HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Gender & Orientation » History of Feminism (Group) » How every single discussi...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 10:43 AM

How every single discussion about SEXISM and anti-woman type stuff on the internet (and real life)

has ever happened and ever will happen, always, forever, until the earth finally falls into the sun. (or until the patriarchy is dismantled)

http://www.gabbysplayhouse.com/webcomics/sexism/

13 replies, 1540 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 13 replies Author Time Post
Reply How every single discussion about SEXISM and anti-woman type stuff on the internet (and real life) (Original post)
redqueen Jan 2013 OP
October Jan 2013 #1
BainsBane Jan 2013 #2
niyad Jan 2013 #3
Helen Reddy Jan 2013 #4
niyad Jan 2013 #5
Helen Reddy Jan 2013 #6
niyad Jan 2013 #10
patrice Jan 2013 #7
Sheldon Cooper Jan 2013 #11
patrice Jan 2013 #12
ismnotwasm Jan 2013 #8
seabeyond Jan 2013 #9
patrice Jan 2013 #13

Response to redqueen (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 10:58 AM

1. See this time and time again

An interesting part in the Spieldberg movie, Lincoln, included when one of the Congressmen stated, "What's next, votes for women?" (paraphrasing) to which the entire room rose to their feet screaming in outrage.

That moment said it all regarding misogyny, but alas, no one is mentioning it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redqueen (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 11:04 AM

2. reminds me of Meta

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redqueen (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 11:13 AM

3. and that is when it is even acknowledged. how many times do we see posts about sexism,

violence, etc., sink from complete indifference?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redqueen (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 11:26 AM

4. We go out for sushi

 

every chance we get when we have errands in Madison. My SO reminds me there are few sushi chefs because women "bleed".

No, this isn't 1754, 1899, 1947 values. This is now.

Apologies if this is off topic. It just angers me so, had to share.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Helen Reddy (Reply #4)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 12:06 PM

5. just as a matter of curiosity, just how sexist is your SO?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to niyad (Reply #5)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 12:17 PM

6. Excuse me?

 

You misunderstand. That question is right up there with "When have you stopped beating your wife?"

If you knew me or my SO, you would laugh at your own question. But alas, this board is difficult albeit nearly impossible to really understand where the other person is coming from.

I am also guilty sometimes of not communicating well in ink. So I will assume some of the blame here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Helen Reddy (Reply #6)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 05:26 PM

10. will take it as read, then.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redqueen (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 12:30 PM

7. I agree with Gabby, but I haven't been following what's going on, so I need to ask:

Just in terms of Gabby's examples,

What do we want? Short of promoting violence, I CAN'T tell people NOT to say things. If that's what we want, I can't do it.

I understand how the language we are talking about here nourishes the potential for violence, against women in this case, but if I say, "No matter what I wear, no matter where I go, yes means yes and no means no" that means that men are responsible for their own behavior, no matter what kind of language they are exposed to, right? How can we require them to be honest & responsible if the environment in which that is to occur is not authentic, because their, and consequently our own, language has been sterilized? To me, that's like saying "Conservatives are bad for people and you are prohibited from ever confronting them directly in their own terms." There would never be any opportunities for DIRECT PERSONAL engagement and may the best person/case win. We are, thus, ever held in infantile status in the nursery, instead of becoming true warriors for women.

Something from Gabby's cartoon strikes me; it appears that the problem isn't that women are wrong, but that not enough people recognize that compared to how many support whatever men are saying in response to feminism, so even if you do have the best case and you are the best person in that situation to bring it, it doesn't matter, because what is REALLY going on is more about cliques than it is about truth.

What do do?

My own approach to these kinds of rhetorical situations is to try to fracture whatever the cliques are built around. In this case, that appears to be sexist language. What's the best way to do that? Perhaps you are familiar with how being attacked and coerced and mandated to do this or that usually causes you to build bulwarks with anyone available on your "side" of the issue. The more you are attacked, the more obdurate those bulwarks become and, then, the WHOLE dynamic from that point forward becomes about those walls and why they were built in the first place: a perceived power grab, a perceived authoritarian assault against the perceived "individual's" perceived right to be "right" or "wrong."

As I said, I have not been following the development of feminism currently, closely enough to really know what's going on, but the dynamic sketched in my paragraph just previous to this one is my strongest concern about it. I do NOT want to be side tracked from what NEEDS to be talked about by BOTH sides and IN DEPTH, by "He said, she said . . . (a naughty, politically incorrect, word)." It is my personal opinion that the only way we are going to get at the most fundamental issues is to, again short of the promotion of violence, allow all or most language onto the field and then, NOT defend, but attack the language itself, NOT their right to say whatever. Keep the focus on empiricism rather than attacking anyone's right to say anything that isn't violent (and if the words do imply violence make that observation, but don't lose sight of fundamental facts, all of them).

My point is similar to losing sight of the forest for the trees, but worse, in that it may in some specific dyads, be more like losing sight of a specific tree for one leaf on that tree. There IS indeed a point to be made about that leaf, more about that tree, and even more about the forest, if we want to get at the real truth. The questions are about HOW best to do all of that and I personally think life-or-death struggles over words are so much the lowest-common-denominator that they do INDEED attract mobs, like those Gabby describes, because it's such a SIMPLE thing to cling to when men are frightened and confused and, then, as Gabby also observes, especially on the internet, those mobs obscure the more complete truths, because the cliques/mobs becomes the point instead of the truth.

None of that means that women can't talk about sexist language (remember I said I CAN'T tell people NOT to say things), only that the reactionary POWER struggle (from both sides) about language should not be the only, nor necessarily the main, thing that's going on. Short of violence, neither side should be able to order/coerce the other what not to say, doing so will only interfere with what NEEDS to be done.

I personally long for the day when men can say whatever and be met by women who meet them head-on, strength for strength, with principled empirical strength on ALL of the issues and with fearlessness (i.e. not tooooo fearful about the reactions of their own feminist cliques), in an ongoing maximum strength struggle to be a feminist part of a dynamic that reveals the truth and, thus, frees themselves and men from too much obsession with their power over one another.

....................................

These observations are a result of my own experiences and if you'd like more orientation in terms of the over-all discourse, I have found that in the works of people like Paolo Freire and John Dewey, because ALL of life is a life-long learning PROCESS.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to patrice (Reply #7)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 06:12 PM

11. Meh.

You don't think 'naughty, politically incorrect words' should sidetrack discussion. To me, there can be NO discussion with anyone who's fine with calling women b's and c's. The first time that comes out, the conversation is over. If they can't be bothered to observe even the simplest expectation of common decency, how in the hell are they going to discuss aynthing that "NEEDS to be talked about by BOTH sides and IN DEPTH.."?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sheldon Cooper (Reply #11)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 07:54 PM

12. No one can see/hear what they are unless something continues. Surprise is an advantage over

the usual cliches. & It can be quite clear that that event is not a sign of respect but a dismantling instead and, then, the end of the deconstruction can be the dismantler's choosing, not the sexist miscreant's, at an instructionaly strategic and maximally embarrassing point.

. . . or not if you'd prefer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redqueen (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 01:42 PM

8. The Internet is a tough place to discuss anything sometimes.

But especially patriarchal entrenched topics like sexism.

I've been torturing myself lately reading men's rights blogs, a number which have charming titles like "the top ten ugliest Feminists" or "You weren't raped" many have something to the effect of 'rape culture doesn't resist'--- tone of these are aggressive and falsely 'masculine' on the Internet, you can express anger or outrage; they will then respond with gleeful superiority. Not much of interest in change or discussion. The Internet protects your person, and you can find the like minded to support your ego.

In RL, there isn't one single male acquaintance of mine who would walk away with that bullshit.

The bigger problem is the lack of discussion in real life. So we got what we got. On the bright side, the Internet is giving women a greater voice all over the world, male allies have a way to speak their support.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ismnotwasm (Reply #8)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 02:29 PM

9. i think that is a huge problem. a man would not even consider saying it out loud in RL but have

buddies that will reinforce what they say and condition others to feel the same, on the net.

i think about all i say on the net, i would be more than willing to say in RL.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ismnotwasm (Reply #8)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 09:15 PM

13. Agree.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread