Thanks for the link! As if you read my thoughts, because I was actually thinking “seems like I am only familiar with irrational feminists, but some people here seem to know rational ones, perhaps I should ask about some good links”, so I open LW… and it’s already here.
Okay, some things became clear now, some questions remain.
In my social circle, there actually are a lot of people thinking like the linked person. Actually, I do, at least approximately. But none of these people self-identifies as a “feminist”. Why? Well, because the people who do self-identify as feminists here, are usually the ones whom when I describe on LW, I get a “that was a strawman” reaction. So the people who are reasonable about human relationships self-identify as “not a feminist” here.
One possible explanation is that this is just my weird perception or my weird social circle; there is always this possibility. But maybe this is a cultural difference. -- In former Czechoslovakia, women were able to vote since the country started existing in 1918. So one important feminist topic simple never existed here; women here never had to fight for vote. Women going to work? Of course, when you need more money to feed your family, you do. There is nothing “feminist” about that; that’s simply life as usual. People who agree with that, they don’t feel a need to use a special label. A decade or two ago, you didn’t have to be a feminist to care about domestic violence, although I guess today the organizations self-identifying as feminist took over that agenda.
So I guess that people having what you would probably call “rational feminist” or “moderate feminist” opinions here, did not need a special label. I am not saying everyone was like that, or even that most people were like that, just that it was mainstream enough; you didn’t perceive yourself as doing something “against the system”. So naturally the label was used by people who had more extreme positions… and of course the people having the moderate positions refused to use the label, to express that their positions are not extreme. (It’s like: “Women should have a right to vote, should be treated fairly, should not be abused or raped; that’s what I expect from a civilized country. But I’m not a feminist—I don’t hate men, I don’t think all men are evil, I also know some bad women, and I’m not crazy.”) If a women self-identifies as a feminist, it often means that she is a heavily mindkilled university student, or that she is a politician and wants to use this to get some important “gender” position to decide about the “gender” money (and it’s a patriarchal opression if you don’t let her).
I personally started being opposed to “feminism” (to what the word means here) when I was on the university and I chose “gender studies” as a voluntary subject. Until that moment, I was curious and sympathetic (that’s why I chose the subject; I was the only guy there). After spending a semester listening to women who self-identified as feminists, and hearing about the problems they were trying to fix, I decided that this stuff is insane. And some of the girls in the class came to the same conclusion. -- An example I remember after all those years: We spent a lesson analysing some unknown poem from some nobody I never heard about; the poem was about numbers 1 and 0, and how they have a marriage and together they become a number 10. Now of course this is sexist, because the number 1 represents the male, the number 0 represents the female, and the number 10 is sexist because the male goes first, which reflects a power imbalance in a patriarchal household. I felt like: WTF?! and who cares?! I mean, we live on a planet where Chinese women had their feet broken, some African tribes mutilate little girls’ genitals, muslim women have no rights… and perhaps to include some first-world problems, girls in my country are less enthusiastic about maths and computer science than boys (seriously, this is a topic I cared about, as a teacher)… but no, those are not the important problems for our academic feminists, this poem is.
So… uhm… I have some material to think about; probably should make a reality check with more people from my culture whether they also have similar experience. Perhaps the answer is that crazy people self-identifying as feminists are everywhere, but the difference is that in some cultures there are also many sane people using the same label. Maybe it’s a question of how long the label is used, because the new labels attract extreme people.
For now, the main lesson for me is that when people on LW speak positively about feminists, they probably mean the kind of people who in my social circle would self-identify as “not a feminist”.
I decided I wasn’t going to identify as a feminist back in the 80s when I read some Mary Daly. She isn’t a totally useless writer [1], but the only way I could get some good out of her writing was to steelman it to an extraordinary extent. Her material in favor of the high-gusto life made sense if I read her “women” to mean “people” and her “men” to mean “some sort of boring monsters”. Her hatred of men revolted me. I wasn’t going to identify with a movement that accepted someone like her.
Fast forward to more recently, and there were feminists who hated her, but it wasn’t about the misandry, it was about the transphobia (which I hadn’t noticed). When she died, the eulogies split between people who thought she was wonderful and people who were angry about transphobia. If anyone beside me noticed the misandry, I didn’t find them.
It might be relevant that she probably never did any damage to men, but there are transgendered people who died because they couldn’t get into women’s shelters. (A claim that I don’t have details for, but seems plausible.)
Anyway, it’s possibly amusing that I identify as a libertarian, and if someone (or a lot of them) who I disagree with strongly identifies as a libertarian, I assume they’re getting libertarianism wrong, but I gave up on feminism because it includes people I don’t want to be associated with. Maybe I only have room for one really difficult identity.
Another possible reason for why things are different in your country—I think the US (and possibly some other anglophone countries) are still recovering from Victorian ideas about women. The Victorians had a dream of the ideal woman who was physically, intellectually, and financially helpless. It wasn’t quite true at the time (only feasible for upper class women, and I think they were expected to be in charge of their households), but it had a strong grip on both men’s and women’s imaginations. [2]
For the physical side, see The Frailty Myth—Victorian upper class girls were permitted so little movement that they were having trouble (when somewhat older) giving birth, so lady-like low intensity exercises were invented.
Anyway, a lot of earlier feminism was directed to the idea that women should be able to be independent from men, and be able to do work, and especially to do interesting work in the public sphere.
Eventually, there’s been a split in the US, with womanism [3] intended to address issues specific to black women (and possibly also poc women). For example, there was never an issue with black women working for money outside the home, as there was for middle to upper class white women. Instead, black women were pushed toward menial work for little money.
[1] She’s the one who pointed out to me that “fix” can mean repair, immobilize, or punish. And that there’s a difference between search and research..
[2] There’s a destructive streak in the human race of trying to turn women into supernormal stimuli.
[3] I’ve only poked around the edges of this. I’m sure I’m missing a lot.
Yes. If the feminism is supposedly about the equality of sexes, why is hatred against men so tolerated?
Ironically, feminism is good at describing the problems of such behavior when men do it. Like: it’s not enough if you don’t tell rape jokes, you also shouldn’t be a friend with people who do, or at least you should tell them to shut up; otherwise it seems like you give them a silent support. Yes, and for pretty much the same reason, you should also say something when people from your movement preach hatred against men; just not doing it with them is not enough.
More meta: All ethical commandments that feminism currently proposes for men should be symetrical. If it’s bad when men do it, then it is also bad when women do it. Perhaps today mostly men do it, so the efficient use of resources is to focus on stopping men from doing it; but the rule should be gender-neutral anyway, even if the current policy isn’t. (Violence against people is bad. Hating people because of their gender is wrong.) Otherwise some people will intrepret it like an asymetrical moral rule, and the rest will seem like giving them a silent support.
there are transgendered people who died because they couldn’t get into women’s shelters.
How about having also some shelters for men? By the way, Erin Pizzey, the person who started women’s shelters in Europe didn’t have a problem with that: she also had a shelter for men. Guess what happened? Feminists started sending her death threats, scared her enough to make her leave the country, then took over her shelter network, and removed her name. I am not making this up! (But I am sure they don’t teach this in Feminism 101.)
The Victorians had a dream of the ideal woman who was physically, intellectually, and financially helpless.
Reminds me of a discussion with my girlfriend. She said that society puts pressure to both men and women to fit their gender roles, but the difference is that the actions expected from men are intrinsically useful, while the actions expected from women are useless. For example, men are pressed into making a lot of money, and while the pressure itself can be bad, having money is good, per se. So a man who makes a lot of money fulfills the social expectations and has the advantage of being rich, at the same time. (Then we had some problems making specific examples about what the society actually wants from women. Perhaps there are multiple, sometimes contradictory social pressures today.)
But I guess we didn’t have this Victorian ideal in this part of the world. Or, more likely, the nobility had it, but for some reasons it never spread to lower classes. Or perhaps the communism eradicated such mannerisms. Don’t know; should ask someone better in history. (EDIT: After some research, it seems the communists removed all the upper-class manners.)
For example, there was never an issue with black women working for money outside the home, as there was for middle to upper class white women.
Maybe the situation of an average Eastern European woman is in some aspects more similar to the situation of an average black woman in USA, than of the Victorian lady.
Yes. If the feminism is supposedly about the equality of sexes, why is hatred against men so tolerated?
That was probably a rhetorical question, but I think the answer is that it’s easier to recruit people for a fight than for making things better for people in general.
Yes, and for pretty much the same reason, you should also say something when people from your movement preach hatred against men; just not doing it with them is not enough.
Indeed, but it’s hard work, and can be emotionally damaging.
From what I can tell, Erin Pizzey was attacked for saying that a majority of the women in domestic violence shelters were violent themselves.
Until I looked for details, I didn’t know she was involved with shelters for men, and I think her early career was about shelters for women.
She said that society puts pressure to both men and women to fit their gender roles, but the difference is that the actions expected from men are intrinsically useful, while the actions expected from women are useless.
Bearing and raising children is useless?
The Feminine Mystique was about the situation of middle to upper class women in the US in the 50s and 60s—they’d been educated, but then they were expected to limit their ambition to taking care of suburban households, and it was making them crazy. This was a toned-down version of the situation of Victorian upper class women.
Are Eastern European women expected to work for money, but very hard for very little money?
The Feminine Mystique was about the situation of middle to upper class women in the US in the 50s and 60s—they’d been educated, but then they were expected to limit their ambition to taking care of suburban households, and it was making them crazy. This was a toned-down version of the situation of Victorian upper class women.
It also didn’t help that advances in technology had made taking care of the household a lot more boring.
It also didn’t help that advances in technology had made taking care of the household a lot more boring.
They did? Spending 4 hours cleaning clothes with a washboard sounds more boring than spending 40 minutes loading & running a washing machine (for example).
They did? Spending 4 hours cleaning clothes with a washboard sounds more boring than spending 40 minutes loading & running a washing machine (for example).
Well the Victorian upper class women Nancy referred to wouldn’t be doing that, they’d be managing their servants cleaning the clothes with a washboard.
Quite true, but given your reference to “advances in technology” I thought you were talking about “middle to upper class women in the US in the 50s and 60s”.
Now of course this is sexist, because the number 1 represents the male, the number 0 represents the female, and the number 10 is sexist because the male goes first, which reflects a power imbalance in a patriarchal household.
It’s nice to see that numerology has progressed so much since the time of the Pythagoreans and Chinese antiquity—it used to be that zero wasn’t even considered a number, because it doesn’t “count” anything. Now imagine how sexist that would be.
I remember, when cos first posted this, thinking “yup, the fundamental attribution fallacy sucks.”
It seemed rather a lot of words for that insight, but I could sort of imagine how someone for whom understanding the fundamental attribution fallacy and how it applies to the difference between “Sam is a sexual predator” and “Sam performed this act of sexual predation”; “Sam is the sort of person who respects consent” and “Sam noteworthily respected consent the other night”, etc. etc. in the abstract was challenging, it might be valuable to be walked through it more carefully. And the comment thread seemed to suggest that were many such people, which, OK, cool.
Rereading it now, I’m left with the same reaction.
Have I missed anything key about the post, on your view?
I think the post is also a meditation on the SNAFU principle (communication is impossible in a hierarchy—specifically, fear of punishment inhibits communication).
Cos’s approach involves actually lowering the punishment level, not just claiming that whatever people who have the moral edge do mustn’t be counted as punishment.
Huh. Interesting. Sure, I can see that if I focus solely on the fear-of-punishment aspect of hierarchy.
I certainly endorse defining punishment by its effects independent of the moral edge of its initiators, and I endorse factoring in the knock-on effects of punishment (including but hardly limited to inhibition of communication) when deciding whether to engage in it. (Relatedly, I try to remember that punishment is often reinforcing for the punisher.)
http://cos.livejournal.com/108721.html
An approach which includes assuming that people of good will can make mistakes, and working with them on that basis.
Thanks for the link! As if you read my thoughts, because I was actually thinking “seems like I am only familiar with irrational feminists, but some people here seem to know rational ones, perhaps I should ask about some good links”, so I open LW… and it’s already here.
Okay, some things became clear now, some questions remain.
In my social circle, there actually are a lot of people thinking like the linked person. Actually, I do, at least approximately. But none of these people self-identifies as a “feminist”. Why? Well, because the people who do self-identify as feminists here, are usually the ones whom when I describe on LW, I get a “that was a strawman” reaction. So the people who are reasonable about human relationships self-identify as “not a feminist” here.
One possible explanation is that this is just my weird perception or my weird social circle; there is always this possibility. But maybe this is a cultural difference. -- In former Czechoslovakia, women were able to vote since the country started existing in 1918. So one important feminist topic simple never existed here; women here never had to fight for vote. Women going to work? Of course, when you need more money to feed your family, you do. There is nothing “feminist” about that; that’s simply life as usual. People who agree with that, they don’t feel a need to use a special label. A decade or two ago, you didn’t have to be a feminist to care about domestic violence, although I guess today the organizations self-identifying as feminist took over that agenda.
So I guess that people having what you would probably call “rational feminist” or “moderate feminist” opinions here, did not need a special label. I am not saying everyone was like that, or even that most people were like that, just that it was mainstream enough; you didn’t perceive yourself as doing something “against the system”. So naturally the label was used by people who had more extreme positions… and of course the people having the moderate positions refused to use the label, to express that their positions are not extreme. (It’s like: “Women should have a right to vote, should be treated fairly, should not be abused or raped; that’s what I expect from a civilized country. But I’m not a feminist—I don’t hate men, I don’t think all men are evil, I also know some bad women, and I’m not crazy.”) If a women self-identifies as a feminist, it often means that she is a heavily mindkilled university student, or that she is a politician and wants to use this to get some important “gender” position to decide about the “gender” money (and it’s a patriarchal opression if you don’t let her).
I personally started being opposed to “feminism” (to what the word means here) when I was on the university and I chose “gender studies” as a voluntary subject. Until that moment, I was curious and sympathetic (that’s why I chose the subject; I was the only guy there). After spending a semester listening to women who self-identified as feminists, and hearing about the problems they were trying to fix, I decided that this stuff is insane. And some of the girls in the class came to the same conclusion. -- An example I remember after all those years: We spent a lesson analysing some unknown poem from some nobody I never heard about; the poem was about numbers 1 and 0, and how they have a marriage and together they become a number 10. Now of course this is sexist, because the number 1 represents the male, the number 0 represents the female, and the number 10 is sexist because the male goes first, which reflects a power imbalance in a patriarchal household. I felt like: WTF?! and who cares?! I mean, we live on a planet where Chinese women had their feet broken, some African tribes mutilate little girls’ genitals, muslim women have no rights… and perhaps to include some first-world problems, girls in my country are less enthusiastic about maths and computer science than boys (seriously, this is a topic I cared about, as a teacher)… but no, those are not the important problems for our academic feminists, this poem is.
So… uhm… I have some material to think about; probably should make a reality check with more people from my culture whether they also have similar experience. Perhaps the answer is that crazy people self-identifying as feminists are everywhere, but the difference is that in some cultures there are also many sane people using the same label. Maybe it’s a question of how long the label is used, because the new labels attract extreme people.
For now, the main lesson for me is that when people on LW speak positively about feminists, they probably mean the kind of people who in my social circle would self-identify as “not a feminist”.
I decided I wasn’t going to identify as a feminist back in the 80s when I read some Mary Daly. She isn’t a totally useless writer [1], but the only way I could get some good out of her writing was to steelman it to an extraordinary extent. Her material in favor of the high-gusto life made sense if I read her “women” to mean “people” and her “men” to mean “some sort of boring monsters”. Her hatred of men revolted me. I wasn’t going to identify with a movement that accepted someone like her.
Fast forward to more recently, and there were feminists who hated her, but it wasn’t about the misandry, it was about the transphobia (which I hadn’t noticed). When she died, the eulogies split between people who thought she was wonderful and people who were angry about transphobia. If anyone beside me noticed the misandry, I didn’t find them.
It might be relevant that she probably never did any damage to men, but there are transgendered people who died because they couldn’t get into women’s shelters. (A claim that I don’t have details for, but seems plausible.)
Anyway, it’s possibly amusing that I identify as a libertarian, and if someone (or a lot of them) who I disagree with strongly identifies as a libertarian, I assume they’re getting libertarianism wrong, but I gave up on feminism because it includes people I don’t want to be associated with. Maybe I only have room for one really difficult identity.
Another possible reason for why things are different in your country—I think the US (and possibly some other anglophone countries) are still recovering from Victorian ideas about women. The Victorians had a dream of the ideal woman who was physically, intellectually, and financially helpless. It wasn’t quite true at the time (only feasible for upper class women, and I think they were expected to be in charge of their households), but it had a strong grip on both men’s and women’s imaginations. [2]
For the physical side, see The Frailty Myth—Victorian upper class girls were permitted so little movement that they were having trouble (when somewhat older) giving birth, so lady-like low intensity exercises were invented.
Anyway, a lot of earlier feminism was directed to the idea that women should be able to be independent from men, and be able to do work, and especially to do interesting work in the public sphere.
Eventually, there’s been a split in the US, with womanism [3] intended to address issues specific to black women (and possibly also poc women). For example, there was never an issue with black women working for money outside the home, as there was for middle to upper class white women. Instead, black women were pushed toward menial work for little money.
[1] She’s the one who pointed out to me that “fix” can mean repair, immobilize, or punish. And that there’s a difference between search and research..
[2] There’s a destructive streak in the human race of trying to turn women into supernormal stimuli.
[3] I’ve only poked around the edges of this. I’m sure I’m missing a lot.
Yes. If the feminism is supposedly about the equality of sexes, why is hatred against men so tolerated?
Ironically, feminism is good at describing the problems of such behavior when men do it. Like: it’s not enough if you don’t tell rape jokes, you also shouldn’t be a friend with people who do, or at least you should tell them to shut up; otherwise it seems like you give them a silent support. Yes, and for pretty much the same reason, you should also say something when people from your movement preach hatred against men; just not doing it with them is not enough.
More meta: All ethical commandments that feminism currently proposes for men should be symetrical. If it’s bad when men do it, then it is also bad when women do it. Perhaps today mostly men do it, so the efficient use of resources is to focus on stopping men from doing it; but the rule should be gender-neutral anyway, even if the current policy isn’t. (Violence against people is bad. Hating people because of their gender is wrong.) Otherwise some people will intrepret it like an asymetrical moral rule, and the rest will seem like giving them a silent support.
How about having also some shelters for men? By the way, Erin Pizzey, the person who started women’s shelters in Europe didn’t have a problem with that: she also had a shelter for men. Guess what happened? Feminists started sending her death threats, scared her enough to make her leave the country, then took over her shelter network, and removed her name. I am not making this up! (But I am sure they don’t teach this in Feminism 101.)
Reminds me of a discussion with my girlfriend. She said that society puts pressure to both men and women to fit their gender roles, but the difference is that the actions expected from men are intrinsically useful, while the actions expected from women are useless. For example, men are pressed into making a lot of money, and while the pressure itself can be bad, having money is good, per se. So a man who makes a lot of money fulfills the social expectations and has the advantage of being rich, at the same time. (Then we had some problems making specific examples about what the society actually wants from women. Perhaps there are multiple, sometimes contradictory social pressures today.)
But I guess we didn’t have this Victorian ideal in this part of the world. Or, more likely, the nobility had it, but for some reasons it never spread to lower classes. Or perhaps the communism eradicated such mannerisms. Don’t know; should ask someone better in history. (EDIT: After some research, it seems the communists removed all the upper-class manners.)
Maybe the situation of an average Eastern European woman is in some aspects more similar to the situation of an average black woman in USA, than of the Victorian lady.
That was probably a rhetorical question, but I think the answer is that it’s easier to recruit people for a fight than for making things better for people in general.
Indeed, but it’s hard work, and can be emotionally damaging.
From what I can tell, Erin Pizzey was attacked for saying that a majority of the women in domestic violence shelters were violent themselves.
Until I looked for details, I didn’t know she was involved with shelters for men, and I think her early career was about shelters for women.
Bearing and raising children is useless?
The Feminine Mystique was about the situation of middle to upper class women in the US in the 50s and 60s—they’d been educated, but then they were expected to limit their ambition to taking care of suburban households, and it was making them crazy. This was a toned-down version of the situation of Victorian upper class women.
Are Eastern European women expected to work for money, but very hard for very little money?
It also didn’t help that advances in technology had made taking care of the household a lot more boring.
They did? Spending 4 hours cleaning clothes with a washboard sounds more boring than spending 40 minutes loading & running a washing machine (for example).
Well the Victorian upper class women Nancy referred to wouldn’t be doing that, they’d be managing their servants cleaning the clothes with a washboard.
Quite true, but given your reference to “advances in technology” I thought you were talking about “middle to upper class women in the US in the 50s and 60s”.
I was comparing the Victorian upper class women with middle to upper class women in the US in the 50s and 60s.
It’s nice to see that numerology has progressed so much since the time of the Pythagoreans and Chinese antiquity—it used to be that zero wasn’t even considered a number, because it doesn’t “count” anything. Now imagine how sexist that would be.
I remember, when cos first posted this, thinking “yup, the fundamental attribution fallacy sucks.”
It seemed rather a lot of words for that insight, but I could sort of imagine how someone for whom understanding the fundamental attribution fallacy and how it applies to the difference between “Sam is a sexual predator” and “Sam performed this act of sexual predation”; “Sam is the sort of person who respects consent” and “Sam noteworthily respected consent the other night”, etc. etc. in the abstract was challenging, it might be valuable to be walked through it more carefully. And the comment thread seemed to suggest that were many such people, which, OK, cool.
Rereading it now, I’m left with the same reaction.
Have I missed anything key about the post, on your view?
I think the post is also a meditation on the SNAFU principle (communication is impossible in a hierarchy—specifically, fear of punishment inhibits communication).
Cos’s approach involves actually lowering the punishment level, not just claiming that whatever people who have the moral edge do mustn’t be counted as punishment.
Huh. Interesting.
Sure, I can see that if I focus solely on the fear-of-punishment aspect of hierarchy.
I certainly endorse defining punishment by its effects independent of the moral edge of its initiators, and I endorse factoring in the knock-on effects of punishment (including but hardly limited to inhibition of communication) when deciding whether to engage in it. (Relatedly, I try to remember that punishment is often reinforcing for the punisher.)