Bingo time

[jtniehof]

I've been referring to this as "feminism bingo":

...which is, of course, bullshit of a pretty high order, because "misogynist responses to women who dare to speak up" really doesn't fall under "feminism." Henceforth this will be known as "misogyny bingo", with my apologies.

I mentioned offhand the possibility of doing an LJ series running the board, and ayelle encouraged me with words that seemed totally out of proportion to how I see myself. I'm working more on the level of "basic humanity" rather than "really understanding the issues" and for a brief moment my ego was slightly inflated. Then I realized that 1) maybe we as a society are way too far from "basic humanity" so it seems exceptional and/or 2) the notion of a guy, any guy, voluntarily speaking up is so rare as to be encouraged in the strongest.

So, this is one guy, who learned a few new ways to look at things in the last few years, trying to share that perspective with others. I am not a women's studies expert by any means, nor frankly at the head of the pack in equal treatment. Just a guy.

I'll write up a real post in a day or two, but first, please, some ground rules. I won't hestiate to screen or delete comments if necessary. In particular, if someone I don't know starts beating up on my friends, regardless of gender, I won't take it well.

1) Men, please read these with the intent to understand and learn rather than to argue and justify. It's about finding another perspective, not proving yourself right.
2) Women, you're welcome to read and comment (particularly if I'm acting like an idiot), but you are not the target audience here. Sidenote: I'll be using conventional English rather than GNPs or more inclusive spellings.
3) Everybody, please assume good faith; correct, and accept correction, gently. Let people make mistakes without having their head ripped off. And if you've made a mistake, honest, you're still a decent human being.
4) This is really a commentary on sexism. Other -isms deserve attention and effort. Just not in these topics...one thing at a time, please?

Three things that I've flogged before. Two are on race, not gender...as a white male, they were useful to me in understanding both. For others they may not translate as well:
I can fix it: racism
How not to be insane when accused of racism
On privilege
[EDIT: Bah. The fourth, which started the conversation when ayelle linked it, is The Terrible Bargain We Have Regretfully Struck. Sorry for forgetting that; it's a good one. (And very uncomfortable for me. Good uncomfortable.)]

And one LJ community of interest, not terribly active: feminist_101

Good background reading. See you later.

Comments

[ayelle.livejournal.com]

*cheers*

[ayelle.livejournal.com]

And yeah, it is kinda weird that this board is sometimes called "feminism bingo" when all the rest are called "racism bingo" and "able-ism bingo" and "fat-hate bingo" and such. I'd probably just call it "antifeminism bingo" (since not all sexists are misogynists -- plenty of them really *love* women, they don't hate women at all, but that love in no way interferes with their rampant sexism). But "misogyny bingo" has a ring to it too, I admit.

[ayelle.livejournal.com]

This post is fortuitously timed, because just today I was forced into a continuation of an argument about a feminist issue... I was angry, and I refused to continue, as it had become obvious that we were not dealing some minor misunderstanding of the other's position, but a real, deep-down disagreement on a feminist issue. It had me a bit upset, but I'm actually feeling rather vindicated now because I realized that the arguments he was making hit several bingo squares: E3 and E5 on this board, maybe a variant of A3 as well -- and (hilariously) A1 on this one (Antifeminist Bingo II). And the overall conversation gave me the desire to add a new square about "what you're calling sexism is biologically hardwired (and arguably a good thing for the human race)!" (ARGH EVOPSYCH FTF). Unless that would be covered by A3 on the second board? Hmm.

Anyway, thanks. I feel better. Given the way the conversation was going earlier today I'm also particularly glad to see this from another male scientist.

[nigoki.livejournal.com]

And you posted that as I sort of asserted that it is somewhat hardwired in a response I was writing. D'oh.

I'm just going to admit now that I'm probably going to have a lot of my points torn apart, which is fine since this is a subject I'm far from versed in.

Biologically wired? Maybe only slightly. Brought into a certain way of thinking? Probably. Best example: Breasts. We are told they are a sexual thing, yet really, they aren't. Straight guys get programmed into looking at them as an object of their desire, yet everybody has nipples and if we grew up seeing women without tops on as often as we do men, breasts probably wouldn't be viewed the way they are.

And yet, just letting go of that programming is hard because it's been that way for all our lives. Sure things can and do change, but it takes time. I hate playing this card, but look at other struggles in history, like the equality of races. It's come a long way, but does still have a way to go and I think equality of the sexes/genders has seen progress, but still isn't balanced. In both instances, there is little guarantee that there ever will be a perfect balance.

[nigoki.livejournal.com]

Addendum: That's not to say that the equality isn't worth fighting for, rather that it is a long battle.

[ayelle.livejournal.com]

Well, totally by coincidence, you got it exactly right with your example of breasts! The argument I was having was in fact about female toplessness, and one of the man's arguments was that the idea that legally, men and women should have the exact same right to go topless under the same circumstances (which he didn't dispute *legally* of course), just showcases how Biologically, We Are Not The Same and imposing legal equality just highlights the irreconcilable differences, because of course in reality women's tops and men's tops are Not The Same (with the underlying assumption that the sight of women's tops affects men differently than the sight of men's tops affects people -- YOU KNOW BECAUSE OF BIOLOGY).

Never mind that during the 16th and 17th centuries, there were times and places where women could expose their breasts (because those weren't sexy, women feed their babies with those!) but had to keep their ankles covered, because women's naked ankles were private parts, obscene in public. People joke as if the medievals somehow had it wrong and nowadays we've ACTUALLY figured out which parts of the body are sexy (and indecent to show in public) and which aren't. But even today, of course, there are places in the world where it is as obscene to show a woman's nose and lips as it is here to show her breasts. The fetishization of women's body parts is A) the result of social conditioning and B) a device the patriarchy has historically used to control women's sexuality.

So I feel even more validated/gratified that you happened to bring that up as an example. Thanks for that. :)

[jnik.livejournal.com]

That post pushed me over the edge to actually do this.

Margi and I have wrangled a bit over Heinlein's particular brand of chivalry. Her fundamental point, as I understand it, is that humanity is not on the brink of extinction, so any discussion of biological imperatives is a red herring. As an established civilization, we can afford to expend a bit of effort on other things. Or: Even if sexism is a necessity for survival (assumption, not a proven), we're not in a survival situation, so let's have some equality, hm? I'm allowed to have glasses rather than letting evolution take its course.

O5/E5 is, I think, at the core of the offense to a lot of this. "Let's get beyond what matters to you and talk about the really important part" (i.e., "me.")

[ayelle.livejournal.com]

I realized I was using the wrong lettering. :P E3 and E5 should have been O3/O5 and A3/A1 should have been B3 and B1. But you probably figured that out! This is because I never really played BINGO. :)

[diatomacearth.livejournal.com]

I totally do not remember that discussion, although it seems like the sort of thing I'd argue. I wish I could remember the context!

[jnik.livejournal.com]

Hanging around our living room. There was wine involved; probably post-Thai. I think I was returning Anathem to you and we slid over into RAH?

[nigoki.livejournal.com]

A lot of what comes to mind when I look at stuff like this is the reading I do when I get bored and look at random stuff on the topic of dating. The "Nice Guy" comment really reminded me of that. While I wouldn't go as far as some and say that the modern guy has been "brainwashed" into thinking that he has to be more of the sensitive man in touch with his feelings to be what women want, I would agree that the role of what we're told to be and what is differs more from what is actually desired than we might think. There's a fine line between being a nice, caring guy, and being a doormat. Very few people want to get into a relationship with someone who doesn't make action, take a little initiative, and has a spine. Imagine how bored you would be with someone who always went the "whatever you want" route.

There is a place for fair treatment between the two genders, but at the same time denying the fact that there ARE differences between male and female thought processes is short-sighted. (And whether or not the origins of those thoughts processes are nature or nurture is a debate for another time). Perhaps I'm over simplifying things, but let's look at the basic grounds for attraction. Both sexes (and genders) have certain things that draw them to another person, even if it's just a passing glance. You want proof? It's been proven that men look at a woman's breasts first. I'd be willing to bet there are similar statistics for women looking at men.
Equality is nice, but I think biologically and psychologically, there are some instances where things just can't be on the level. Sometimes it favors one sex, sometimes it favors the other.
If feminism is a fight for equality, that's fine, but if I'm going to be chided simply because of the equipment I was born with, well, that's not exactly fair either is it? It seems wrong to seek revenge on someone who hasn't actually wronged you and assume guilt by association. That's the fight that bugs me when I think of feminism. Seek equality when there's equality to be found.

Ok, I'm rambling and it's past midnight. Hopefully this response makes sense and I won't come back to it later and realize I made less sense than I thought I did.

[jnik.livejournal.com]

I1, B3, N5? Don't worry, we will get to them. Part of the goal here is for us (men) to move beyond the defensiveness. It's a very natural reaction, but not a very productive one. Just because someone is being hostile or not considering our feelings doesn't mean she doesn't have a point...coddling the privileged's psyche might not be a priority. And is this hypothetical she necessarily being all that hostile? In my teaching training/research group, we discussed getting women to participate in the classroom. A recent study indicated that women who spoke as much as the average man were regarded by their peers--men and women--as know-it-all loudmouths who were monopolizing class time. Men who spoke up all the time (guilty as charged, here) were usually praised for "initiative" and "involvement." Our sense of aggression is badly skewed by the expectation of women as meek and quiet, even if we don't realize it. See "how not to be insane when accused."

The insidious thing about almost everything on this bingo chart (we'll make an exception for, say, the deep-dicking) is there's a grain of truth in there, "making the lie that much stronger" as C. S. Lewis would say. But it's a tiny grain, maybe a 1% effect, a mere bagatelle. This butterfly-flutter-in-a-hurricane is held up as an absolute trump card by the triumphant male: "Aha! She did not think of that! I'm vindicated!" and the woman's right to speak is shut right down. These aren't the fine points of a finely-braided discussion over tea...they're the sledgehammers used to push a woman's concern out. Even if that's not how you intend it. Because these have become tropes. Shorthand. Offensive in themselves, but hiding a whole host of even uglier things that one really can't get away with saying. They cannot be divorced from their context...more on context in a bit.

Example: the differing biology thing. I'm going to toss nurture differences right out because I think they're a symptom rather than a cause. Biological gender is far more complicated than most people realize. Have you been reading about the athelete who's having trouble for competing in women's events? There's suspicion she may be a genetic XXY. What amazes me is the large fraction of the population (several percent) that may have similar genetic ambiguities and never know it. Even worse...the evidence being seriously cited that she's "really" male? She didn't play with dolls as a child, preferring to play sports. Really? That's something you might expect from, I don't know, a future athlete? Little boys have always worn blue (http://hueconsulting.blogspot.com/2007/03/why-is-blue-for-boys-and-pink-for-girls.html), right?

True scientific study of gender differences in evolution and development is a fine field and might illuminate things for us. But it's a difficult problem which, I think, doesn't lend itself well to what is essentially pop psychology. Remember also that, like nearly all fields of science, the top evolutionary biologists are still men. Read Stephen Jay Gould's The Mismeasure of Man for what happens when a bunch of white guys, brilliant scientific minds and really very enlightened individuals for their time, study the differences between races. (I keep using the race analogy. Partly that's because I think, in some areas, we've come further as a society on that front than on the sexism front. "Miscegenation" isn't a big deal in much of America, but same-sex marriage still is.)

Guilt by association (and here's where context comes in): The essential problem is not "Some men do bad things," therefore "all men are bad," therefore "you, as a particular man, are bad." But it's rather that we live in a society which is still patriarchal, and you cannot participate in society without participating in the patriarchy. See "On privelege." You get it, whether you ask for it or not, whether you want it or not, whether you realize it or not. This, incidentally, is why "do no harm" is insufficient. Doing nothing perpetuates a system that is soaked through with male privelege.

[jnik.livejournal.com]

Egads, longpost is long. Hopefully something to chew on.

[ayelle.livejournal.com]

We've been talking a bit about Semenya in our Performing Gender on the Early Modern Stage class. The ratio of intersex births, corrected every day in hospitals by obstetricians who make a quick decision on the spot, is staggeringly high -- it's something like one out of a thousand births, huge. Did you know that there are more intersex people in the United States than Jews? (Not to draw any kind of parallel between the two groups, just to give an idea of size.)

[ayelle.livejournal.com]

A quick expansion on the Nice Guy(TM) phenomenon: the basic problem, the reason that this is a bingo square is that we have a setup in which the man believes he has to figure out how to act in order to get sex from women. The setup assumes that men are entitled to sex. That women are playing a game and sex (and/or a sexual relationship) is the prize. That if men can just figure out what the women want, they will Win and get sex. Therefore, if they're trying hard to do what the women want, and still aren't getting sex -- well, then we get the rage, the unfairness, the idea that Women Aren't Playing Fair, and the gym shooting. Why aren't the women telling me what I have to do in order to get sex and then giving it to me when I do everything they say they want??

And the problem, of course, is that men are not entitled to sex from women. It's not a game, there aren't rules, there is no situation under which the man, upon Doing Everything Right, then Gets the Sex He Deserves.

Your right about a different part of a different "Nice Guy" problem -- that women often don't like men who are doormats (or, I would rather say, people often don't like people who are doormats, particularly not in relationships where the desire is for equal partnerships). But I wanted to expand on why the bingo square is there -- and it's not about men trying to be Nice and Sensitive (like women want them to be) but Doing It Wrong, turning into doormats, and thus not getting sex. The bingo square is about the idea that there is ANYthing a man can do, any particular way he can behave, that will get him the sex he is entitled to.

[nigoki.livejournal.com]

Ah, I understand that now. That makes a lot of sense.

Along those same lines, couldn't one say that women are programmed in a similar fashion? ie "If you behave this way you won't be able to attract a man" Of course there is also the *belief* (I emphasize that this isn't 100% fact) that it's easier for a woman to go out and have her pick of the litter. If she wants sex, she is the one holding the keys, therefore leaving the guys having to play the game and hopefully say/do the right things to win the prize.
It's a strange position because it both objectifies the woman, yet places her in the position of power at the very same time.

[ayelle.livejournal.com]

It appears to put her in a position of power, but it's an illusion. As long as the basic rule is that men are entitled to sex, any pretense that women have the right to control their own sexuality is a lie. Thus, thousands of individual women can refuse George Sodini the sex he feels he deserves -- but when he snaps and guns down three innocent women in a gym, there will be men who argue that women, as a group, brought it on themselves because they refuse to give sex to men who deserve it.

And I cannot stress enough that I am in no way being hypothetical here, nor inventing straw misogynists to justify my argument. Those comments were real and plentiful (although I cannot quite bring myself to track them down again online, because of the emotional damage they did to me when I read them the first time), and men who think that way are everywhere; probably including among men you know, though you may or may not know that you know them. It is the extreme but logical conclusion of the basic premise that men are entitled to sex.

I think women are programmed somewhat differently. Though certainly, as you point out, in this society women are often brought up to believe that they will need to catch a man and behave in certain ways to do so -- I think the basic belief is that they are not entitled to one, not inherently deserving of one, and thus will probably have to trick and trap and deceive in order to get one. (This is, of course, a misogynist patriarchal belief.)

[ayelle.livejournal.com]

Also: thank you for engaging intelligently, and listening. :) It is much appreciated.

[nigoki.livejournal.com]

No problem, this is a subject I'm not very well versed in so I'm just thinking of points that come to mind and seeing what feedback comes my way. I appreciate the patience I'm getting back.

The one thing that kept coming up in the back of my mind while I was thinking about this discussion today is the defensive response. It is hard stop that reflex because of the cultural programming. The difficult route is finding the happy medium between being civil enough to not get a negative reaction, but boisterous enough that people will pay attention.

One last point of discussion: What do you think of the classification of feminism as a choice? One might argue that if a woman can choose to be say, a homemaker, she can still be a feminist because she is choosing the role for herself. Yet other might say that this role has been programmed into her, limiting her frame of reference.

As with many things, I've just tried to adopt one stance:

"Is he or she happy and not hurting them-self or others? Yes? Cool."

[ayelle.livejournal.com]

I think that last question is a really good way to look at it. On the specific question of feminism, it would turn into "Is she happy and not hurting herself or other women?" (Since the reason feminism is still necessary at this stage of human development and in our society is that women are still disempowered compared to men, feminism is couched in woman-first terms, to try and counterbalance the strong "man-first" bias of the rest of society -- a simple "we're all equal" counterbalance, though it is the *ultimate* goal, wouldn't be strong enough at this stage.)

When you apply this to the question of whether a woman can choose to be a homemaker and still be a feminist, it of course immediately becomes very complicated. You suddenly find that what's best for the individual is not always best for the society, so how do you choose, how do you balance? I have no doubt that a woman can choose to be a homemaker because it's the best choice for her without compromising her personal feminist beliefs. However, since homemaker is the "traditional" choice, for many women the repressive life they are forced into, the only option the patriarchy wants them to have -- then, every woman who chooses it of her own free will inadvertently reinforces the patriarchy and makes it that much harder for other women to break free of the societal pressure. And as you point out, it limits the imaginative options, narrows the frame of reference for everyone, reinforces the programming when it comes time for other women to make their choices. So in that way, what's best for the individual and what's best for all women are in conflict. How do you balance that, as a feminist?

It's a tough choice, and my personal feeling is that while no one woman should be forced to live the life that it wrong for her in order to shoulder the burden for all of womankind, it is still something someone who considers herself a feminist has got to keep in mind. So if one of your life choices is making it harder for all the women who want to make a different choice, then what are you doing to make up for it? What other thing are you doing to make life better for all women?

P.S. I hear you on the defensiveness reaction. I have to deal with that when facing up to all my other forms of privilege -- because I'm privileged in just about every possible way *except* for my gender; I'm white and middle-class and can pass for heterosexual and I'm cisgendered (which means that the gender I feel I am and my body's biological sex match up to each other), and I'm ablebodied (admittedly, with a minor invisible physical disability issue, but the discrimination I suffer for it's awfully small on the scale of such things) and a young adult and thin (or at least, not fat enough to suffer measurable discrimination, fatphobia or body hatred beyond the par-for-the-course self-hatred *all* women are taught in our society, no matter what they actually look like). All that confers me tremendous privilege in our society, and it can be hard to own up to it without getting defensive.

[ayelle.livejournal.com]

Side note: the study you linked to is in the Daily Mail, which all the feminist sites I read routinely refer to as the Daily Fail because it's so infamous for its misogynist take on everything. They don't give *any* information about the study they're citing; you can't track it down to see what the scientists actually said and how the journalists might have twisted it in order to come up with a headline that confirms what the public already comfortably, self-satisfiedly believes -- and the Daily Fail has a long-term, proved track record of doing that, particularly on feminist issues. They've run headlines about studies that "proved" that women aren't as good at math or that how they dress affects how likely they are to be raped and other bullshit patriarchy beliefs; and the feminist sites that I read track down the studies they're quoting and link to them so you can read them for yourself, and often as not they say *nothing* of the kind (the how-women-dress one, for example, was particularly notorious as the study's results actually indicated the OPPOSITE of what the headline said). So yeah. Is this study trustworthy? I have no idea; I can't find the study they're citing. But I wouldn't trust the Daily Fail as a source as far as I could throw the internet.