must be "natural" distinctions made along gender in the first place. Shunting those privileged in society to the side simply because they are men is shortsighted and unnecessarily exclusionary. What is Whedon saying about feminism that requires the input from a woman?
I'll note again, that Whedon was invited to speak (again) at an outright feminist organization. They obviously consider him a voice worth hearing more than once. You do not speak for feminism anymore than Whedon does, so please drawing lines about how can and cannot have an opinion on the subject.
posted by Panjandrum at 6:36 PM on November 8, 2013
No one is suggesting this, and the idea that Whedon is suggesting this supplants the framing device he used to make strongly feminist statements with a focus on the irrelevant elements of the framing device itself. Stop attacking shadows of your own creation.
White dudes don't really get a say, sorry.
Then what is the point of "White dudes" or dudes of any color supporting feminism? Out of the goodness of their hearts? There's a reason feminism has had such broad success, and it's because it attacks the essentialist gender dichotomy of society. Both the social and philosophical progress feminism has made in shaping modern society has not been simply because it is equalizing men and women, but because it challenges the very idea that there must be "natural" distinctions made along gender in the first place. Shunting those privileged in society to the side simply because they are men is shortsighted and unnecessarily exclusionary. What is Whedon saying about feminism that requires the input from a woman?
I'll note again, that Whedon was invited to speak (again) at an outright feminist organization. They obviously consider him a voice worth hearing more than once. You do not speak for feminism anymore than Whedon does, so please drawing lines about how can and cannot have an opinion on the subject.
posted by Panjandrum at 6:36 PM on November 8, 2013
Whatever else, at least we have a plurality of people who are willing to say that Joss Whedon's shows are artistically bad, morally deplorable, and only feature eye-candy female protagonists to put them into titillating, compromised, male-gaze-dominated situations. The fact that he is now rudely barging into feminism to dictate how women should think and how they should act is almost beside the point.
posted by Nomyte at 6:47 PM on November 8, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by Nomyte at 6:47 PM on November 8, 2013 [1 favorite]
"Straw-man? Try a direct quote. You could at least read the thread if you're going to be kind of a dick about it."
I did a Control+F. Where's that quote? And yeah, taking the quotes out of context, stitching them together to make a sentence that's not really representative of the point, that's straw manning.
"I actually agree that Whedon's argument is dumb, but I don't think a feminist with a dumb argument is somehow now not a feminist who should shut up, particularly when that same argument would be tolerated from someone else. Again: if you're confused, feel free to actually read the thread."
I think that some "feminists" with dumb ideas are not feminists and should shut up. E.g. And I don't think the same argument would be tolerated from someone else — I think from another person, it would likely be another argument.
"An idea is good, or bad, regardless of who speaks it. You may disagree."
Yeah, I do, because that's simplistic to the point of idiocy. Who is speaking it is part of the idea — when Kim Jong Un talks about the People's Democratic Republic of Korea, I know that who is speaking influences the way that "people's," "democratic" and "republic" function as ideas. Democracy is a great idea, except that I don't think Kim has the same thing in mind.
"There's an argument here that men who are feminists must necessarily accept a secondary role in ALL aspects of feminism, which is profoundly wrong."
First off, no, there's not. Second off, no, it's not. Men "accepting" a primary role in feminism would displace the females that are at the root of the goddamn word, man. You don't get to be the potential boss of all things. It's OK. Start creating a feminism that can accept that.
"This ignores the fact that feminism has aimed at breaking down gendered roles and assumptions which are held on a societal basis. "
Yes, but that's a strategy under the political project of feminism, not the totality of feminism. So it doesn't ignore it, it contextualizes it.
"Feminism may have as its chief goal the equalization of men and women, but backing that ideal is an avalanche of thought on what gender is and how it forms our society."
You're almost there! How about, feminism has as its chief goal the end of the oppression of women, and through that an avalanche of theoretical work done to undermine the main structures of that oppression.
"Saying that men must always be allies and never leaders denies this central part of feminism"
Sup bro ima stop you because its not settled that you get to define the central part of feminism
"and makes it a movement which has no place for ideas put forth by men."
That's ridiculous nonsense.
If that's then case feminists should then stop citing Marx and Foucault.
Ah, well, at least you get why that's ridiculous nonsense, then.
"Then what is the point of "White dudes" or dudes of any color supporting feminism? Out of the goodness of their hearts?"
Uh, yeah, because it's the right thing to do? I mean, what, you don't think that ending the oppression of women is worth doing for it's own sake? You gotta eat cookies with it too?
"There's a reason feminism has had such broad success, and it's because it attacks the essentialist gender dichotomy of society."
Actually, it's mostly because a bunch of women organized themselves and got shit like the vote, and have been able to articulate an egalitarian argument in support of the feminist political project.
"Both the social and philosophical progress feminism has made in shaping modern society has not been simply because it is equalizing men and women, but because it challenges the very idea that there must be "natural" distinctions made along gender in the first place."
Meh. That's an outcome of some lines of feminist argument, but viewing that as the primary engine for social and philosophical progress within feminism is a really bold claim that privileges a certain strain of feminism above others, a strain that happens to reflect your interests.
"Shunting those privileged in society to the side simply because they are men is shortsighted and unnecessarily exclusionary."
Arguing that men don't get to decide the core of feminism is neither shortsighted nor exclusionary — and describing it as "shunting" is presumptuous. Lemme guess, you were ; _ ; over mansplain too?
"I'll note again, that Whedon was invited to speak (again) at an outright feminist organization. They obviously consider him a voice worth hearing more than once."
You have a delightful view of how speakers get selected for non-profit award shows. Worth hearing, or would sell tickets, or has given a lot of money, or somebody on the board knew him, or …
posted by klangklangston at 7:13 PM on November 8, 2013 [3 favorites]
I did a Control+F. Where's that quote? And yeah, taking the quotes out of context, stitching them together to make a sentence that's not really representative of the point, that's straw manning.
"I actually agree that Whedon's argument is dumb, but I don't think a feminist with a dumb argument is somehow now not a feminist who should shut up, particularly when that same argument would be tolerated from someone else. Again: if you're confused, feel free to actually read the thread."
I think that some "feminists" with dumb ideas are not feminists and should shut up. E.g. And I don't think the same argument would be tolerated from someone else — I think from another person, it would likely be another argument.
"An idea is good, or bad, regardless of who speaks it. You may disagree."
Yeah, I do, because that's simplistic to the point of idiocy. Who is speaking it is part of the idea — when Kim Jong Un talks about the People's Democratic Republic of Korea, I know that who is speaking influences the way that "people's," "democratic" and "republic" function as ideas. Democracy is a great idea, except that I don't think Kim has the same thing in mind.
"There's an argument here that men who are feminists must necessarily accept a secondary role in ALL aspects of feminism, which is profoundly wrong."
First off, no, there's not. Second off, no, it's not. Men "accepting" a primary role in feminism would displace the females that are at the root of the goddamn word, man. You don't get to be the potential boss of all things. It's OK. Start creating a feminism that can accept that.
"This ignores the fact that feminism has aimed at breaking down gendered roles and assumptions which are held on a societal basis. "
Yes, but that's a strategy under the political project of feminism, not the totality of feminism. So it doesn't ignore it, it contextualizes it.
"Feminism may have as its chief goal the equalization of men and women, but backing that ideal is an avalanche of thought on what gender is and how it forms our society."
You're almost there! How about, feminism has as its chief goal the end of the oppression of women, and through that an avalanche of theoretical work done to undermine the main structures of that oppression.
"Saying that men must always be allies and never leaders denies this central part of feminism"
Sup bro ima stop you because its not settled that you get to define the central part of feminism
"and makes it a movement which has no place for ideas put forth by men."
That's ridiculous nonsense.
If that's then case feminists should then stop citing Marx and Foucault.
Ah, well, at least you get why that's ridiculous nonsense, then.
"Then what is the point of "White dudes" or dudes of any color supporting feminism? Out of the goodness of their hearts?"
Uh, yeah, because it's the right thing to do? I mean, what, you don't think that ending the oppression of women is worth doing for it's own sake? You gotta eat cookies with it too?
"There's a reason feminism has had such broad success, and it's because it attacks the essentialist gender dichotomy of society."
Actually, it's mostly because a bunch of women organized themselves and got shit like the vote, and have been able to articulate an egalitarian argument in support of the feminist political project.
"Both the social and philosophical progress feminism has made in shaping modern society has not been simply because it is equalizing men and women, but because it challenges the very idea that there must be "natural" distinctions made along gender in the first place."
Meh. That's an outcome of some lines of feminist argument, but viewing that as the primary engine for social and philosophical progress within feminism is a really bold claim that privileges a certain strain of feminism above others, a strain that happens to reflect your interests.
"Shunting those privileged in society to the side simply because they are men is shortsighted and unnecessarily exclusionary."
Arguing that men don't get to decide the core of feminism is neither shortsighted nor exclusionary — and describing it as "shunting" is presumptuous. Lemme guess, you were ; _ ; over mansplain too?
"I'll note again, that Whedon was invited to speak (again) at an outright feminist organization. They obviously consider him a voice worth hearing more than once."
You have a delightful view of how speakers get selected for non-profit award shows. Worth hearing, or would sell tickets, or has given a lot of money, or somebody on the board knew him, or …
posted by klangklangston at 7:13 PM on November 8, 2013 [3 favorites]
Klang, do you have a point, or do you simply have zingers in response to decontextualized statements I've made?
The point I'm making is that Whedon is putting forth an idea that is in no way outside the bounds of mainstream feminism. That's it. There's a secondary argument about whether he, as a "he," is qualified to make those statements, but you're not adding anything to that conversation.
So when you say:
Sup bro ima stop you because its not settled that you get to define the central part of feminism
All I have to say is, "Neither do you."
posted by Panjandrum at 7:40 PM on November 8, 2013 [1 favorite]
The point I'm making is that Whedon is putting forth an idea that is in no way outside the bounds of mainstream feminism. That's it. There's a secondary argument about whether he, as a "he," is qualified to make those statements, but you're not adding anything to that conversation.
So when you say:
Sup bro ima stop you because its not settled that you get to define the central part of feminism
All I have to say is, "Neither do you."
posted by Panjandrum at 7:40 PM on November 8, 2013 [1 favorite]
Then what is the point of "White dudes" or dudes of any color supporting feminism?
Nobody is asking "white dudes" to join feminism. That's what you don't understand. Nobody is sitting around saying, "Man, if only we could get a bunch of guys in here to tell us how to run everything... Too bad we can't, though. Ugh, running a social movement is so hard!" If dudes agree with our ideas and want to be allies, great. If not, well, OK.
And if the assumption here is that men only support feminism with the idea that they ought to get to run it, ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm wut
posted by Sara C. at 8:49 PM on November 8, 2013 [2 favorites]
Nobody is asking "white dudes" to join feminism. That's what you don't understand. Nobody is sitting around saying, "Man, if only we could get a bunch of guys in here to tell us how to run everything... Too bad we can't, though. Ugh, running a social movement is so hard!" If dudes agree with our ideas and want to be allies, great. If not, well, OK.
And if the assumption here is that men only support feminism with the idea that they ought to get to run it, ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm wut
posted by Sara C. at 8:49 PM on November 8, 2013 [2 favorites]
"I'll note again, that Whedon was invited to speak (again) at an outright feminist organization. They obviously consider him a voice worth hearing more than once."
Just because feminists approve of Joss Whedon and want to give him awards doesn't mean he is the king of feminism, dude. Seriously. What.
posted by Sara C. at 8:52 PM on November 8, 2013
Just because feminists approve of Joss Whedon and want to give him awards doesn't mean he is the king of feminism, dude. Seriously. What.
posted by Sara C. at 8:52 PM on November 8, 2013
Then what is the point of "White dudes" or dudes of any color supporting feminism? Out of the goodness of their hearts?
Supporting it out of the goodness of their hearts would be a fucking good start.
posted by crossoverman at 9:10 PM on November 8, 2013 [10 favorites]
Supporting it out of the goodness of their hearts would be a fucking good start.
posted by crossoverman at 9:10 PM on November 8, 2013 [10 favorites]
bell hooks and Alice Walker can reject the word "feminism". White dudes don't really get a say, sorry.
Black dudes? How 'bout like, an Arab dude, or some Chinese Malaysian guy?
So the idea of "listening to women" sounds good, but the problem is that just in my country there are like a dozen dozen million of them and they're saying different and often completely incompatible things at me. If I tried to do some sort of "surely centrism must be correct" deal and average out opinions, survey says I end up not particularly feminist beyond the legal equity bits & waffle about the acceptability of abortion, which I don't gather would be acceptable at all. So not so much "listen to women" as "listen to feminist women" and even if I run with that my poor manbrain is only good at computer and certainly can't be expected to decide whether to listen to a trans-inclusive feminist vs. a gender-critical feminist or if a woman is trying to deceive me from the true path into mere liberal feminism.
Really I feel a little sorry for male feminists, cause it's like circular firing squad funtime but you're not even allowed to fire your gun.
posted by save alive nothing that breatheth at 9:57 PM on November 8, 2013
Black dudes? How 'bout like, an Arab dude, or some Chinese Malaysian guy?
So the idea of "listening to women" sounds good, but the problem is that just in my country there are like a dozen dozen million of them and they're saying different and often completely incompatible things at me. If I tried to do some sort of "surely centrism must be correct" deal and average out opinions, survey says I end up not particularly feminist beyond the legal equity bits & waffle about the acceptability of abortion, which I don't gather would be acceptable at all. So not so much "listen to women" as "listen to feminist women" and even if I run with that my poor manbrain is only good at computer and certainly can't be expected to decide whether to listen to a trans-inclusive feminist vs. a gender-critical feminist or if a woman is trying to deceive me from the true path into mere liberal feminism.
Really I feel a little sorry for male feminists, cause it's like circular firing squad funtime but you're not even allowed to fire your gun.
posted by save alive nothing that breatheth at 9:57 PM on November 8, 2013
Nobody is asking "white dudes" to join feminism. That's what you don't understand.
No, I understand this. I also understand that the version of feminism you're putting forth explicitly shunts men to a supporting role. No one, not even me, is saying that men should "only support feminism with the idea that they ought to get to run it." What is being said, by you and others, is that feminism is intrinsically the domain of women because they are women. If that was the case, then where do the statements of Katy Perry and Taylor Swift fit in? These are women who explicitly state that they are not feminists, do their statements weigh more than than a man who says that they are?
I've asked this again and again without answer, so I ask again: what in Whedon's talk necessarily requires the input of the lived experience from a woman?
That's really the argument here, since we've moved far beyond anything Whedon actually said; is Whedon allowed to make feminist statements? Not even to speak for feminism, because it is far too diverse a movement for that, but can he be allowed to speak at all?
You've repeatedly said "no." And with every instance you've portrayed Whedon as someone outside of feminism, and therefore not qualified to speak on the subject. On that subject you have been shown to be wrong.
What disqualifies him? Every single criticism you have had of Whedon either focuses on him being a "middle aged white guy with more access than any woman on the planet with the possible exception of Oprah" or by willfully misinterpreting what he said as "just here to tell use we're calling our movement by the wrong name?" despite that fact that he is and has been a part of that movement, and that is he is not advocating for a name change.
Neither of those criticisms are true or have any applicability to the speech Whedon gave. He gave an explicitly feminist speech to a bunch of feminists who wanted him to be there giving that speech. This doesn't make him the king of feminism, this makes him a feminist. That doesn't mean he is trying to run feminism, it means he is trying to advance feminism, and your assertions that he cannot do so because he is "a white guy who is explicitly not already part of our movement" is both wrong and not useful.
You've drawn a line in the sand which is simply a circle around yourself.
Supporting it out of the goodness of their hearts would be a fucking good start.
This is the exact point Whedon was making.
posted by Panjandrum at 10:09 PM on November 8, 2013 [1 favorite]
No, I understand this. I also understand that the version of feminism you're putting forth explicitly shunts men to a supporting role. No one, not even me, is saying that men should "only support feminism with the idea that they ought to get to run it." What is being said, by you and others, is that feminism is intrinsically the domain of women because they are women. If that was the case, then where do the statements of Katy Perry and Taylor Swift fit in? These are women who explicitly state that they are not feminists, do their statements weigh more than than a man who says that they are?
I've asked this again and again without answer, so I ask again: what in Whedon's talk necessarily requires the input of the lived experience from a woman?
That's really the argument here, since we've moved far beyond anything Whedon actually said; is Whedon allowed to make feminist statements? Not even to speak for feminism, because it is far too diverse a movement for that, but can he be allowed to speak at all?
You've repeatedly said "no." And with every instance you've portrayed Whedon as someone outside of feminism, and therefore not qualified to speak on the subject. On that subject you have been shown to be wrong.
What disqualifies him? Every single criticism you have had of Whedon either focuses on him being a "middle aged white guy with more access than any woman on the planet with the possible exception of Oprah" or by willfully misinterpreting what he said as "just here to tell use we're calling our movement by the wrong name?" despite that fact that he is and has been a part of that movement, and that is he is not advocating for a name change.
Neither of those criticisms are true or have any applicability to the speech Whedon gave. He gave an explicitly feminist speech to a bunch of feminists who wanted him to be there giving that speech. This doesn't make him the king of feminism, this makes him a feminist. That doesn't mean he is trying to run feminism, it means he is trying to advance feminism, and your assertions that he cannot do so because he is "a white guy who is explicitly not already part of our movement" is both wrong and not useful.
You've drawn a line in the sand which is simply a circle around yourself.
Supporting it out of the goodness of their hearts would be a fucking good start.
This is the exact point Whedon was making.
posted by Panjandrum at 10:09 PM on November 8, 2013 [1 favorite]
Of course Whedon is allowed to speak. But, because he is a man, there are certain things he can't say without provoking a sharp critical response.
If he was a woman, saying these exact same thing, I'm sure there'd still be all the disagreement, but perhaps there would be a bit more respecting of his ability to say these things without coming off as disconnected from the movement as a whole. That the disconnect exists is the only reason why critics are bringing it up. The relationship a man has to feminism is gonna be different from the relationship a woman has to it, for the same reason that the opinion a man forms about, say, abortion, is formed by different factors than the ones that form a woman's opinion, and that disconnect means that certain things you say about feminism will have people saying, "Yeah, no, see it's not really your place to be telling us how to do things."
posted by Rory Marinich at 11:08 PM on November 8, 2013 [4 favorites]
If he was a woman, saying these exact same thing, I'm sure there'd still be all the disagreement, but perhaps there would be a bit more respecting of his ability to say these things without coming off as disconnected from the movement as a whole. That the disconnect exists is the only reason why critics are bringing it up. The relationship a man has to feminism is gonna be different from the relationship a woman has to it, for the same reason that the opinion a man forms about, say, abortion, is formed by different factors than the ones that form a woman's opinion, and that disconnect means that certain things you say about feminism will have people saying, "Yeah, no, see it's not really your place to be telling us how to do things."
posted by Rory Marinich at 11:08 PM on November 8, 2013 [4 favorites]
"All I have to say is, "Neither do you.""
Right, but since I'm not making a positive claim there and you are, that's not a rebuttal.
"Black dudes? How 'bout like, an Arab dude, or some Chinese Malaysian guy?"
Uh, also probably should not be rejecting the word feminism if they want to be part of the project "feminism." There's no real doubt that bell hooks is on the side of gender justice, and she has her own reasons for critiquing "feminism" that are pretty well-considered. Random archetypical dude of any ethnicity is probably not a good bet unless they've got some serious amazeballs rationale.
"So the idea of "listening to women" sounds good, but the problem is that just in my country there are like a dozen dozen million of them and they're saying different and often completely incompatible things at me. If I tried to do some sort of "surely centrism must be correct" deal and average out opinions, survey says I end up not particularly feminist beyond the legal equity bits & waffle about the acceptability of abortion, which I don't gather would be acceptable at all. So not so much "listen to women" as "listen to feminist women" and even if I run with that my poor manbrain is only good at computer and certainly can't be expected to decide whether to listen to a trans-inclusive feminist vs. a gender-critical feminist or if a woman is trying to deceive me from the true path into mere liberal feminism."
I see defenses like this all the time, and it's like, what, man, seriously it just sounds like you're running through a checklist of lazy heuristics rather than bothering to engage with actually listening to anybody. And I just don't have any sympathy for even a sarcastic dumbfuck "manbrain" excuse.
"I also understand that the version of feminism you're putting forth explicitly shunts men to a supporting role. "
Didn't I point out how "shunt" is loaded and that framing it where "supporting role" is inherently negative is missing the point? If not "supporting," you think men should have the primary role in feminism? Because EVERYTHING NOT FEMINISM wasn't enough? Don't you want men to have any weekends at all?
"No one, not even me, is saying that men should "only support feminism with the idea that they ought to get to run it.""
Arguing that a man should be able to declare what feminism is and isn't, to the point of not using the word, is "running it." Or a schism. Either way.
"What is being said, by you and others, is that feminism is intrinsically the domain of women because they are women."
Which you're reading as weirdly exclusionary, because you're inferring mistakenly that feminism being a project of women intrinsically (disagree on word choice but not gonna bother arguing that quibble) implies exclusivity.
"If that was the case, then where do the statements of Katy Perry and Taylor Swift fit in?"
As part of the great big conversation on what feminism means to individual women? Why is this hard?
"These are women who explicitly state that they are not feminists, do their statements weigh more than than a man who says that they are?"
Yes, obviously. Any person's statement about their own identity is more important than any other person's. Not all other persons, e.g. claiming you're not a murderer can be outweighed by a fairly high standard of evidence. But yeah, why is that so hard to get?
"I've asked this again and again without answer, so I ask again: what in Whedon's talk necessarily requires the input of the lived experience from a woman? "
It probably woulda been smarter if it acknowledged that the debate over "feminism" as a word has a long history within feminism. Women can say dumb things too, so it's not like gender is perfect proof against making dumb, glib arguments, but if you can't see how talking about "feminism" as a concept might be a little fraught and paternalistic without acknowledging all the women who have talked about this before him…
So, the basic concept, really.
"That's really the argument here, since we've moved far beyond anything Whedon actually said; is Whedon allowed to make feminist statements? Not even to speak for feminism, because it is far too diverse a movement for that, but can he be allowed to speak at all?"
Come the fuck on. You've got Whedon half up the hill to Calvary. Of course he can make feminist statements, broadly defined.
"You've repeatedly said "no." And with every instance you've portrayed Whedon as someone outside of feminism, and therefore not qualified to speak on the subject. On that subject you have been shown to be wrong."
This is the crux of your error. By saying that the word "feminism" is wrong and should be abandoned, even under the theory that it's because "feminist" should be normal and "sexist" (or "genderist," ugh), Whedon is speaking FOR feminism in a way that's tonedeaf. He isn't qualified to "speak on feminism" here because he's doing it in a way that speaks (or muses, really) for feminism. That's what has people shirty.
"This is the exact point Whedon was making."
No, not really.
posted by klangklangston at 12:07 AM on November 9, 2013 [4 favorites]
Right, but since I'm not making a positive claim there and you are, that's not a rebuttal.
"Black dudes? How 'bout like, an Arab dude, or some Chinese Malaysian guy?"
Uh, also probably should not be rejecting the word feminism if they want to be part of the project "feminism." There's no real doubt that bell hooks is on the side of gender justice, and she has her own reasons for critiquing "feminism" that are pretty well-considered. Random archetypical dude of any ethnicity is probably not a good bet unless they've got some serious amazeballs rationale.
"So the idea of "listening to women" sounds good, but the problem is that just in my country there are like a dozen dozen million of them and they're saying different and often completely incompatible things at me. If I tried to do some sort of "surely centrism must be correct" deal and average out opinions, survey says I end up not particularly feminist beyond the legal equity bits & waffle about the acceptability of abortion, which I don't gather would be acceptable at all. So not so much "listen to women" as "listen to feminist women" and even if I run with that my poor manbrain is only good at computer and certainly can't be expected to decide whether to listen to a trans-inclusive feminist vs. a gender-critical feminist or if a woman is trying to deceive me from the true path into mere liberal feminism."
I see defenses like this all the time, and it's like, what, man, seriously it just sounds like you're running through a checklist of lazy heuristics rather than bothering to engage with actually listening to anybody. And I just don't have any sympathy for even a sarcastic dumbfuck "manbrain" excuse.
"I also understand that the version of feminism you're putting forth explicitly shunts men to a supporting role. "
Didn't I point out how "shunt" is loaded and that framing it where "supporting role" is inherently negative is missing the point? If not "supporting," you think men should have the primary role in feminism? Because EVERYTHING NOT FEMINISM wasn't enough? Don't you want men to have any weekends at all?
"No one, not even me, is saying that men should "only support feminism with the idea that they ought to get to run it.""
Arguing that a man should be able to declare what feminism is and isn't, to the point of not using the word, is "running it." Or a schism. Either way.
"What is being said, by you and others, is that feminism is intrinsically the domain of women because they are women."
Which you're reading as weirdly exclusionary, because you're inferring mistakenly that feminism being a project of women intrinsically (disagree on word choice but not gonna bother arguing that quibble) implies exclusivity.
"If that was the case, then where do the statements of Katy Perry and Taylor Swift fit in?"
As part of the great big conversation on what feminism means to individual women? Why is this hard?
"These are women who explicitly state that they are not feminists, do their statements weigh more than than a man who says that they are?"
Yes, obviously. Any person's statement about their own identity is more important than any other person's. Not all other persons, e.g. claiming you're not a murderer can be outweighed by a fairly high standard of evidence. But yeah, why is that so hard to get?
"I've asked this again and again without answer, so I ask again: what in Whedon's talk necessarily requires the input of the lived experience from a woman? "
It probably woulda been smarter if it acknowledged that the debate over "feminism" as a word has a long history within feminism. Women can say dumb things too, so it's not like gender is perfect proof against making dumb, glib arguments, but if you can't see how talking about "feminism" as a concept might be a little fraught and paternalistic without acknowledging all the women who have talked about this before him…
So, the basic concept, really.
"That's really the argument here, since we've moved far beyond anything Whedon actually said; is Whedon allowed to make feminist statements? Not even to speak for feminism, because it is far too diverse a movement for that, but can he be allowed to speak at all?"
Come the fuck on. You've got Whedon half up the hill to Calvary. Of course he can make feminist statements, broadly defined.
"You've repeatedly said "no." And with every instance you've portrayed Whedon as someone outside of feminism, and therefore not qualified to speak on the subject. On that subject you have been shown to be wrong."
This is the crux of your error. By saying that the word "feminism" is wrong and should be abandoned, even under the theory that it's because "feminist" should be normal and "sexist" (or "genderist," ugh), Whedon is speaking FOR feminism in a way that's tonedeaf. He isn't qualified to "speak on feminism" here because he's doing it in a way that speaks (or muses, really) for feminism. That's what has people shirty.
"This is the exact point Whedon was making."
No, not really.
posted by klangklangston at 12:07 AM on November 9, 2013 [4 favorites]
Mod note: Comment deleted; nobody has to participate in this thread, but if you choose to do so, you need to be commenting in good faith and not just slinging random insults around.
posted by taz (staff) at 12:15 AM on November 9, 2013
posted by taz (staff) at 12:15 AM on November 9, 2013
My take on his speech is that he's saying that feminism should be the default, rather than a label needed to be applied to oneself; that the goals of the feminist movement should be considered inherent in what it means to be human, and people who don't believe in feminism are those who should apply a label to themselves, a negative label, like 'racist'.
It's a little 'in an ideal world...' but I don't see any problem with that, or see how thinking feminist values should be seen as basic human values is in any way anti-feminist.
But it's like he gave his speech a clickbait title and a bunch of people didn't get past it, and then heard the whole speech through the lens of 'but he wants to get rid of the word feminist, so fuck him'. Add in the (amply displayed) desire for people to nerd out on how much Joss Whedon disappoints them as a power-player in current genre media, and you get a lot of anger about someone saying equality for women should be seen as the norm, not as something branded with a word a lot of people shy away from. With an added dose of judging the worthiness of several actresses, because that's super relevant.
As for asking about men of other races, that's because continually pointing out that he's a white man makes it seem as if the race of the person saying this matters, that if he weren't white the response would be different. Where race comes into it is unclear.
posted by gadge emeritus at 12:41 AM on November 9, 2013 [4 favorites]
It's a little 'in an ideal world...' but I don't see any problem with that, or see how thinking feminist values should be seen as basic human values is in any way anti-feminist.
But it's like he gave his speech a clickbait title and a bunch of people didn't get past it, and then heard the whole speech through the lens of 'but he wants to get rid of the word feminist, so fuck him'. Add in the (amply displayed) desire for people to nerd out on how much Joss Whedon disappoints them as a power-player in current genre media, and you get a lot of anger about someone saying equality for women should be seen as the norm, not as something branded with a word a lot of people shy away from. With an added dose of judging the worthiness of several actresses, because that's super relevant.
As for asking about men of other races, that's because continually pointing out that he's a white man makes it seem as if the race of the person saying this matters, that if he weren't white the response would be different. Where race comes into it is unclear.
posted by gadge emeritus at 12:41 AM on November 9, 2013 [4 favorites]
It's a little 'in an ideal world...' but I don't see any problem with that, or see how thinking feminist values should be seen as basic human values is in any way anti-feminist.
I don't think anyone's disagreeing with him on that part. My problems with his argument (from the transcript, I can't watch the video now) are more about the rest of it:
- that by being a man telling feminists that 'feminism' is a bad word, he is in the company of many other men, many of them less interested in gender equality, telling feminists that 'feminism' is a bad word ("well if it's not about women being superior, why don't you call yourself equalists or humanists, HUH?", etc). Now, it is not Whedon's fault that these men exist and say these things; he does not need to apologise on their behalf. But he sounds kind of clueless himself to not even address that this is an annoying, persistent, mosquito-like whine in the ear of feminism from its more clueless critics, or not attempt to point out he's not doing it, when he launches into a "here's why the syllables of the word are unpleasing to my ears" thing.
- following on from that, that he doesn't even give a nod towards any of the discussions feminism has already had about the term, or even the fact that feminism has had and continues to have these discussions. His whole speech sounds like it could have started with "So I was thinking about this in the shower the other day, and..."
Now, it's not like nobody has any good ideas in the shower, or that anyone who wants to discuss feminism needs to hand in a literature review first! But, if you're going to address a bunch of feminists (whether or not you count yourself among them) with your thoughts on why the movement needs to change its terminology, and you do this with no apparent awareness or acknowledgement of all the anti-feminists saying the same thing, and you do this with no apparent awareness or acknowledgement of all the discussions about this very thing that feminism has already had, and you're convinced anyway that your uninformed views on the topic are ones people should listen to... then yes, you are going to come across as, at best, kind of clueless.
- Also, that his argument does not hold together. We already have a word for 'person who does not accept the basic tenets of gender equality', and that word is 'sexist'. But, he argues, people feel 'removed from' that word and don't think of it as describing themselves, so what we really need is a new word that won't have this problem... and then he uses 'racist' as an example of just such a word. Um. Really? Because, what, racism is a solved problem now?
So again, I don't disagree with him that we should all be working towards a world in which we don't need a word for 'believes in gender equality' because that's just the assumed default state of everyone. I am glad we are on the same side in having this goal. But I really don't think this speech was the best way to go about getting there.
posted by Catseye at 2:50 AM on November 9, 2013 [5 favorites]
I don't think anyone's disagreeing with him on that part. My problems with his argument (from the transcript, I can't watch the video now) are more about the rest of it:
- that by being a man telling feminists that 'feminism' is a bad word, he is in the company of many other men, many of them less interested in gender equality, telling feminists that 'feminism' is a bad word ("well if it's not about women being superior, why don't you call yourself equalists or humanists, HUH?", etc). Now, it is not Whedon's fault that these men exist and say these things; he does not need to apologise on their behalf. But he sounds kind of clueless himself to not even address that this is an annoying, persistent, mosquito-like whine in the ear of feminism from its more clueless critics, or not attempt to point out he's not doing it, when he launches into a "here's why the syllables of the word are unpleasing to my ears" thing.
- following on from that, that he doesn't even give a nod towards any of the discussions feminism has already had about the term, or even the fact that feminism has had and continues to have these discussions. His whole speech sounds like it could have started with "So I was thinking about this in the shower the other day, and..."
Now, it's not like nobody has any good ideas in the shower, or that anyone who wants to discuss feminism needs to hand in a literature review first! But, if you're going to address a bunch of feminists (whether or not you count yourself among them) with your thoughts on why the movement needs to change its terminology, and you do this with no apparent awareness or acknowledgement of all the anti-feminists saying the same thing, and you do this with no apparent awareness or acknowledgement of all the discussions about this very thing that feminism has already had, and you're convinced anyway that your uninformed views on the topic are ones people should listen to... then yes, you are going to come across as, at best, kind of clueless.
- Also, that his argument does not hold together. We already have a word for 'person who does not accept the basic tenets of gender equality', and that word is 'sexist'. But, he argues, people feel 'removed from' that word and don't think of it as describing themselves, so what we really need is a new word that won't have this problem... and then he uses 'racist' as an example of just such a word. Um. Really? Because, what, racism is a solved problem now?
So again, I don't disagree with him that we should all be working towards a world in which we don't need a word for 'believes in gender equality' because that's just the assumed default state of everyone. I am glad we are on the same side in having this goal. But I really don't think this speech was the best way to go about getting there.
posted by Catseye at 2:50 AM on November 9, 2013 [5 favorites]
But it's like he gave his speech a clickbait title and a bunch of people didn't get past it, and then heard the whole speech through the lens of 'but he wants to get rid of the word feminist, so fuck him'.
The main problem is that, by framing his speech around disliking the word feminist, he's stepped into a feminist minefield right out of the gate.
The topic of the word feminist, who calls themselves feminists, whether it's good to be seen as a feminist, who really "counts" as a feminist, etc. are all MAJOR hot button issues within the women's movement. Like friendship ending burn it to the ground possibly damaging to the movement issues.
So for some dude to come along and trample all over that in the name of a cute reversal for a speech at some gala is just... well, not really doing said dude any favors. Pretty much anyone who opens these discussions in the public sphere is not going to come out of it unscathed, but Joss Whedon? Oy vey.
I mean, people don't like it when established in-group figures like Alice Walker talk about abandoning the word feminism. The talons come out when someone like Katy Perry spouts off about "I'm not a feminist, but..." This is seriously, really and truly, something Joss Whedon cannot really talk about unscathed, especially in the framework of giving a speech and telling other people what's wrong with feminism today.
Which brings up another reason this leaves a bad taste in so many mouths. Pretty much the only time you hear about feminism in the media, it's about how feminism is wrong, feminism is bad, feminism is pointless, feminism is obsolete, feminism is dying. I get that this is the whole crux of that big reversal Whedon wanted to make in his speech, but, again, he's playing with fire, here.
What he wants to do basically can't possibly work. It's like giving a speech to the NAACP about how it's not fair that white people can't say the N word. Or giving a speech to the Jewish Anti-Defamation League about Holocaust denialism. Even if you flip it around at the end, it's just not a good idea to go there.
posted by Sara C. at 8:09 AM on November 9, 2013 [3 favorites]
The main problem is that, by framing his speech around disliking the word feminist, he's stepped into a feminist minefield right out of the gate.
The topic of the word feminist, who calls themselves feminists, whether it's good to be seen as a feminist, who really "counts" as a feminist, etc. are all MAJOR hot button issues within the women's movement. Like friendship ending burn it to the ground possibly damaging to the movement issues.
So for some dude to come along and trample all over that in the name of a cute reversal for a speech at some gala is just... well, not really doing said dude any favors. Pretty much anyone who opens these discussions in the public sphere is not going to come out of it unscathed, but Joss Whedon? Oy vey.
I mean, people don't like it when established in-group figures like Alice Walker talk about abandoning the word feminism. The talons come out when someone like Katy Perry spouts off about "I'm not a feminist, but..." This is seriously, really and truly, something Joss Whedon cannot really talk about unscathed, especially in the framework of giving a speech and telling other people what's wrong with feminism today.
Which brings up another reason this leaves a bad taste in so many mouths. Pretty much the only time you hear about feminism in the media, it's about how feminism is wrong, feminism is bad, feminism is pointless, feminism is obsolete, feminism is dying. I get that this is the whole crux of that big reversal Whedon wanted to make in his speech, but, again, he's playing with fire, here.
What he wants to do basically can't possibly work. It's like giving a speech to the NAACP about how it's not fair that white people can't say the N word. Or giving a speech to the Jewish Anti-Defamation League about Holocaust denialism. Even if you flip it around at the end, it's just not a good idea to go there.
posted by Sara C. at 8:09 AM on November 9, 2013 [3 favorites]
I think focussing on the meaning of one word instead of discussing real, tangible and actionable things is playing a bit into the "genderists'" obfuscating agenda, but I do oh-so-love Joss Whedon's body of work so hopefully this is only a one-off for losing the script and not the beginning of a trend.
posted by Skwirl at 11:48 AM on November 9, 2013
posted by Skwirl at 11:48 AM on November 9, 2013
Really I feel a little sorry for male feminists, cause it's like circular firing squad funtime but you're not even allowed to fire your gun.
As a male feminist and a fairly vocal one, please let me assure you that male feminists are not being attacked, that there is nothing that anyone has said that threatens or belittles my status and participation in the feminist movement in any way, and even if there were something like that, I'd still be a male feminist because that makes the world better. My conspicuous assertion of equality principles is not contingent on anyone being nice to me for it or the assumption more power than I have earned. There is absolutely nothing for you to feel sorry for me about, so while I appreciate your sympathy, it's really not required, everything is all good.
It's like giving a speech to the NAACP about how it's not fair that white people can't say the N word.
Actually, for me, the analogy that comes to mind is Joss Whedon addressing the NAACP and telling them that they should probably stop having "coloured" in their organization title, because others find it divisive and isn't it time we just assumed that people of color are advanced?
posted by Errant at 1:52 PM on November 9, 2013 [10 favorites]
As a male feminist and a fairly vocal one, please let me assure you that male feminists are not being attacked, that there is nothing that anyone has said that threatens or belittles my status and participation in the feminist movement in any way, and even if there were something like that, I'd still be a male feminist because that makes the world better. My conspicuous assertion of equality principles is not contingent on anyone being nice to me for it or the assumption more power than I have earned. There is absolutely nothing for you to feel sorry for me about, so while I appreciate your sympathy, it's really not required, everything is all good.
It's like giving a speech to the NAACP about how it's not fair that white people can't say the N word.
Actually, for me, the analogy that comes to mind is Joss Whedon addressing the NAACP and telling them that they should probably stop having "coloured" in their organization title, because others find it divisive and isn't it time we just assumed that people of color are advanced?
posted by Errant at 1:52 PM on November 9, 2013 [10 favorites]
I thought of another thing about this while in the shower.
So, lately there are some meme-ish images and quotes from Patrick Stewart regarding feminism. Because of that, I realized he's a really interesting counterpoint to Joss Whedon's speech.
Patrick Stewart has gotten involved in women's issues in one specific -- and actually useful -- way. Specifically, he's been speaking out against domestic violence. A++++ would activist again!
You know why?
Firstly, the issue he's taken up is an issue that also involves men. Men have the power to stop abusing the women in their lives. It is clearly a positive thing when a man who has such a strong male fan base stands up and makes it clear that domestic violence is not OK. Because it means you can get other dudes who are X-Men fans or Trekkies or aware of Patrick Stewart for whatever reason thinking about this stuff. Which is great, since I think the Venn diagram of Male Geeks and Women's Studies Students is pretty small.
Secondly, he's helping. He's not telling anyone else how to run their movement. He's not demanding to be the Grand High Leader Of Feminism. He's doing something that is pretty uniquely in his power to do, which (AFAIK?) no female feminist movement leader can really accomplish. This is the kind of thing I mean when I say "Wanna help? Great, go order some porta-potties for the next march on Washington." DO SOMETHING. Don't just stand around and pontificate. And if for some reason you're in a position where pontificating is your greatest skill set you can give to feminism, pontificate in a useful manner. As Patrick Stewart is doing.
Thirdly, he's not stepping on any toes. Not only is he doing a thing that female feminists can't really do as effectively has he can, he's also doing something that pretty much all feminists, everywhere, agree is the number one way men can help the women's movement. STOP RAPING PEOPLE. Speak out about violence against women. Understand your role in the patriarchy. Stand up for women in contexts where you're not asking for a cookie but really saying something with meaning. This is the kind of male feminism everybody agrees is great. He's not immediately walking into the #1 minefield no dude should ever try to take on. It's like he googled "how can I, a white dude, help feminists" and then went with the top suggestion, "speak out against violence against women."
Patrick Stewart is a great example of a male feminist. Joss Whedon? Meh.
posted by Sara C. at 4:55 PM on November 9, 2013 [5 favorites]
So, lately there are some meme-ish images and quotes from Patrick Stewart regarding feminism. Because of that, I realized he's a really interesting counterpoint to Joss Whedon's speech.
Patrick Stewart has gotten involved in women's issues in one specific -- and actually useful -- way. Specifically, he's been speaking out against domestic violence. A++++ would activist again!
You know why?
Firstly, the issue he's taken up is an issue that also involves men. Men have the power to stop abusing the women in their lives. It is clearly a positive thing when a man who has such a strong male fan base stands up and makes it clear that domestic violence is not OK. Because it means you can get other dudes who are X-Men fans or Trekkies or aware of Patrick Stewart for whatever reason thinking about this stuff. Which is great, since I think the Venn diagram of Male Geeks and Women's Studies Students is pretty small.
Secondly, he's helping. He's not telling anyone else how to run their movement. He's not demanding to be the Grand High Leader Of Feminism. He's doing something that is pretty uniquely in his power to do, which (AFAIK?) no female feminist movement leader can really accomplish. This is the kind of thing I mean when I say "Wanna help? Great, go order some porta-potties for the next march on Washington." DO SOMETHING. Don't just stand around and pontificate. And if for some reason you're in a position where pontificating is your greatest skill set you can give to feminism, pontificate in a useful manner. As Patrick Stewart is doing.
Thirdly, he's not stepping on any toes. Not only is he doing a thing that female feminists can't really do as effectively has he can, he's also doing something that pretty much all feminists, everywhere, agree is the number one way men can help the women's movement. STOP RAPING PEOPLE. Speak out about violence against women. Understand your role in the patriarchy. Stand up for women in contexts where you're not asking for a cookie but really saying something with meaning. This is the kind of male feminism everybody agrees is great. He's not immediately walking into the #1 minefield no dude should ever try to take on. It's like he googled "how can I, a white dude, help feminists" and then went with the top suggestion, "speak out against violence against women."
Patrick Stewart is a great example of a male feminist. Joss Whedon? Meh.
posted by Sara C. at 4:55 PM on November 9, 2013 [5 favorites]
Regardless of whether his heart has in the past been seen to be in the right place or not, he's taken the attitude of the very clever boy who brags how he's fixed something he decided was busted that the girls couldn't figure out how to fix on their own.
posted by aught at 5:15 PM on November 9, 2013 [3 favorites]
posted by aught at 5:15 PM on November 9, 2013 [3 favorites]
This is a clip of Patrick Stewart answering a fan's question and talking about his work around domestic violence. It's worth watching as a counterpoint to the video we're discussing here. "It's in [men's] power to stop violence towards women". Make it so.
posted by billiebee at 5:33 PM on November 9, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by billiebee at 5:33 PM on November 9, 2013 [1 favorite]
In addition to men wanting to be feminist allies because it's the just thing to do, I would assume most men have women in their lives that they love and care about, and would like to see those women thrive as equals. I also do honestly think that men who engage with feminism and femininity will have fuller, richer lives as well. One traditionally "feminine" characteristic is to take on the supporting role - to let someone else decide what is to be done, and to show up to support and protect the other person's back; feminism is a good place for men to practice this.
I happen to love Joss Whedon's work (whity quips, like eyeliner, is just a THING for me), but I'm not blind to the pass he gets by the majority of privileged white feminists like me; he gets a lot of praise for really not doing too much and there are significant sexist undertones to his work and how he interacts with the actors who work with him. Pointing this out, and the issues with him choosing wit over wisdom while speaking about feminism this time is part of the messy process of figuring out what an actual equal society is like. Unfortunately, since he is white, male and a vocal feminist, people will pay a lot more attention to him than to the women who have made more substantial critiques in the past (the womanist movement springs to mind, in rightly calling feminism on it's long history and often current maintenance of racism).
posted by Deoridhe at 7:01 PM on November 9, 2013 [4 favorites]
I happen to love Joss Whedon's work (whity quips, like eyeliner, is just a THING for me), but I'm not blind to the pass he gets by the majority of privileged white feminists like me; he gets a lot of praise for really not doing too much and there are significant sexist undertones to his work and how he interacts with the actors who work with him. Pointing this out, and the issues with him choosing wit over wisdom while speaking about feminism this time is part of the messy process of figuring out what an actual equal society is like. Unfortunately, since he is white, male and a vocal feminist, people will pay a lot more attention to him than to the women who have made more substantial critiques in the past (the womanist movement springs to mind, in rightly calling feminism on it's long history and often current maintenance of racism).
posted by Deoridhe at 7:01 PM on November 9, 2013 [4 favorites]
I see defenses like this all the time, and it's like, what, man, seriously it just sounds like you're running through a checklist of lazy heuristics rather than bothering to engage with actually listening to anybody.
I mostly find the presentation of feminism as the collective voice of women disingenuous, closely tied with the "feminism is the belief women are equal to men" thing that makes me think "and Judaism is the belief in a monotheistic god." To me, rather than identifying feminism with women, it looks more like a relatively unpopular, but still pretty substantially-sized, political movement whose adherents skew female, leaders heavily so. Women I've actually engaged in listening to in real life have almost all either been "not a feminist" or some kind of feminism (either more 2nd wave-ish or "liberal"/"choice", seemed to see "just politics" as a thing that could be set aside) that I gather would be déclassé if not morally repugnant for the feminism I listen to these days on the Internet.
So basically if I find myself considering "what women think/want" like when I have to vote or something, feminism is in there but not dominant. In general the idea that the right answer can be found at the center of a poll is definitely lazy & fallacious, but I feel like when we enter the realm of norms and social constructs the right answers are actually somewhat determined by "what everyone thinks," though I guess that kind of involves some positions on epistemology & ethics.
And I just don't have any sympathy for even a sarcastic dumbfuck "manbrain" excuse.
Some sarcasm, yeah, but the thing is you do this shit for a living. I've got other work to do & follow sometimes out of a bit of an interest - which probably still makes me a bit more knowledgeable on it than the average American who I don't think is following along too much at all - and it actually can be hard to keep up sometimes. The trans* stuff especially, I have a real hard time trying to gin up some kind of internally consistent picture of the theory there in my head (I end up with weird premises and/or unacceptable conclusions), and I'm pretty sure the first time I read about trans* stuff 10-15 years ago everything was entirely different. Maybe entirely my problem, but I think it speaks somewhat to a failure of feminist communication if not of the underlying theories. Generally getting the sense that feminism isn't too big on the PR/communications part, so that's fine if that's the plan, I guess.
But anyway, "listen to women, you are a man you have no experience here," just doesn't work for me, I end up having to use my limited male perspective to decide which women to listen to & which are full of shit anyway. Can pretty much believe most anything I want & then find a decent number of women putting forth the same views, hell, r/RedPillWomen is a thing.
There is absolutely nothing for you to feel sorry for me about, so while I appreciate your sympathy, it's really not required, everything is all good.
Not so much you guys getting attacked, it's that if there's one thing I've learned from listening to feminists it's that feminists love arguing at other feminists, and I just feel like you guys are missing out on a core part. I guess you get to argue with other male feminists, & maybe gender-critical feminists and the like who are really on the outs?
posted by save alive nothing that breatheth at 8:15 PM on November 9, 2013 [1 favorite]
I mostly find the presentation of feminism as the collective voice of women disingenuous, closely tied with the "feminism is the belief women are equal to men" thing that makes me think "and Judaism is the belief in a monotheistic god." To me, rather than identifying feminism with women, it looks more like a relatively unpopular, but still pretty substantially-sized, political movement whose adherents skew female, leaders heavily so. Women I've actually engaged in listening to in real life have almost all either been "not a feminist" or some kind of feminism (either more 2nd wave-ish or "liberal"/"choice", seemed to see "just politics" as a thing that could be set aside) that I gather would be déclassé if not morally repugnant for the feminism I listen to these days on the Internet.
So basically if I find myself considering "what women think/want" like when I have to vote or something, feminism is in there but not dominant. In general the idea that the right answer can be found at the center of a poll is definitely lazy & fallacious, but I feel like when we enter the realm of norms and social constructs the right answers are actually somewhat determined by "what everyone thinks," though I guess that kind of involves some positions on epistemology & ethics.
And I just don't have any sympathy for even a sarcastic dumbfuck "manbrain" excuse.
Some sarcasm, yeah, but the thing is you do this shit for a living. I've got other work to do & follow sometimes out of a bit of an interest - which probably still makes me a bit more knowledgeable on it than the average American who I don't think is following along too much at all - and it actually can be hard to keep up sometimes. The trans* stuff especially, I have a real hard time trying to gin up some kind of internally consistent picture of the theory there in my head (I end up with weird premises and/or unacceptable conclusions), and I'm pretty sure the first time I read about trans* stuff 10-15 years ago everything was entirely different. Maybe entirely my problem, but I think it speaks somewhat to a failure of feminist communication if not of the underlying theories. Generally getting the sense that feminism isn't too big on the PR/communications part, so that's fine if that's the plan, I guess.
But anyway, "listen to women, you are a man you have no experience here," just doesn't work for me, I end up having to use my limited male perspective to decide which women to listen to & which are full of shit anyway. Can pretty much believe most anything I want & then find a decent number of women putting forth the same views, hell, r/RedPillWomen is a thing.
There is absolutely nothing for you to feel sorry for me about, so while I appreciate your sympathy, it's really not required, everything is all good.
Not so much you guys getting attacked, it's that if there's one thing I've learned from listening to feminists it's that feminists love arguing at other feminists, and I just feel like you guys are missing out on a core part. I guess you get to argue with other male feminists, & maybe gender-critical feminists and the like who are really on the outs?
posted by save alive nothing that breatheth at 8:15 PM on November 9, 2013 [1 favorite]
I mostly find the presentation of feminism as the collective voice of women disingenuous
Nobody has ever suggested that this is the case.
Seriously.
Feminism is a political movement.
Just like any political movement, some women are into it, other women are against it, and probably most women don't think much about it one way or the other.
Studies show that, when asked questions about feminist goals/ideals like "women and men should be paid equally" or "women have as much right to education as men" or "women should have control of their reproductive systems", the majority of American women identify with said feminist goals. Despite potentially not being politically active or specifically taking an interest in feminism as a movement.
For example, while Taylor Swift says that she's not a feminist, she probably believes that rape is wrong, and that it's wrong because it violates women's bodies/personhood, not because it damages male property.
So, OK, Taylor Swift can continue not being a feminist. But that doesn't make the feminist movement just a bunch of irrelevant shrill harpies. In fact, Swift's freedom to enjoy feminist victories without even being aware of them proves how necessary feminism is.
Either way, nobody ever claimed that all women are feminists, or that feminists speak for all women, individually, even about non-political topics like whether cake is preferable to pie or whatever you're imagining.
Despite having our own political movement, we're still not a fucking hivemind.
posted by Sara C. at 8:22 PM on November 9, 2013 [2 favorites]
Nobody has ever suggested that this is the case.
Seriously.
Feminism is a political movement.
Just like any political movement, some women are into it, other women are against it, and probably most women don't think much about it one way or the other.
Studies show that, when asked questions about feminist goals/ideals like "women and men should be paid equally" or "women have as much right to education as men" or "women should have control of their reproductive systems", the majority of American women identify with said feminist goals. Despite potentially not being politically active or specifically taking an interest in feminism as a movement.
For example, while Taylor Swift says that she's not a feminist, she probably believes that rape is wrong, and that it's wrong because it violates women's bodies/personhood, not because it damages male property.
So, OK, Taylor Swift can continue not being a feminist. But that doesn't make the feminist movement just a bunch of irrelevant shrill harpies. In fact, Swift's freedom to enjoy feminist victories without even being aware of them proves how necessary feminism is.
Either way, nobody ever claimed that all women are feminists, or that feminists speak for all women, individually, even about non-political topics like whether cake is preferable to pie or whatever you're imagining.
Despite having our own political movement, we're still not a fucking hivemind.
posted by Sara C. at 8:22 PM on November 9, 2013 [2 favorites]
I've got other work to do & follow sometimes out of a bit of an interest - which probably still makes me a bit more knowledgeable on it than the average American
So you "sometimes" follow out of a "bit of an interest". In that case I would humbly suggest you consider that you may be less "knowledgeable" than you think, and advise you to listen to those who may know more (not because we do it "for a living", but because we live it, if you can see the difference) rather than making sweeping and incorrect generalisations about what feminism is.
posted by billiebee at 4:24 AM on November 10, 2013 [1 favorite]
So you "sometimes" follow out of a "bit of an interest". In that case I would humbly suggest you consider that you may be less "knowledgeable" than you think, and advise you to listen to those who may know more (not because we do it "for a living", but because we live it, if you can see the difference) rather than making sweeping and incorrect generalisations about what feminism is.
posted by billiebee at 4:24 AM on November 10, 2013 [1 favorite]
I understand from other threads that klangklangston engages his feminism professionally, is what I was getting at.
Is there like, a decent online quiz or something I could use to gauge my knowledge? Like I said, I'm not claiming a lot, more saying that I think the average person has even less.
posted by save alive nothing that breatheth at 6:50 AM on November 10, 2013
Is there like, a decent online quiz or something I could use to gauge my knowledge? Like I said, I'm not claiming a lot, more saying that I think the average person has even less.
posted by save alive nothing that breatheth at 6:50 AM on November 10, 2013
Not so much you guys getting attacked, it's that if there's one thing I've learned from listening to feminists it's that feminists love arguing at other feminists, and I just feel like you guys are missing out on a core part. I guess you get to argue with other male feminists, & maybe gender-critical feminists and the like who are really on the outs?
Well, I get to argue with whoever I want about whatever I want. There is no part of the conversation that is barred to me or in which I feel unwelcome. What I should also do is be mindful of the fact that my lived experience is different from other people's, that their experience contains a lifetime of structural silencing and marginalization, and that I do not wish to contribute to that. Therefore I try not to speak from a place of assumed authority. I try not to presume that my experience is a sufficient representation of other people's. I try to remember that this is not a theoretical struggle, and that there is a degree to which this will always be slightly abstract for me in a way that it is not for women, and so I should probably make sure that I'm not veering so far into arguing an abstract point, like the relative euphony of "feminism", that I lose sight of the practical message.
But male feminists aren't marginalized inside feminism. I wouldn't say I like arguing "at" other feminists, but I do like hashing out some of the theory stuff, and I've never been made to feel unwelcome or that my voice wasn't important. It's actually pretty easy not to feel like that, once one stops speaking for other people and starts listening to what they're saying instead. If I disagree with Sara C. about something, which I probably do because we both seem like fairly opinionated people, we will have a disagreement and a conversation. My participation in the feminist movement is not at stake in that conversation. I need to be mindful of the fact that we are both from a social structure in which my voice tends to be given undue weight, but assuming we both correct for that to the best of our abilities, there's no reason that we can't have a disagreement, and I'm not at a disadvantage because I'm a man. I'm just, for once, not at a presumed advantage. That can feel like a downgrade for some people, and I guess in some ways it is, but whatever personal loss I may or may not feel in abdicating that power is far outweighed by the social and political benefits of her voice having equal weight.
So I don't know where this impression is coming from that male feminists are the whipping boys of the feminist movement, and to be honest I'm getting a little tired of people telling me how sad they are for my presumed emasculation. I'm not missing out on any part of the conversation. Sure, there are some women-only spaces where I don't and wouldn't go, but the stories from those spaces will make it out to me in due course, and safe spaces are necessary. We should know, men have a lot more of them than women do, and our safe spaces are more aggressively hostile against intrusion. I'm not an unwelcome participant, and feminism doesn't secretly hate me. It is really, totally all good. You should come hang out and join the conversation, it's actually pretty nice over here, and there's all kinds of neat stuff to learn and do.
posted by Errant at 11:25 AM on November 10, 2013 [7 favorites]
Well, I get to argue with whoever I want about whatever I want. There is no part of the conversation that is barred to me or in which I feel unwelcome. What I should also do is be mindful of the fact that my lived experience is different from other people's, that their experience contains a lifetime of structural silencing and marginalization, and that I do not wish to contribute to that. Therefore I try not to speak from a place of assumed authority. I try not to presume that my experience is a sufficient representation of other people's. I try to remember that this is not a theoretical struggle, and that there is a degree to which this will always be slightly abstract for me in a way that it is not for women, and so I should probably make sure that I'm not veering so far into arguing an abstract point, like the relative euphony of "feminism", that I lose sight of the practical message.
But male feminists aren't marginalized inside feminism. I wouldn't say I like arguing "at" other feminists, but I do like hashing out some of the theory stuff, and I've never been made to feel unwelcome or that my voice wasn't important. It's actually pretty easy not to feel like that, once one stops speaking for other people and starts listening to what they're saying instead. If I disagree with Sara C. about something, which I probably do because we both seem like fairly opinionated people, we will have a disagreement and a conversation. My participation in the feminist movement is not at stake in that conversation. I need to be mindful of the fact that we are both from a social structure in which my voice tends to be given undue weight, but assuming we both correct for that to the best of our abilities, there's no reason that we can't have a disagreement, and I'm not at a disadvantage because I'm a man. I'm just, for once, not at a presumed advantage. That can feel like a downgrade for some people, and I guess in some ways it is, but whatever personal loss I may or may not feel in abdicating that power is far outweighed by the social and political benefits of her voice having equal weight.
So I don't know where this impression is coming from that male feminists are the whipping boys of the feminist movement, and to be honest I'm getting a little tired of people telling me how sad they are for my presumed emasculation. I'm not missing out on any part of the conversation. Sure, there are some women-only spaces where I don't and wouldn't go, but the stories from those spaces will make it out to me in due course, and safe spaces are necessary. We should know, men have a lot more of them than women do, and our safe spaces are more aggressively hostile against intrusion. I'm not an unwelcome participant, and feminism doesn't secretly hate me. It is really, totally all good. You should come hang out and join the conversation, it's actually pretty nice over here, and there's all kinds of neat stuff to learn and do.
posted by Errant at 11:25 AM on November 10, 2013 [7 favorites]
if there's one thing I've learned from listening to feminists it's that feminists love arguing at other feminists, and I just feel like you guys are missing out on a core part.
And who are you to ride in on your white horse and tell us we're doing it wrong by arguing amongst ourselves?
Look, to be perfectly honest I agree that the women's movement could accomplish specific political goals more easily if we were more in lockstep and discouraged petty squabbling about who wears mascara or who prefers the term "womanist" or whose parenting approach is better. It's for this reason that I somewhat* wish the US had a specifically feminist-aligned political party.
But due to the nature of the women's movement, it's just not a top-down thing that is suited to party lines and talking points. And that's ultimately a strength rather than a weakness. I'll take a big amorphous mass of all types of women, coming together to create gradual social change that, slowly but surely, nudges the political stuff in the right direction. What's important is that we're moving in the right direction. What's important is that everybody has a voice. What's important is that we have a space where we can talk about stuff like body image and motherhood and intersectionality and terminology/theory. Because outside of the women's movement, that space doesn't exist.
If you want to be an ally, you've got to get on board with the women's movement as it actually is, not as you think it could be if only you were in charge of it.
*Somewhat, because without a parliamentary system in the US, there's really no point for such a thing to exist, and in fact aligning ourselves with general liberal/left interests is much more strategically worthwhile.
posted by Sara C. at 12:32 PM on November 10, 2013
And who are you to ride in on your white horse and tell us we're doing it wrong by arguing amongst ourselves?
Look, to be perfectly honest I agree that the women's movement could accomplish specific political goals more easily if we were more in lockstep and discouraged petty squabbling about who wears mascara or who prefers the term "womanist" or whose parenting approach is better. It's for this reason that I somewhat* wish the US had a specifically feminist-aligned political party.
But due to the nature of the women's movement, it's just not a top-down thing that is suited to party lines and talking points. And that's ultimately a strength rather than a weakness. I'll take a big amorphous mass of all types of women, coming together to create gradual social change that, slowly but surely, nudges the political stuff in the right direction. What's important is that we're moving in the right direction. What's important is that everybody has a voice. What's important is that we have a space where we can talk about stuff like body image and motherhood and intersectionality and terminology/theory. Because outside of the women's movement, that space doesn't exist.
If you want to be an ally, you've got to get on board with the women's movement as it actually is, not as you think it could be if only you were in charge of it.
*Somewhat, because without a parliamentary system in the US, there's really no point for such a thing to exist, and in fact aligning ourselves with general liberal/left interests is much more strategically worthwhile.
posted by Sara C. at 12:32 PM on November 10, 2013
Ugh shit oh no I totally misunderstood Errant's post. Friendly fire! Friendly fire! I'd edit the tone/intent of that post, but I think that's frowned upon, so I'm leaving it as is with this short note that I misunderstood and meant no attack on Errant's position.
posted by Sara C. at 12:33 PM on November 10, 2013
posted by Sara C. at 12:33 PM on November 10, 2013
How men who support the goals of feminism can get involved in a practical way - one million men, one million promises.
If you think you hear a woman being abused Ring the Bell.
posted by billiebee at 12:47 PM on November 10, 2013
If you think you hear a woman being abused Ring the Bell.
posted by billiebee at 12:47 PM on November 10, 2013
Well, you were quoting save alive nothing that breatheth, not me, so I'm not sure what the confusion is, but I don't think we were saying anything too different, so that seems fine.
posted by Errant at 12:48 PM on November 10, 2013
posted by Errant at 12:48 PM on November 10, 2013
This really continues to bother me. I hate to make this thread about how I feel about what Sarah C. is saying, but if I'm reading her correctly, she is articulating a vision of feminism that I find frankly terrifying.
It's a vision of feminism in which I, as not-a-woman, cannot reason my way through issues about women's rights, dignity, and equality, and moreover can't articulate any thoughts about those topics to others. It's a vision in which I can't even call myself a feminist without it being some kind of super-volatile "friendship ending burn it to the ground" poison.
Here's a trite example involving video games. I've been playing Lunar 1 on the PSP in my limited spare time. It's a classic game that's much beloved by fans of all genders. It keeps making "best of" lists, apparently on the quality of its characterization.
I am incredibly frustrated with this characterization, the kinds of values the game's story assigns to its characters, the kinds of relationships those characters engage in, and the light in which the story casts these relationships.
There's the innately magical and pure girl who is abducted early on in the game and motivates the boy-hero to deeds of derring-do. There's the shy, cloistered wallflower who gets doted on by a creepy, neurotic kid, and by the end she thanks him for giving her the strength to continue thanks to his love and devotion. There's the girl who's in love with a slobbering drunk, which she shows through constant bickering. The evil female characters are bad girls in BDSM outfits. There are two hot spring scenes: an icky one with boys and a special one with girls. You can collect pin-ups. We get a lot of talk about the good girls in the game pitching jealous fits, and a lot of talk about how it's the lot of men to defend their women. One of the most common poses for the good girls' character portraits is the "wagging finger of shame," because a thing that good girls do is scold and rebuke and manipulate emotionally to get their man to do what they want. It's a non-stop drumbeat of "traditional gender tropes," and I'm terrified that this sort of thing is widely considered to be a high-water mark for quality storytelling.
And then there comes along this alternative vision of feminism, and suddenly I've lost all of my conceptual bearings. How do I even know that these tropes are misogynist? What entitles me to make these assumptions? Maybe it's only up to a woman to make this call. Maybe my opinion that the game depicts dysfunctional relationships as normal and even heartwarming is actually an example of presumptuous, uninformed arrogance.
What if there are female Lunar fans (as there no doubt are) who love these characters and think there's nothing wrong with these tropes? Is my opinion that there is, then, itself an example of men barging in with their half-baked, uninformed judgments?
Essentially, if enough people believe in the vision of feminism that I'm hearing Sarah C. articulate, then I have no idea how to be an effective ally in everyday life. For me, being a women's ally and a feminist is in large part about pointing out instances of misogyny and trying to unpack unexamined assumptions and try to lay out what makes them problematic. I don't volunteer at women's shelters and I don't march in marches. This is how I participate. If it turns out that I am not welcome to reason about gender relation issues, then I guess I don't know how to think about this stuff anymore. Thanks, Sarah C.
posted by Nomyte at 9:02 PM on November 10, 2013
It's a vision of feminism in which I, as not-a-woman, cannot reason my way through issues about women's rights, dignity, and equality, and moreover can't articulate any thoughts about those topics to others. It's a vision in which I can't even call myself a feminist without it being some kind of super-volatile "friendship ending burn it to the ground" poison.
Here's a trite example involving video games. I've been playing Lunar 1 on the PSP in my limited spare time. It's a classic game that's much beloved by fans of all genders. It keeps making "best of" lists, apparently on the quality of its characterization.
I am incredibly frustrated with this characterization, the kinds of values the game's story assigns to its characters, the kinds of relationships those characters engage in, and the light in which the story casts these relationships.
There's the innately magical and pure girl who is abducted early on in the game and motivates the boy-hero to deeds of derring-do. There's the shy, cloistered wallflower who gets doted on by a creepy, neurotic kid, and by the end she thanks him for giving her the strength to continue thanks to his love and devotion. There's the girl who's in love with a slobbering drunk, which she shows through constant bickering. The evil female characters are bad girls in BDSM outfits. There are two hot spring scenes: an icky one with boys and a special one with girls. You can collect pin-ups. We get a lot of talk about the good girls in the game pitching jealous fits, and a lot of talk about how it's the lot of men to defend their women. One of the most common poses for the good girls' character portraits is the "wagging finger of shame," because a thing that good girls do is scold and rebuke and manipulate emotionally to get their man to do what they want. It's a non-stop drumbeat of "traditional gender tropes," and I'm terrified that this sort of thing is widely considered to be a high-water mark for quality storytelling.
And then there comes along this alternative vision of feminism, and suddenly I've lost all of my conceptual bearings. How do I even know that these tropes are misogynist? What entitles me to make these assumptions? Maybe it's only up to a woman to make this call. Maybe my opinion that the game depicts dysfunctional relationships as normal and even heartwarming is actually an example of presumptuous, uninformed arrogance.
What if there are female Lunar fans (as there no doubt are) who love these characters and think there's nothing wrong with these tropes? Is my opinion that there is, then, itself an example of men barging in with their half-baked, uninformed judgments?
Essentially, if enough people believe in the vision of feminism that I'm hearing Sarah C. articulate, then I have no idea how to be an effective ally in everyday life. For me, being a women's ally and a feminist is in large part about pointing out instances of misogyny and trying to unpack unexamined assumptions and try to lay out what makes them problematic. I don't volunteer at women's shelters and I don't march in marches. This is how I participate. If it turns out that I am not welcome to reason about gender relation issues, then I guess I don't know how to think about this stuff anymore. Thanks, Sarah C.
posted by Nomyte at 9:02 PM on November 10, 2013
cannot reason my way through issues about women's rights, dignity, and equality, and moreover can't articulate any thoughts about those topics to others. It's a vision in which I can't even call myself a feminist without it being some kind of super-volatile "friendship ending burn it to the ground" poison.
Of course you can do all those things.
But if one of the things you want to articulate is that the word "feminism" is dumb and we should be calling ourselves something else, be prepared for people to have a HUGE chip on their shoulder about it.
Same for any other "here is my list of things that feminism is doing all wrong and how they need to change their focus to something I would prefer" type of subject.
Basically, if you want to be a feminist, listen more than you talk. Your default assumption should be that the basic notions of feminism are correct, and that no drastic shifts in outlook, strategy, or nomenclature are necessary for you to participate. Live your feminism through behavior and action first, rather than only pontificating. And if you find that most of your pontificating is of the concern troll variety, stop and think about why that is and if it's valuable.
While it's OK to question things and make your voice heard, be prepared for others to disagree. Also, understand that there are some things you'll simply never have access to within the movement (including the right to lead) because you are male. And that's life.
posted by Sara C. at 9:26 PM on November 10, 2013 [6 favorites]
Of course you can do all those things.
But if one of the things you want to articulate is that the word "feminism" is dumb and we should be calling ourselves something else, be prepared for people to have a HUGE chip on their shoulder about it.
Same for any other "here is my list of things that feminism is doing all wrong and how they need to change their focus to something I would prefer" type of subject.
Basically, if you want to be a feminist, listen more than you talk. Your default assumption should be that the basic notions of feminism are correct, and that no drastic shifts in outlook, strategy, or nomenclature are necessary for you to participate. Live your feminism through behavior and action first, rather than only pontificating. And if you find that most of your pontificating is of the concern troll variety, stop and think about why that is and if it's valuable.
While it's OK to question things and make your voice heard, be prepared for others to disagree. Also, understand that there are some things you'll simply never have access to within the movement (including the right to lead) because you are male. And that's life.
posted by Sara C. at 9:26 PM on November 10, 2013 [6 favorites]
While it's OK to question things and make your voice heard, be prepared for others to disagree. Also, understand that there are some things you'll simply never have access to within the movement (including the right to lead) because you are male. And that's life.
Can I get all the men in this thread who don't understand this to read it over and over again until it sinks in? Thanks.
I think a lot of the men in this thread who are confused are confused because they are so used to being listened to that it makes them uncomfortable and truly puzzled when they are told they should be primarily listening. So many men in this thread who are confused about whether they are feminists or can call themselves feminists or aren't sure how to engage with feminism are trying to figure out a way to define feminism and their role in it - because that's the way society works for them. There's a need for them and there's a way they fit. And for feminism, they need a ready and working definition or else they think it's broken. So many comments here on how to fix things - beginning with Joss Whedon's speech that is about trying to redefine a word or find a new word or something that's so inherently unimportant to the movement.
I think I get where Whedon is coming from, too. But it's coming from a point of view of privilege that he doesn't even recognise. He thinks he's doing his darnedest to fight sexism and misogyny in a way that works for him - using clever words to make things better. And his earlier speech to Equality Now, "Why Do You Write Such Strong Female Characters," worked so much better because it figured out how he fit into the feminist movement. That was how he fit, by being a feminist writer. He wasn't trying to redefine things outside his control, he looked at the inherent sexism involved in the question - and the asking of that question - and answered that question. For himself.
I don't know where other men in this thread fit on the continuum of feminism or how they identify. Some men are clearly male feminists because they identify that way. Others are but don't identify that way. Some are still confused. Hey guys, confusion is okay. I know you're not used to it, or maybe you are - but in any case, if you're confused, just listen. Figure out where you fit in. Not where feminism fits around you.
I'm a playwright and theatremaker in Melbourne. A lot of my plays feature lead female characters. I'm asked again and again about how I am able to write female characters - strong or not, but realistic. My boilerplate answer is generally this: I don't think men and women are that different from each other. I don't think women are that unknowable that I can't empathise with them enough to write a functioning female character in a play.
But I can't write a woman from a woman's point of view. I am not a female writer.
And when I look at theatre companies across Australia and across the world and see such appalling statistics when it comes to female writers, I despair. I can't do anything about being a female writer, BUT - I can definitely support female writers and I can definitely support companies that support female writers. That doesn't change the fact that I am a male writer; when my work is programmed or produced, I guess, by definition, there's one slot that's not being filled by a female writer.
So guys who don't know where they fit or how they define themselves - please listen. Please think about what you do and where you fit in. You don't need to redefine the feminist movement, but maybe you need to define or redefine yourself.
posted by crossoverman at 9:50 PM on November 10, 2013 [5 favorites]
Can I get all the men in this thread who don't understand this to read it over and over again until it sinks in? Thanks.
I think a lot of the men in this thread who are confused are confused because they are so used to being listened to that it makes them uncomfortable and truly puzzled when they are told they should be primarily listening. So many men in this thread who are confused about whether they are feminists or can call themselves feminists or aren't sure how to engage with feminism are trying to figure out a way to define feminism and their role in it - because that's the way society works for them. There's a need for them and there's a way they fit. And for feminism, they need a ready and working definition or else they think it's broken. So many comments here on how to fix things - beginning with Joss Whedon's speech that is about trying to redefine a word or find a new word or something that's so inherently unimportant to the movement.
I think I get where Whedon is coming from, too. But it's coming from a point of view of privilege that he doesn't even recognise. He thinks he's doing his darnedest to fight sexism and misogyny in a way that works for him - using clever words to make things better. And his earlier speech to Equality Now, "Why Do You Write Such Strong Female Characters," worked so much better because it figured out how he fit into the feminist movement. That was how he fit, by being a feminist writer. He wasn't trying to redefine things outside his control, he looked at the inherent sexism involved in the question - and the asking of that question - and answered that question. For himself.
I don't know where other men in this thread fit on the continuum of feminism or how they identify. Some men are clearly male feminists because they identify that way. Others are but don't identify that way. Some are still confused. Hey guys, confusion is okay. I know you're not used to it, or maybe you are - but in any case, if you're confused, just listen. Figure out where you fit in. Not where feminism fits around you.
I'm a playwright and theatremaker in Melbourne. A lot of my plays feature lead female characters. I'm asked again and again about how I am able to write female characters - strong or not, but realistic. My boilerplate answer is generally this: I don't think men and women are that different from each other. I don't think women are that unknowable that I can't empathise with them enough to write a functioning female character in a play.
But I can't write a woman from a woman's point of view. I am not a female writer.
And when I look at theatre companies across Australia and across the world and see such appalling statistics when it comes to female writers, I despair. I can't do anything about being a female writer, BUT - I can definitely support female writers and I can definitely support companies that support female writers. That doesn't change the fact that I am a male writer; when my work is programmed or produced, I guess, by definition, there's one slot that's not being filled by a female writer.
So guys who don't know where they fit or how they define themselves - please listen. Please think about what you do and where you fit in. You don't need to redefine the feminist movement, but maybe you need to define or redefine yourself.
posted by crossoverman at 9:50 PM on November 10, 2013 [5 favorites]
Can I get all the men in this thread who don't understand this to read it over and over again until it sinks in? Thanks.
I appreciate your call for moderation, but I think I've read a variety of things in this thread that are fairly at odds with each other, even within a single poster's comments.
Personally, I'm not asking for a leadership position, I'm just asking what it means for me to be a decent person. I hope I'm reading them correctly, because I think most male responders here are asking the same question. And the answer to that question is very different for different people.
posted by Nomyte at 11:03 PM on November 10, 2013
I appreciate your call for moderation, but I think I've read a variety of things in this thread that are fairly at odds with each other, even within a single poster's comments.
Personally, I'm not asking for a leadership position, I'm just asking what it means for me to be a decent person. I hope I'm reading them correctly, because I think most male responders here are asking the same question. And the answer to that question is very different for different people.
posted by Nomyte at 11:03 PM on November 10, 2013
And who are you to ride in on your white horse and tell us we're doing it wrong by arguing amongst ourselves?
I love internet arguing from time to time, so if feminism feels the same keep at it with my blessing.
and to be honest I'm getting a little tired of people telling me how sad they are for my presumed emasculation.
I'm not that big on gender roles, I don't call anyone emasculated anywhere.
You should come hang out and join the conversation, it's actually pretty nice over here, and there's all kinds of neat stuff to learn and do.
I'm here, well going to bed now, I'm conversating, and on account of not claiming feminism I don't even have to check my privilege first. If you mean convert, I feel like I'd be lying, for one thing - me personally I have a real hard time believing stuff, like I can't even believe in atheism, barely even believe in math, and I feel like ideologies require an element of belief that is lacking in me. I think myself and feminism have a few deep philosophical incompatibilities, like before we even introduce gender I have a very different idea of "identity".
posted by save alive nothing that breatheth at 11:10 PM on November 10, 2013
I love internet arguing from time to time, so if feminism feels the same keep at it with my blessing.
and to be honest I'm getting a little tired of people telling me how sad they are for my presumed emasculation.
I'm not that big on gender roles, I don't call anyone emasculated anywhere.
You should come hang out and join the conversation, it's actually pretty nice over here, and there's all kinds of neat stuff to learn and do.
I'm here, well going to bed now, I'm conversating, and on account of not claiming feminism I don't even have to check my privilege first. If you mean convert, I feel like I'd be lying, for one thing - me personally I have a real hard time believing stuff, like I can't even believe in atheism, barely even believe in math, and I feel like ideologies require an element of belief that is lacking in me. I think myself and feminism have a few deep philosophical incompatibilities, like before we even introduce gender I have a very different idea of "identity".
posted by save alive nothing that breatheth at 11:10 PM on November 10, 2013
Personally, I'm not asking for a leadership position, I'm just asking what it means for me to be a decent person. I hope I'm reading them correctly, because I think most male responders here are asking the same question. And the answer to that question is very different for different people.
Right, because different people are different people. Get ten people in a room, you might get ten different responses to something. Get ten women in a room and you might find they all have a different idea of what constitutes feminism and being a feminist - up to and including using the word itself.
A lot of the confused men in this thread don't seem to get that feminists can and will disagree with each other, that women don't all think exactly the same - and, by extension, those men seem to be unwilling to engage with a feminism that they can't define perfectly.
Feminism, like most ideologies, is imperfect. There isn't one kind of feminism. There isn't one way for women to be feminists and there isn't one way for men to be feminists or feminist allies. So when I say you should listen to female feminists first, that doesn't mean they are all going to have the same answer for you and it doesn't mean you won't have some work to do before you understand how you fit in with feminism.
But don't try to define feminism for women. Don't do it. Even if they disagree with each other, you don't get to define or redefine feminism.
You do get to decide how you engage with feminism and how you identify yourself. Doing both of those things in good faith is a good first step in being a decent person.
posted by crossoverman at 2:04 AM on November 11, 2013
Right, because different people are different people. Get ten people in a room, you might get ten different responses to something. Get ten women in a room and you might find they all have a different idea of what constitutes feminism and being a feminist - up to and including using the word itself.
A lot of the confused men in this thread don't seem to get that feminists can and will disagree with each other, that women don't all think exactly the same - and, by extension, those men seem to be unwilling to engage with a feminism that they can't define perfectly.
Feminism, like most ideologies, is imperfect. There isn't one kind of feminism. There isn't one way for women to be feminists and there isn't one way for men to be feminists or feminist allies. So when I say you should listen to female feminists first, that doesn't mean they are all going to have the same answer for you and it doesn't mean you won't have some work to do before you understand how you fit in with feminism.
But don't try to define feminism for women. Don't do it. Even if they disagree with each other, you don't get to define or redefine feminism.
You do get to decide how you engage with feminism and how you identify yourself. Doing both of those things in good faith is a good first step in being a decent person.
posted by crossoverman at 2:04 AM on November 11, 2013
Has there been any backlash/response from Equality Now about the speech?
posted by gadge emeritus at 4:58 AM on November 11, 2013
posted by gadge emeritus at 4:58 AM on November 11, 2013
Has there been any backlash/response from Equality Now about the speech?
He has a long association with the organization and is on their advisory board, so one wouldn't necessarily expect a response or criticism.
I wonder if one of the weirdnesses of the whole situation is that his speech was intended for friends and "insiders" of the Equality Now organization, and not so much for the general public; I think it's when the speech is viewed as a public statement that it feels offensive, while maybe if it's just a quirky little talk among friends, what comes across as a glib and presumptious manner is maybe a bit more understandable.
posted by aught at 7:12 AM on November 11, 2013
He has a long association with the organization and is on their advisory board, so one wouldn't necessarily expect a response or criticism.
I wonder if one of the weirdnesses of the whole situation is that his speech was intended for friends and "insiders" of the Equality Now organization, and not so much for the general public; I think it's when the speech is viewed as a public statement that it feels offensive, while maybe if it's just a quirky little talk among friends, what comes across as a glib and presumptious manner is maybe a bit more understandable.
posted by aught at 7:12 AM on November 11, 2013
A lot of the confused men in this thread don't seem to get that feminists can and will disagree with each other, that women don't all think exactly the same - and, by extension, those men seem to be unwilling to engage with a feminism that they can't define perfectly.
I think you're propping up a pretty distasteful straw man argument. I don't expect "all women" to "think exactly the same." This isn't a Mel Gibson movie starring me.
It's a trivial fact that a group of women will have differences of opinion. They will have some areas of overlap, even if some of them won't necessarily identify as "feminist" for some reason or another.
But by the same token, a group of men will have differences of opinion too! And even those men who don't call themselves "feminist" for one reason or another will be on board with many basic tenets. This "men unwilling to engage with feminism the way it is" is a rhetorical cudgel.
And you could say that about any group that's attached to a set of beliefs and ideals. You could take a group of self-avowed liberals or self-avowed conservatives, and then find areas of vehement disagreement within each group. For example, I could make an argument that the developed world should stop delivering direct food aid to the developing world, and it would become a hugely emotional point of contention: look, Nomyte is trying to take away food from starving orphans in Africa!
Of course, an average layperson's "feminism" is both intensely personal and often powerfully idiosyncratic. Closely held beliefs and desires often provoke a powerful response. And of course, the project of feminism is to first and foremost improve the experience of women.
But that doesn't mean that there isn't a coherent, formalized feminism or set of feminisms that is developed by scholars of feminism, studied by students in Women's Studies departments, and put into practice by think tanks and advocacy organizations.
By the same token, there are departments of political science, and Democratic think tanks, and national advocacy groups that implement Democratic agendas. Those organizations don't exist for the purpose of delegitimizing the efforts and experience of individual self-avowed Democrats. And there are departments of philosophy, and anthropology, and so on, that belong to certain schools of thought and promote particular frameworks of thought. They have identifiable critical features, and there are usually some criteria to identify whether you belong to this or that school of thought without demanding total dogmatic compliance.
Reframing an interest in a feminism that one can engage with critically, intellectually, and academically as "hey man, stop trying to impose your views on my feminism" is, frankly, disingenuous.
posted by Nomyte at 11:38 AM on November 11, 2013
I think you're propping up a pretty distasteful straw man argument. I don't expect "all women" to "think exactly the same." This isn't a Mel Gibson movie starring me.
It's a trivial fact that a group of women will have differences of opinion. They will have some areas of overlap, even if some of them won't necessarily identify as "feminist" for some reason or another.
But by the same token, a group of men will have differences of opinion too! And even those men who don't call themselves "feminist" for one reason or another will be on board with many basic tenets. This "men unwilling to engage with feminism the way it is" is a rhetorical cudgel.
And you could say that about any group that's attached to a set of beliefs and ideals. You could take a group of self-avowed liberals or self-avowed conservatives, and then find areas of vehement disagreement within each group. For example, I could make an argument that the developed world should stop delivering direct food aid to the developing world, and it would become a hugely emotional point of contention: look, Nomyte is trying to take away food from starving orphans in Africa!
Of course, an average layperson's "feminism" is both intensely personal and often powerfully idiosyncratic. Closely held beliefs and desires often provoke a powerful response. And of course, the project of feminism is to first and foremost improve the experience of women.
But that doesn't mean that there isn't a coherent, formalized feminism or set of feminisms that is developed by scholars of feminism, studied by students in Women's Studies departments, and put into practice by think tanks and advocacy organizations.
By the same token, there are departments of political science, and Democratic think tanks, and national advocacy groups that implement Democratic agendas. Those organizations don't exist for the purpose of delegitimizing the efforts and experience of individual self-avowed Democrats. And there are departments of philosophy, and anthropology, and so on, that belong to certain schools of thought and promote particular frameworks of thought. They have identifiable critical features, and there are usually some criteria to identify whether you belong to this or that school of thought without demanding total dogmatic compliance.
Reframing an interest in a feminism that one can engage with critically, intellectually, and academically as "hey man, stop trying to impose your views on my feminism" is, frankly, disingenuous.
posted by Nomyte at 11:38 AM on November 11, 2013
This "men unwilling to engage with feminism the way it is" is a rhetorical cudgel.
Of course it's not. This is a thread based on an FPP wherein one of feminism's strongest male allies stood up and started lecturing everyone about how dumb the word "feminism" is.
But that doesn't mean that there isn't a coherent, formalized feminism or set of feminisms that is developed by scholars of feminism, studied by students in Women's Studies departments, and put into practice by think tanks and advocacy organizations.
Of course all that exists. Which is why it's so fucking confounding when even the dudes who want to be our allies often start out by explaining to us how all this stuff is completely wrong, and we need to change the whole thing.
This is what I meant when I said that, if you're a guy, and you want to be a feminist, think hard before challenging the basic tenets. Start from a place of assuming that all the basic stuff is true, and that we've arrived at that stuff for a reason. Opining and discussing and even spirited debate is fine, but if you find yourself mostly taking on a contrarian or concern-troll position, think seriously about whether you are much of an ally.
At issue here isn't that Joss Whedon took a controversial position on an issue that is, on some level, up for debate. I mean, no matter what you say, someone is always going to disagree with you. There are going to be some people who think that Buffy The Vampire Slayer is an evil tool of the patriarchy because it's about a middle class skinny white hetero girl who conforms to mainstream beauty standards.
But, like, let's just all agree that feminism is called feminism and it's not really for Joss Whedon to pronounce otherwise.
posted by Sara C. at 11:48 AM on November 11, 2013 [1 favorite]
Of course it's not. This is a thread based on an FPP wherein one of feminism's strongest male allies stood up and started lecturing everyone about how dumb the word "feminism" is.
But that doesn't mean that there isn't a coherent, formalized feminism or set of feminisms that is developed by scholars of feminism, studied by students in Women's Studies departments, and put into practice by think tanks and advocacy organizations.
Of course all that exists. Which is why it's so fucking confounding when even the dudes who want to be our allies often start out by explaining to us how all this stuff is completely wrong, and we need to change the whole thing.
This is what I meant when I said that, if you're a guy, and you want to be a feminist, think hard before challenging the basic tenets. Start from a place of assuming that all the basic stuff is true, and that we've arrived at that stuff for a reason. Opining and discussing and even spirited debate is fine, but if you find yourself mostly taking on a contrarian or concern-troll position, think seriously about whether you are much of an ally.
At issue here isn't that Joss Whedon took a controversial position on an issue that is, on some level, up for debate. I mean, no matter what you say, someone is always going to disagree with you. There are going to be some people who think that Buffy The Vampire Slayer is an evil tool of the patriarchy because it's about a middle class skinny white hetero girl who conforms to mainstream beauty standards.
But, like, let's just all agree that feminism is called feminism and it's not really for Joss Whedon to pronounce otherwise.
posted by Sara C. at 11:48 AM on November 11, 2013 [1 favorite]
But, like, let's just all agree that feminism is called feminism and it's not really for Joss Whedon to pronounce otherwise.
It's been outlined that Joss Whedon has a close and ongoing engagement with feminist organizations promoting women's rights and quality of life. It's also been outlined that Joss Whedon is hardly the first or the only feminist to reconsider the word "feminism." Like, to the point that he can deliver a rather trite and glib after-dinner address on the topic. At this point I'm really not sure what else there is to talk about here.
posted by Nomyte at 11:57 AM on November 11, 2013
It's been outlined that Joss Whedon has a close and ongoing engagement with feminist organizations promoting women's rights and quality of life. It's also been outlined that Joss Whedon is hardly the first or the only feminist to reconsider the word "feminism." Like, to the point that he can deliver a rather trite and glib after-dinner address on the topic. At this point I'm really not sure what else there is to talk about here.
posted by Nomyte at 11:57 AM on November 11, 2013
Joss Whedon is a man, and as such it is really not his place to make pronouncements about whether the word "feminist" is the word that feminists should use to refer to our movement.
When someone like Alice Walker does it, it's different, because Alice Walker is female.
One of the burdens of being a man in the feminist movement is that there are some types of access that you just don't have. This is one of them.
And keep in mind, as has been said, that there is still a LOT of argument when women propose similar things. Even if Whedon is "allowed" to make these statements, nobody is required to agree with him or take him seriously on any level, or even listen to it.
posted by Sara C. at 12:07 PM on November 11, 2013 [1 favorite]
When someone like Alice Walker does it, it's different, because Alice Walker is female.
One of the burdens of being a man in the feminist movement is that there are some types of access that you just don't have. This is one of them.
And keep in mind, as has been said, that there is still a LOT of argument when women propose similar things. Even if Whedon is "allowed" to make these statements, nobody is required to agree with him or take him seriously on any level, or even listen to it.
posted by Sara C. at 12:07 PM on November 11, 2013 [1 favorite]
It's a trivial fact that a group of women will have differences of opinion. They will have some areas of overlap, even if some of them won't necessarily identify as "feminist" for some reason or another.
You say it's a trivial fact, though I would suggest it's not trivial but rather fundamental, but earlier you seemed to suggest that your problem with this discussion is "I think I've read a variety of things in this thread that are fairly at odds with each other". Which I took to mean you were having trouble engaging in feminism because different people had different opinions of what feminism is.
posted by crossoverman at 12:09 PM on November 11, 2013
You say it's a trivial fact, though I would suggest it's not trivial but rather fundamental, but earlier you seemed to suggest that your problem with this discussion is "I think I've read a variety of things in this thread that are fairly at odds with each other". Which I took to mean you were having trouble engaging in feminism because different people had different opinions of what feminism is.
posted by crossoverman at 12:09 PM on November 11, 2013
"Joss Whedon is a man, and as such it is really not his place to make pronouncements about whether the word 'feminist' is the word that feminists should use to refer to our movement."
The Movement of Women Advocating for their Rights ≠ The Movement Opposing the Oppression of Women. But the two things largely overlap and we tend to refer to both of them with the all-encompassing label feminism. Which has the unfortunate characteristic of strongly connoting the former (a movement of women for women) rather than the latter (a movement of people opposing sexism against women).
This can be problematic in numerous respects, one of which is the subject of Whedon's speech: that a movement of a group advocating for their rights is, even for members of that group, something that strongly implies a deliberate affirmative choice that one opts into, rather than a default that one must deliberately choose to opt out of. And, of course, by definition a movement of a group advocating their own rights is exclusive of everyone not a member of that group.
But another problem is the implicit equivocation in the quote above: that feminism is necessarily a movement of a group advocating for their rights, a movement which is exclusive of non-members by definition. Because it is absolutely true that there is little or no place for a man in a movement of women advocating for the rights of women, certainly not within the discussion of how that movement should be named.
Yet it is naturally the case that if women's rights are being denied, if women are being oppressed, then in the humanistic liberal tradition in which the notion of rights arises, it's clear that all persons, of every gender, have an interest in opposing the oppression of women. That movement is inclusive by definition, and everyone active within it has a voice in the discussion about what that movement is and what it is called.
In this way it's unfortunate that feminism is the blanket term covering both movements; but it's also quite natural because an oppressed group is naturally most directly interested in fighting against their oppression, such movements are theirs, they have by far the most at stake, and because successfully ending such oppression critically depends upon empowerment and because empowerment depends critically upon self-empowerment, and because regressive forces will naturally target self-empowerment, it is of paramount importance that such groups police against being co-opted by the oppressive structure, in whatever form.
So, again, I'll explain that I, a man opposed to the oppression of women, refer to myself as a feminist because, in practice, that signals that my chief concern is the oppression of women as opposed to, say, using the term "anti-sexist" which would imply something else. But insofar as I self-describe by that term and include myself among feminists and feminism, I try to understand those terms, insofar as they apply to me, to refer to the "opposing the oppression of women" part of "feminism" and not the "movement of women advocating for their rights" part, in which I rightly have no proper role.
This tends to put me in conflict with those understand feminism as wholly one or the other movements I've described. It's clear that Sara C. comprehends feminism as a movement of women advocating for their interests and opposing their oppression, and that's a movement that either couldn't by definition have any role for a man or, alternatively, a man's role could be of a tightly circumscribed "ally". Which, again, is quite right for a movement of women, for women. But I see that as one aspect of what we are calling feminism, not its entirety.
Similarly, there are both men and women who conceive of feminism as wholly a movement of people in opposition to sexism, which is understood as being the patriarchy and the associated oppression of women. (There are other who take a gender-neutral view of this, but I don't have much time for that nonsense these days.) For all I know, this describes Joss Whedon. I tend to run afoul of this group, as well, because they recoil at my assertions that insofar as advocacy is concerned, men have little or no place (or, rather, that any place that men have must be by invitation and even then necessarily limited).
But it seems clear to me that both groups are wrong in their insistence that feminism is essentially one or the other. In truth, in all movements opposing oppression, there is a synergy between both aspects — the part that is all about the oppressed group fighting for their own empowerment, and the other part, the wider awareness of an injustice that is inherently harmful to the community as a whole and that therefore all members of the community have an interest, a responsibility, to oppose and correct. Progress in social justice is most rapid and most stably achieved when these two aspects move in tandem. You can't have real and lasting social justice without self-empowerment of the formerly oppressed; and you can't have real and lasting social justice without a society-wide shared involvement in the maintenance of a structure where this former oppression is disallowed.
It isn't one or the other, it's both, but it's often not both at the same time.
My sense is that given Whedon's history and the context of this speech and the community in which it was given, Whedon and the Equality Now people were much more in the "movement opposing the oppression of women" mindset in which a feminist man like Whedon is understood to be a full member of the community. I don't think he intended to propose a different nomenclature for the movement of women by women and for women, which I agree would be terribly presumptuous. Rather, I think that he was fumbling (and, I admit, he was fumbling and the speech was unsatisfactory in many respects) for a way to present the aspect of feminism which is the community of people opposed to the oppression of women in a way that places the emphasis on the opposition to injustice, which everyone naturally would oppose and where the regressives would be put on the spot to explicitly defend oppression.
But, like I said, I think that while sexism and misogyny aren't perfect as words to describe what we're opposing, they're more than good enough and, in any event, genderist would be much, much worse. And while I think that feminism has some of the problems I describe above, it's better than the alternatives, especially insofar as I am deeply resistant to and suspicious of anything that smacks of reducing the emphasis on the oppression of women.
And I think that both sides of this are lagging from where they ought to be. The aspect that is women advocating for themselves is still at a place where even the majority of women in Europe and North America won't self-identify as "feminist" — there still is far from as much involvement in self-empowerment as there should be. And the other aspect, a society-wide sense that this oppression of women exists and should be fought is, well, very far from where it ought to be. My feeling is that we badly need to be doing whatever we can to encourage the growth of both aspects and should work very hard to avoid getting in the way of the growth of either one.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 9:03 PM on November 11, 2013 [2 favorites]
The Movement of Women Advocating for their Rights ≠ The Movement Opposing the Oppression of Women. But the two things largely overlap and we tend to refer to both of them with the all-encompassing label feminism. Which has the unfortunate characteristic of strongly connoting the former (a movement of women for women) rather than the latter (a movement of people opposing sexism against women).
This can be problematic in numerous respects, one of which is the subject of Whedon's speech: that a movement of a group advocating for their rights is, even for members of that group, something that strongly implies a deliberate affirmative choice that one opts into, rather than a default that one must deliberately choose to opt out of. And, of course, by definition a movement of a group advocating their own rights is exclusive of everyone not a member of that group.
But another problem is the implicit equivocation in the quote above: that feminism is necessarily a movement of a group advocating for their rights, a movement which is exclusive of non-members by definition. Because it is absolutely true that there is little or no place for a man in a movement of women advocating for the rights of women, certainly not within the discussion of how that movement should be named.
Yet it is naturally the case that if women's rights are being denied, if women are being oppressed, then in the humanistic liberal tradition in which the notion of rights arises, it's clear that all persons, of every gender, have an interest in opposing the oppression of women. That movement is inclusive by definition, and everyone active within it has a voice in the discussion about what that movement is and what it is called.
In this way it's unfortunate that feminism is the blanket term covering both movements; but it's also quite natural because an oppressed group is naturally most directly interested in fighting against their oppression, such movements are theirs, they have by far the most at stake, and because successfully ending such oppression critically depends upon empowerment and because empowerment depends critically upon self-empowerment, and because regressive forces will naturally target self-empowerment, it is of paramount importance that such groups police against being co-opted by the oppressive structure, in whatever form.
So, again, I'll explain that I, a man opposed to the oppression of women, refer to myself as a feminist because, in practice, that signals that my chief concern is the oppression of women as opposed to, say, using the term "anti-sexist" which would imply something else. But insofar as I self-describe by that term and include myself among feminists and feminism, I try to understand those terms, insofar as they apply to me, to refer to the "opposing the oppression of women" part of "feminism" and not the "movement of women advocating for their rights" part, in which I rightly have no proper role.
This tends to put me in conflict with those understand feminism as wholly one or the other movements I've described. It's clear that Sara C. comprehends feminism as a movement of women advocating for their interests and opposing their oppression, and that's a movement that either couldn't by definition have any role for a man or, alternatively, a man's role could be of a tightly circumscribed "ally". Which, again, is quite right for a movement of women, for women. But I see that as one aspect of what we are calling feminism, not its entirety.
Similarly, there are both men and women who conceive of feminism as wholly a movement of people in opposition to sexism, which is understood as being the patriarchy and the associated oppression of women. (There are other who take a gender-neutral view of this, but I don't have much time for that nonsense these days.) For all I know, this describes Joss Whedon. I tend to run afoul of this group, as well, because they recoil at my assertions that insofar as advocacy is concerned, men have little or no place (or, rather, that any place that men have must be by invitation and even then necessarily limited).
But it seems clear to me that both groups are wrong in their insistence that feminism is essentially one or the other. In truth, in all movements opposing oppression, there is a synergy between both aspects — the part that is all about the oppressed group fighting for their own empowerment, and the other part, the wider awareness of an injustice that is inherently harmful to the community as a whole and that therefore all members of the community have an interest, a responsibility, to oppose and correct. Progress in social justice is most rapid and most stably achieved when these two aspects move in tandem. You can't have real and lasting social justice without self-empowerment of the formerly oppressed; and you can't have real and lasting social justice without a society-wide shared involvement in the maintenance of a structure where this former oppression is disallowed.
It isn't one or the other, it's both, but it's often not both at the same time.
My sense is that given Whedon's history and the context of this speech and the community in which it was given, Whedon and the Equality Now people were much more in the "movement opposing the oppression of women" mindset in which a feminist man like Whedon is understood to be a full member of the community. I don't think he intended to propose a different nomenclature for the movement of women by women and for women, which I agree would be terribly presumptuous. Rather, I think that he was fumbling (and, I admit, he was fumbling and the speech was unsatisfactory in many respects) for a way to present the aspect of feminism which is the community of people opposed to the oppression of women in a way that places the emphasis on the opposition to injustice, which everyone naturally would oppose and where the regressives would be put on the spot to explicitly defend oppression.
But, like I said, I think that while sexism and misogyny aren't perfect as words to describe what we're opposing, they're more than good enough and, in any event, genderist would be much, much worse. And while I think that feminism has some of the problems I describe above, it's better than the alternatives, especially insofar as I am deeply resistant to and suspicious of anything that smacks of reducing the emphasis on the oppression of women.
And I think that both sides of this are lagging from where they ought to be. The aspect that is women advocating for themselves is still at a place where even the majority of women in Europe and North America won't self-identify as "feminist" — there still is far from as much involvement in self-empowerment as there should be. And the other aspect, a society-wide sense that this oppression of women exists and should be fought is, well, very far from where it ought to be. My feeling is that we badly need to be doing whatever we can to encourage the growth of both aspects and should work very hard to avoid getting in the way of the growth of either one.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 9:03 PM on November 11, 2013 [2 favorites]
From the Guardian's curated blog: Why feminism doesn't need a makeover.
For whatever it's worth, my position on all this is pretty much the same as Hadley Freeman's.
posted by Errant at 8:50 PM on November 12, 2013 [3 favorites]
For whatever it's worth, my position on all this is pretty much the same as Hadley Freeman's.
posted by Errant at 8:50 PM on November 12, 2013 [3 favorites]
« Older Unproven or rumored; unsufficient evidence to... | The Debate over H: the 'istory of aitch Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
There is a word for that. That would be a misandrist. Which I think is, appropriately, one of the least used words in the English language.
posted by three blind mice at 8:12 AM on November 7, 2013 [7 favorites]