Not Exactly Godwin's Law, But Same General Principle

[alixtii]

If your male friends don't mind offensive jokes, but your female friends do, it doesn't mean that women are oversensitive. It just means your male friends are jerks. (Plz not to be assuming they are shining examples of [y]our sex, guy with whom I am ashamed to share a gender.)

Arg, grrrr. A conversation which was intense and passionate but still very much intelligent (even many of the arguments I passionately disagree with) has just devolved into a sledgepit of sexism and heterosexism, and I'm left weeping for the human species.

That is why the OTW values fandom's female history. Because spaces without that history are drenched in male privilege, and that sort of ugliness is the inevitable--or at least very likely--result. Remind me again why a feminist bias is supposed to be a bad thing?

Comments

[ignazwisdom.livejournal.com]

I can't believe that thing has blown up to 321 responses. I think when I last saw it it was at 19. I can't even bring myself to read the threads because I know that doing so would just rile me up and/or fill me with despair, and unlike some overachievers I could mention, I have not finished my Yuletide story yet. *g* But I'm so glad that we (women, the OTW, fans) have people like you on our side, getting out there and fighting the good fight with calmness and rationality.

(Psst -- your OTW link is missing an http, I think.)

[alixtii.livejournal.com]

Up until comment 250 or so, the conversation was really, really smart--I mean, still frustrating because people weren't getting it, but at least they were not-getting-it in not-stupid ways.

Now it seems to have turned into an argument about whether it's okay to hit girls.

I've only submitted one comment so far and it's not particularly deep--and I won't go deep now that it's turned ugly--so I can't take credit for fighting the good fight in that particular location.

But it at least feels good to complain about it all in the safety of my own journal.

(Thanks!)

[ignazwisdom.livejournal.com]

The last time I talked about OTW in the "safety of my own journal" it got picked up by metafandom and oh, how the naysayers came pouring in. And that was just a post announcing that the org existed.

I think I just have a very low tolerance for repetition and frustration and a great admiration for people who can endure those things for the better good. :)

[alixtii.livejournal.com]

Well, I probably don't have to worry about the anti-fanfic people coming here, no matter what.

As for OTW naysayers, I've been staying out of the discussions because I'm crap at apologetics. I represent everything the people complaining about the perceived academic feminist bias of the OTW apparently hate, and I'm fairly bad at being able to say, "Okay, let's pretend that the reason I hold X isn't for this incredibly radical reason Y that I'll never persuade you to in a million years, and see how moderate position Z actually leads to X as well." (The closest I can get to that type of approach is when I quote papal encyclicals in debates with Roman Catholics.) I'm more likely to bite bullets and say "But that's a good thing!"

I even have issues with big tent "Feminism is just believing men and women are equal" feminism.

(Note the way that ComRel has not been turning to feminist theory, or any notion of patriarchy, to defend the feminist language in the mission statement.)

I have the better arguments; if I didn't believe that, I wouldn't be holding them. But outside of my journal I don't have the moral high ground, and winning arguments can be done to the detriment of the overall discourse.

[thirdblindmouse.livejournal.com]

In response to your thoughts on "big tent feminism": maybe you want to be a radical, but what about all the people who don't? If everybody would just stand back and say, "I recognize men and women are really pretty much the same and entirely equals, and it's about time we acted like it," I and a lot of other people would be content and leave the word for radicals to have fun with. Yes, it's a stupid shame that such a basic expression of reason has a special name. That's exactly the point of [big tent] feminism. The phrase "I'm not a feminist, but..." makes me want to slap the speaker because it implies that the power difference between men and women doesn't still exist and isn't still weighted more specifically against women. I don't know what feminism as you define it is trying to solve, if not that.

[alixtii.livejournal.com]

it implies that the power difference between men and women doesn't still exist and isn't still weighted more specifically against women.

That's my problem with what I call "equalism"--the belief that men and women are equal, but all we have to do about it is admit that they are and then deplore individual acts of sexism when they are proven to happen (trends aren't proof enough)--it ignores that power difference, IMO.

I also think its linguistically idiosyncratic. Maybe not all feminists share a belief in patriarchy, but I think most people who identify as such do have beliefs in common beyond simply "men and women are equal"--I mean, even most neoconservatives are willing to concede that much at this point (they're just unwilling to do anything about it).

At the same time, I understand the political and apologetic purpose of big-tent feminism. I just have difficulty internalizing that purpose, which may be my failing as much as anything else.

[thirdblindmouse.livejournal.com]

the belief that men and women are equal, but all we have to do about it is admit that they are

...and act like it as well. I don't see the connection between that and assuming all exhibitions of sexism are isolated occurrences.

At the same time, I understand the political and apologetic purpose of big-tent feminism.

What other purpose could feminism have? Get to the point where society does not treat women as inferiors or adjuncts to men, then... moon mission? You'll have to describe to me what your definition of feminism is, what problem it is trying to solve if not inequality between the sexes.

[alixtii.livejournal.com]

I'm not arguing that we shouldn't believe men and women are equal--obviously, we should. I'm simply saying that belief isn't sufficient for (although I'd like it to be necessary for) being a member of the feminist moment as I see it being defined in the usage of English as She is Spoke. Obviously, being an equalist is better than being a sexist--but I see "feminist" as denoting an intellectual commitment that goes beyond this.

In general, those I would call merely equalist seem loathe to turn the feminist lens onto culture itself in order to critique it. Misogynistic tropes aren't a problem; the only issues are when there have been a curtailment of an individual's explicit rights which is demonstrably based on gender. I certainly have met women and men like this; I couldn't call them sexist (beyond the sense in which we have all internalized sexist tropes), but they're what I would call feminists either.

I understand that all political allies in the fight against sexual inequality do not need to be convinced of the abductive power of feminist theory.

[alixtii.livejournal.com]

Also, people who react to criticisms of underlying systemic injustices with "Why are you paying attention to gender? You must be sexist!" fall under my definition of equalist.

[thirdblindmouse.livejournal.com]

In general, those I would call merely equalist [...]

Okay, now I understand what you're describing. I've certainly met the type as well (my father, for one; any discussions of gender make him highly uncomfortable).

"Feminist theory" does make it sound like one has to study up to become a feminist.

Also, people who react to criticisms of underlying systemic injustices with "Why are you paying attention to gender? You must be sexist!" fall under my definition of equalist.

Hehe. I'd love to be the person saying that (as in our previous discussion of a genderless feminist utopia). But we're not there yet, dammit. (Are we there yet? ...How about now?)

[alixtii.livejournal.com]

"Feminist theory" does make it sound like one has to study up to become a feminist.

And I understand why that's problematic--but at the same time, I seem constitutionally able to attempt to persuade someone of why X is a problem without invoking feminist theory. Which is the thought which inspired this entire thread: I'm a crappy apologist.

[thirdblindmouse.livejournal.com]

Well, at least you're apologizing for it!

[cathexys.livejournal.com]

i know!

i felt like pointing: there? that's the reason!!!!

[alixtii.livejournal.com]

It's easy to forget that it can get that bad that easily outside the enclave so many wonderful women to whom I shall be indebted forever have built for us.

[amyheartssiroc.livejournal.com]

Thank you. I mean, even if you don't understand why something would offend someone, it's just common decency to not say if you know people will be offended.

[alixtii.livejournal.com]

And just because the person who'd be offended can't hear it doesn't make it okay to say it.

My father once made a comment which implied that an international student at my grad institution needed to be looking for a husband to get a green card and didn't get why I totally flipped out: he hadn't insulted me, had he? Grrr.

[amyheartssiroc.livejournal.com]

Well, I was talking about instances where the person in question is indeed being oversensitive; it won't hurt anyone to say whatever offends them in front of something else, but you're not going to make them less oversensitive by continuing to purposely offend them. But I agree with your point.

[alixtii.livejournal.com]

Well, in the original context, a poster was talking about how it was okay to make jokes like X with his male friends but not his female friends, and this shows there's some type of difference between men and women. And so my response was that, no, it's never okay to make jokes like X (never explicitly defined, but I think we can guess the sort of joke they meant), and the fact that one's male friends don't call one on it is a personal failing of theirs (no doubt made possible by male privilege)--which is why I call them jerks.

[thirdblindmouse.livejournal.com]

Me, I'm glad someone has finally been brave enough to take a stand against the forced buggery [sic] of Kirk and Spock. I understand that men and women are different, but I don't think women should be allowed to be that different.

[phantomas.livejournal.com]

(delurks and waves)

I've just finished reading the whole of Scalzi's post's comments, my mind is overwhelmed by the stupid blindness, and...fandom's female history. Yes, what you said. Thank you :)

[alixtii.livejournal.com]

I just realized it was Instapundit-ed. Hmm. But in any case, yeah, I don't see how anyone could really fault us from being proud of the fact we've managed to keep ourselves separate from that sort of poison.