Hard News: Feminist as crazy old man
468 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 4 5 6 7 8 … 19 Newer→ Last
-
It took me about three years to get to grips with the idea of Race being a total social construct.
Sexuality and gender roles falls into the same basket.
-
Then I realised that in 20 years time I might be saying "You know, some of the Teabaggers were batshit crazy early on, but it turned out to be a reall important movement." And I had to stop thinking like that ...
Yeah, but the Teabaggers don't have any theoretical underpinnings... or any actual goals... or any true injustices to redress. I mean, with hardcore communists, or black separatists, or feminist separatists, you see how they use the initial reasonable movement/goals to eventually *get* to that place, even if it's a ridiculous or awful one. But the Teabaggers *started* with "BLACK MAN PRESIDENT! ME SCAREDY! GRAR!" Where do you even go from there?
-
I wonder if you did a survey of high earning women, you'd find a different pattern in the earnings of their spouses than women earning the average female wage. Theoretically, having lots of dosh means you can choose a partner without worrying about their ability to provide - it would be interesting to see if that played out in fact.
Anecdotally, I would suggest that people tend to partner with people in similar social groupings, education levels etc, more than crossing those boundaries. And often income levels, though those things don't always carry through to income.
But CEOs of decent sized businesses aren't likely to have a partner who is a cleaner or labourer. It'll be lawyers, doctors, teachers, other business people etc.
-
And in the 'Angry Wimmin' episode, there's a moment that just makes me gasp: where it's related that some of the radical feminist communes extended invitations for other women to join them -- on the condition that they abandon their male children.
The later, more whacked out parts of the New Left in early 1970s America took their new (partially feminist ideals) to mean that partnering with one person was a bad idea (as part of the patriarchy). So orgies, and partnering up with different people each night became the revolutionary model.
A side effect of this was that previously strong activist groups were torn apart by endless meetings about the personal relationships and sexual activity of members who weren't following the new rules properly.
-
Sorry to shoot and run yesterday. The irony is I've been consumed by childcare since, and even writing this post is hard <pause to play tummy-eating monster with baby>. My whole life is work and childcare these days, newborns take a lot of time <pause to roll baby>. Not that I grudge it, yesterday was glorious and would probably be best put on the love thread. I'm not sure which wave of feminism fits with giving my wife a break so she can just breast feed the baby and then sleep, whilst I take the elder to Pt Chev Beach on the bike <pause to change CD of nursery rhymes>, slowly coaxed him out of his comfort zone up to his hips in lovely warm water, made sand castles and pools, collected shells, wrote in the sand <pause to clean up bathroom from eldest's newfound love of washing hands>, deck-changed his nappy, shared a snack, rode to Pt Chev to the only open cafe where we shared a muffin, and he surprised me by drinking from an unfamiliar cup which he held in his hands. As I write this, both boys are chatting to me, and I chat back <pause to notice that baby has discovered how to roll over the other way, as far as I can tell for the first time. He giggles happily when I praise him>.
Now I'm the sole breadwinner, by stint of 2 things. Firstly, wife decided to take an extended break when the second baby came. Second, her workplace made her redundant anyway. Given that their main justification <pause, wife back from hanging up clothes, wants to plan day> for that was because she was pregnant, which is highly discriminatory, we opted to marry the 2. I helped her negotiate <pause to change baby, give sponge bath, apply medz> a decent payout, which ended up being way larger than her maternity pay was going to be. It was a weird negotiation, in a room full of women, and me. Women seem to have been given the dirty job during the recession of handling laying off the other women, and this incredibly polite, careful, respectful thank-you-now-fuck-off-and-look-after-bubby, was done in the most professional way I've seen. They worked hard to play up the guilt side that my wife should be resting, needs the time with the new baby etc etc. I played up the guilt side of sacking a pregnant woman after 11 years of loyal and hardworking service <pause to make bottle>, how does that look to the other women, etc etc. Wife cried on cue (perfect timing, I could see that really hit the other women in the room, although I thought I actually detected a slightly smug sound from the ozzie woman on the phone, a hateful cow who (when I worked in oz in the same firm) always struck me as someone who's own glass ceiling was fixed by the disdain she always showed for her female co-workers <pause to discipline elder for hitting walls, and that most scary one, himself>. The offer ended up being reasonably generous, and the door was left open for her to return after baby has got older. It seemed like a win-win. My own hope is that after a while away, my wife will find she does not miss that particular workplace, and can look for something a bit closer to her talents, possibly amongst the customers who sang her praises on a daily basis. But that's all her choice and I will support whatever it is. If she doesn't want to work, I'm happy, but I doubt it will go that way.
Which puts me in the spot of basically having to up my hours a lot - gotta pay the way and help out with the doubled childcare at home. We divide the labor as we can - mostly I look after the old one when he gets unmanageably bored (can't wait for preschool to come back from holidays, he really enjoyed it), and give bottles to the baby, or keep them both entertained while wife does other chores. I could do the chores instead, but she wants the break from the kids, totally understandable. As my Mum put it, she didn't have any thoughts that took more than 20 seconds to form for about 8 years when the house was full of me and my siblings.
This is my form of practical feminism. The theoretical side is basically something I don't have time for - moral lessons do really need to be a bit simple sometimes, or people who are busy can't learn them. Men don't need to learn guilt at the hands of polemicists, they need the carrot instead, to take the time to enjoy childcare, to see the values of various women in the workplace, to learn that a shared life isn't all about power. It's meant to be about love.
Pollywog, if you are still reading, I'm sorry to see the way it's gone here. I don't think you're a wanker, but you really do need to learn the art of online respect. I see things you do that I used to do. You can change your tone, and if you want to write here, you should. I got mildly ragged on by Sophie ITF for hassling you a while back*, and I thought she was right, then, that it was hard to dislike you when we got to know you. Stick to that, give the tribal-rivalry a rest, ask Russell nicely, and we could still get the benefit of hearing about how your form of practical feminism works.
*I'm presuming you were Dubmugga before, you have the same avatar and tone. If not, I feel a little silly.
-
Sometimes knowledge is not power just... ecrk
I sort of knew what" teabaggers" as a US political term meant
But when I checked Google I found more than I needed to knowWhich just proves right wing wankers don't know everything or they would come up with a better name for an anti-tax "no black man is going to be our President" type movement
-
The theoretical side is basically something I don't have time for
Yeah, all that feminist theory is for the birds. Hey wait, aren't you the guy who'll spend hours debating philosophy? :)
Men don't need to learn guilt at the hands of polemicists, they need the carrot instead
But... there sort of isn't a carrot. Or, at least, it isn't a traditional carrot. (Maybe it's one of those weird purple ones.) For the average guy grappling with this work/life/feminism/job value equation, the dangling vegetable doesn't look that much different from the stick, does it?
Waiting for privileged people to become magnanimous isn't a society-wide solution. It's like pollywog's idea that we'll all magically evolve to accept GLBT rights without bothering with pesky things called laws. You actually *need* activists and formal solutions for these kinds of issues. They don't just fix themselves.
-
Men don't need to learn guilt at the hands of polemicists, they need the carrot instead, to take the time to enjoy childcare, to see the values of various women in the workplace, to learn that a shared life isn't all about power. It's meant to be about love.
Feminism isn't just a struggle for more equality in the care of the children and work opportunities. Are you suggesting to way to get society to take rape more seriously is to offer men a carrot? Certain fights demand that a certain amount of anger be brought to them.
I was hoping there'd be some robust defence of Bindel. I'm interested in hearing a case for her.
She's pretty hard to defend. I'd be happier to mount a defence of Rich, or Dworkin. Bindel is just vile, and self-servingly so.
ETA: Curse you, Danielle, you could have paged me before clicking on Post Reply.
-
Certain fights demand that a certain amount of anger be brought to them.
But wouldn't that mean... you're Damaging Your Cause By Being Angry (TM)?
ETA: No, we said something different! So it's OK. Also, what is this 'paging' of which you speak?
-
you're Damaging Your Cause By Being Angry (TM)?
Hah. Well, yes.
Can't believe it took me so long, but this is the part where I plug Nina Power's brilliant recent book One Dimensional-Woman, which is an invective against consumer feminism but also and more generally a most useful pamphlet on the state of feminism. I think the conclusion is most apposite here:
The political imagination of contemporary feminism is at a standstill. The perky, upbeat message of self-fulfillment and consumer emancipation masks a deep inability to come to terms with serious transformations in the nature of work and culture. For all its glee and excitement, the self-congratulatory feminism that celebrates individual identity above all else is a one-dimensional feminism. It is the flip-side of the image of the one-dimensional worker who is expected never to let herself or her company down by dressing badly, not being enthusiastic or, worst of all, getting pregnant. The feminization of labor and the laborization of women will continue to run adrift on the major contradictions of capitalism and the opportunistic sexism that accompanies it, and no amount of sticking-plaster pleasures will compensate.
The sheer crystalline simplicity of [Toni] Morrison’s insights into the relationship between class, race and gender, and the memory that sex, cinema and alternative modes of living once held great promise, should remind us that feminism was at one time a great generator of new thoughts and new modes of existence. With the shattering of certain economic ‘certainties’ comes the questioning of other supposedly ‘natural’ modes of behaviour. If feminism takes this opportunity to shake off its current imperialist and consimerist sheen it could once again place its vital transformative political demands centre-stage, and shuffle off its current one-dimensionality for good.
We need radical thinkers - I'd rather they be socialists and feminists personally, but whatever shakes your tree - to imagine different worlds, so long as they are just worlds, inhabitable by all. Bindel obviously fails on that account.
(Many will know Power for her blog, infinite thØught. And on the subject of the intelligibility of theory, Ben will like the sentiment she expresses in an interview with taz she just posted.)
-
But CEOs of decent sized businesses aren't likely to have a partner who is a cleaner or labourer. It'll be lawyers, doctors, teachers, other business people etc.
Dead right, to a point. I'm wondering if there's a growing male version of upper-middle-class low income types - the art gallery docents, the people who devote their time to various community causes, and so on. I remember hearing once that Mai Chen's partner was a poet or a philosopher or something - that sort of thing.
Or on the other hand, you could have a legion of pool boys with sugar mummies, for all I know. The pill meant that women could sleep with guys they didn't necessarily want to marry; breaking the glass ceiling could mean that women could marry (or form other partnerships with) guys they don't need to rely on for financial support.
Ben, I'm writing my comments between bathtimes, nappy changes, don't-want-to-have-a-nap-but-I'm-so-tired-I'll-grizzle-the-house-downtimes and feed times - but I've found that I can get a hell of a lot of books read during feeds. Two kids would be a whole other story.
-
Will catch up with the rest of this thread later, but can I just put in a good word for Marina Hyde as a female Guardian columnist? And about the only one I bother reading these days.
-
Hey wait, aren't you the guy who'll spend hours debating philosophy? :)
I am, but this particular debate is not one I've ever felt particularly included in, and that's from a very young age. Part of that is because I fall into the white wealthy male demographic. It's not really a surprise that JS Mill was the first person I felt was actually talking to me, rather than attempting some form of indoctrination. He was also a privileged white male.
But... there sort of isn't a carrot. Or, at least, it isn't a traditional carrot.
It's a carrot for me. Changing societal notions about childcare isn't just about acknowledging that it's work. It's also about acknowledging that it's work men might actually want to do, rather than be forced to do.
Waiting for privileged people to become magnanimous isn't a society-wide solution.
And I'm not suggesting it. I'm talking to the men, as one of them, practicing what I preach. Woman don't need to be told of the hardships or the joys of childcare. Or do they? Perhaps they do, if they have formed ideological notions that it is degrading work. I don't find it so.
Feminism isn't just a struggle for more equality in the care of the children and work opportunities. Are you suggesting to way to get society to take rape more seriously is to offer men a carrot?
I didn't say it was. But I'm talking about what I do, and I'm not a rapist, nor do I know any, so I don't have anything much to say on the matter, other than that it's a very sick crime. I guess, however, that understanding why people do it might actually help more than simply treating rapists harshly after the fact (although that should also be done).
> Certain fights demand that a certain amount of anger be brought to them.
But wouldn't that mean... you're Damaging Your Cause By Being Angry (TM)?
Anger is good, sometimes. But it's the stick, and can be overused. Carrots are actually better for a great deal of behavior change.
-
There has been on the CiF discussion boards where I hang out a strong suspicion for some time now that the Graun deliberately has provocative pieces simply to get their page impressions and comment numbers up for the advertisers (I use several ad blocking servers, so I don't see many of them anyway).
Question if an advert appears on the internet and nobody clicks on it, does it truly exist?
-
Carrots are actually better for a great deal of behavior change.
And sometimes there's nothing like forcing somebody to change at pitchfork-point, once you're done asking nicely. Who says feminists need to convince men of anything?
-
There's nothing like the presence of a few sticks to make the carrot option look more palatable too.
-
But wouldn't that mean... you're Damaging Your Cause By Being Angry (TM)?
Yes... and no. Hey, I've done being Mr. Perma-Rage and you know something? It's exhausting, and it just doesn't work. Just like building yourself a shining ideological city on a hill is all very nice, but sooner or later you also got to figure out how you're going to live with the valley of bones out the back.
I've often said that ideology is the end of thought, but I'm now not so sure. It's more like training wheels on a bike, very good for getting your started but eventually you've got to modify if in the face of the messy, contradictory, often brain-meltingly infuriating world most of us have no choice but to live in.
-
I've often said that ideology is the end of thought, but I'm now not so sure.
Besides the fact that there is nobody as ideological as the people who claim not to be ideological, you mean?
There's nothing like the presence of a few sticks to make the carrot option look more palatable too.
Quite. And to the extent that radical movements have had any success in the west, there's always been a stick there somewhere. The civil rights movement, the struggle for abortion back home, the Springbok Tour movement here all had an insurrectional element. A demonstration isn't democratic: the people on the street may well be a minority, but they say look, I believe in my cause more than you believe in the status quo, and I'm quite prepared to make your life as miserable as I can until you accept my demands.
The idea that men may not be needed at all may be a sort of stick too, and as such it has a function that goes quite beyond its specific merits or its tenability.
-
3410,
Steven, you appear to be suffering from peanuts envy.
-
Giovanni - I think the anti-abortion movement illustrates the carrot/stick model better than the abortion rights campaign (they challenged the law but generally in private). I haven't heard of any extremist actions on the part of the latter, but the former are masters of it.
-
What's with the carrots?
Heh... that often occurs to me. I always feel like asking: are those carrots cooked? In that case, I'll have the stick please.
-
I haven't heard of any extremist actions on the part of the latter, but the former are masters of it.
I'm talking about demonstrations and activism, taking personal risk, not senseless violence. I believe they are a stick too, as indeed are strikes.
-
Ben, I feel like your argument could be boiled down to 'if you'd just ask more nicely...'
Which is demonstrably untrue.
-
Besides the fact that there is nobody as ideological as the people who claim not to be ideological, you mean?
Gio: I'm not "you people", and I'm really having far too nice a Sunday afternoon to get into it. But, yeah, I'm quite happy to argue that theory that hasn't been tempered by experience is all kinds of stupid.
-
BenWilson, it's worth remembering that your whole experience of being so involved in caring for your children has at least in part come about because of feminism. At its best, although feminism prioritises as better life for women, it not not meant to be better than men, just better than the lives women have now, and ideally, better for everyone. Y'know - the "patriarchy harms men too" thought.
I think Giovanni is right: anger was, and is, needed to act as a catalyst for (at least some) changes. I doubt that we would have Women's Refuge and Rape Crisis and other such institutions without a powerful starting point, and the basic emotion of anger may have been that starting point.
With respect to carrots and sticks, the wonderful Mary Wollstonecraft argued for education for women, as a matter of justice (stick), but she also offered a powerful carrot: educated women would make better wives and mothers (carrot). One of the essay questions I sometimes set for my students is "Do Mary Wollstonecraft's prudential (carrot) arguments undermine her ethical (stick) arguments?"
Anyway, I hope you're all having a lovely time. I would love to join in and play some more too, but we are busy packing to go to the beach for a week, sans internet.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.