Feminism And Bullying (from The Feminist's Perspective)

I agree with a lot of what you have said here - I do believe we have to look at equality in the context that as individuals we are diverse, and we have diverse strengths and weaknesses. Biologically speaking, male and female physical characteristics are different and the genders have brains that operate differently from one another. Of course, as individuals we all fall in different places on the biological/gender spectrum, but there is a certain amount of generalization that we can allow for as long as we understand that it is just that: a generalization. There can be a tendency in some of the discussions about feminism to homogenize everyone (in particular, the differences between men and women) which presumably comes from the fact that we have to compete and live up to male standards. I think I understand how this came to be, but it's really unfortunate that in order to deserve equal rights, we are expected to compete instead of finding value in our own unique qualities as individuals, let alone on a gender level.

Also, I LOVE this quote because it is one of the truest things out there: "a Little bit of knowledge can be a dangerous thing." One of the biggest problems out there in discussions on politics, social issues or other current events is that it's rare to find someone who knows when they don't know enough about a given topic to have a worthwhile opinion about it.

While not exactly on topic, I wanted to add that my fiance has Asberger's syndrome (he's a mathematician and high functioning autistic). While I can't relate to your personal experiences, I have some level of understanding of what you might be experiencing because I interact with him every day, and I have talked to him at length about his struggles in social situations. He has difficulty reading people and speaks in very literal terms, which is difficult because so much of our language is implied through tone, symbolism, choice of words and body language rather than directly said. I'm sorry you have been bullied to the point where even interacting with others on a very basic level is frustrating. It sucks when people push you away and reject you - as a human being it makes you want to reject them (which is part of the point I was making with my story). I have learned a lot from him about the games that people play with each other because of how wired he is not to play them. Seeing this was initially very jarring for me, but once I grew to understand him, it became incredibly educative. So from my personal experience as someone who is in love with someone who has Aspergers, there is a silver lining to all the difficult stuff you have to endure - I bet that you are an incredibly real and honest person and you don't participate in all the mind games and other social BS that us "normal" people do. There is a need for people like that in this world.

I know about Aspergers too - my mother in law, and one of my nieces (who earns megabucks as an actuary) has it. In fact (I know this story isn't actually about Aspies, but I will say it anyway) Aspies people are most often quite admirable, and I'm really sorry you got bullied so badly

You behave the same as you would with anybody else. Feeding off other people's bad behaviour doesn't help you and it doesn't help the debate, especially if you're beyond making your point. You have to remember that you aren't responsible for other people, only how you conduct yourself. People on both sides feel angry and alienated and unheard - that's some common ground right there. I think you already know the answers, you just have to resist the urge to fight dirty with everybody else.

At the core, I am saying that people can't operate rationally when they are emotionally committed to a particular ideology as opposed to being rationally committed to an impartial truth. These are the "most people" I am talking about, because in debates such as the ones on EP between feminists and anti-feminists, the emotions on both sides of the fence result in defensiveness which ultimately serves to polarize and further commit debaters to their ideology, because any kind of concession equals "losing" in black & white arguments.

And while you are trying to refute what I am saying, your opinion is that people do not act rationally in the sense that they "tend to prove their assumptions" etc - that their arguments are coloured by their prejudices against others.

I recognise that you are trying to leverage this point against me, but really - we are saying the same thing. We have something in common :)

And for what it's worth, per your below comment, I don't think the phrase "sillie nillie's" has any objective merit, but it is reasonable to assume that the author of such a phrase is condescending her audience.

My "condescending phrase" and the ability of the OP to be a role model and "representative" of feminism can be found here
Me
http://www.experienceproject.com/stories/See-How-Feminism-Has-Failed/2083946#comment_8437798

"And for what it's worth, per your below comment, I don't think the phrase "sillie nillie's" has any objective merit, but it is reasonable to assume that the author of such a phrase is condescending her audience." I wonder how long it takes some people to understand that saying one thing and doing another is just as bad for a cause as it can for the reputation of the individual.... I wonder if it wasn't emotion that motivated the assumptions of a "jab" or of" Leverage this point against me" as neither were my intent ... In fact I addressed only subject matter and there was nothing personal about it...by the standards you set for "rational" discourse I do wonder if the "assumptions" claimed as "reasonable" really were? Certainly, no-one but you mentioned it on this thread :)

The point of our original exchange, as I understood it, was to discuss the biases and emotions that influence people's rational arguments. From my perspective, the first two comments we made were an exchange on that matter.

Your comments that follow the first two are a perfect example of what I meant to bring to light. I feel that these comments have personalized and emotionally charged the exchange and that there is no possible reasonable conclusion to it. This is the point in the discussion where I would walk away.

But I want to add that I really welcome your link - the thread there is a more detailed example of how these kinds of discussions can be counterproductive. I stand by everything I've said except for my knuckledragging comment and my unnecessarily catty reply to newjanine. However, I pointed it out up-front that I see this behaviour in myself sometimes, just as I pointed out the need to call out bullying for what it is. It's right up there in paragraph four. So no, I never claimed to be a role model, but I did claim to be a representative of feminism because we all are, including you. Whether we represent feminism well is up to each of us as individuals.

MY statement to you was simply "its best to look into a person and read their works to understand their point of view." you then decided to attack... with
"this comment is baffling and beyond unnecessary based on the thread preceding it - what are you aiming to communicate to me with this particular comment" and I once again explained "alll i am saying you can get to know the views a persons holds better by reading their entire story than you can a single comment. Not sure what is baffling or unnecessary about that. I am very much about content within its context, therefore I always suggest understanding a authors point of view by getting to know the author as well as their works." and you then began responding profusely, and personally attacked me more times than I have toes.... you then made this remark to a anti-feminist "Wow, newjanine... unprecidented level of idiocy. What did the fall of the Soviet Union and the moon landings have to do with you? Because unless you were directly involved with both of those things, your analogy is illogical." then when others tried to suggest maybe you were out of line for your attacks on me you stated things like this "I find that in general, people who like to stir the pot generally fall into the category of "opine first, back it up later." People like that can almost never be trusted because their own personal agenda is a higher priority than truth is. Dente has demonstrated herself to be a person who stirs the pot. If in doubt, look at what started this whole discussion: an empty insult designed to inflame knee-jerk opinions on both sides of the spectrum and to give herself some fodder for grandstanding. Thoughtful discussion was never the intention here." and "By the way, before you accuse others of ad hominem attacks, you might want to remind yourself that your original post - in all its two-line glory - was an ad hominem attack in its entirety." and "Dente did not approach the debate rationally in that case, and in fact throughout the debate as a whole she retorted at a level of detail that Sensual wasn't arguing upon, therefore attributing beliefs to Sensual based on assumption that she could summarily trump. This tactic is commonly used in illogical debates to create social leverage over the other person." (when in fact I had QUOTED the EXACT thing sensual HAD POSTED in a comment and she admitted she said it) "Unfortunately Dente didn't actually discuss any of those issues or put any thought into her initial post - she threw that statement out there like a steak to a pack of wild dogs, adding the deliciously condescending "sillie nillie's" on the end of it." Dente could do a lot of good in the world if they would just slow down and think a little bit more about the consequences of their actions." and "abrasiveness has absolutely coloured my perspective - it's the essence of this discussion as far as I'm concerned. We will have to agree to disagree about the rest - I don't believe that discussions where two sides react angrily off of one another are helpful to the cause, and to me it's clear that that is what this topic was intended to provoke." (in fact to my knowledge all your comments except two were personal attacks either on myself or a few antifems) "A good mark of a logical discussion is if someone is presented with new information and changes their way of thinking. Unfortunately, most people form their opinions based on strong feelings and create their arguments afterwards to support the opinion they have already made up their mind on."
When I asked you if you were done attacking me and trying to put me in my place you stated " I would argue that I'm just trying to take you down " <---bullying
"from the alpha status you were clearly claiming for yourself before I jumped in."<--- assumptions and mean girlism !!!!

and I posted the link because it shows the absurdity of this post....

There are a lot of feminists out there that I don't agree with, but I disagree that I sit here alone with my type of thinking. To extend your example, there are a lot of different types of Christians out there who believe in different aspects of their ideology, regardless of what is explicitly written in the Bible, and regardless of what is written by Christian scholars. I would argue that it is indeed possible that the only common denominator linking all Christians is a belief in the Christian construct of God (which includes Jesus really) and that individual perceptions of the doctrine are wildly varying. Feminist ideology is similarly made up of many different views, both outside academics and in scholarly work too (which I am not intimately familiar with all the details as it is a huge body of work, but I know I have read things that I have very much agreed with as well as things I have very much disagreed with, and everything in between). So I think to pit yourself against feminism as a whole is a little simplistic given the complex nature of the discussion, and to further pit yourself against anyone who chooses to label themselves a feminist is alienating, prejudicial and part of the overall problem in the debate. I think the problem that we have on both sides is that when we are emotionally charged, we see each other's view as overly simplified and radical as a whole, which you allude to in your post. It goes both ways.

Try this. Go into a room of feminist anywhere on the net and start talking about mens issues. Talk about domestic violence being 50/50. Talk about how there are less than 10 domestic violence shelters in the US. Talk about how more men are raped in prison than women overall every year. See how long it takes before everyone in that room is tearing you to shreds. That's the nature of feminism. When a person speaks of mens issues they must be silenced. This attitude is common in feminist ideology. And is the reason for the majority of suffering of men in the US. Feminism controls the conversation. They choose what views are heard and which are not. They choose what facts are revealed and which are hidden. They don't want men to have a voice. Look at what is happening in Vancouver. Feminist tearing down posters that say "men's rights are human rights". A debate was arranged by a neutral third party between feminist and MRAs. The feminist sent the organizer, the neutral third party, death threats and hate mail until she called off the debate. Now a fathers rights advocate has stepped up and the debate is back on. However now the feminist are refusing to participate.
Your thoughts and views on equality are a minority in your movement. Your ideas of what your movement is are uninformed.

I'm sorry that you no longer appear interested in finding common ground in this discussion, or having a discussion that's different from the status quo. You don't need to prove to me that there are problems within the feminist/anti-feminist debate - that's what my post was about.

KR... you are precisely and unequivocally missing the point, and you're being a bit of a hypocrite. According to YOU and other MRA's, a woman who calls herself a feminist is subscribing to an ideology which must include the aggressive feminist agenda. As stated here and on many other threads, this just simply isn't the case. And, you continue to disappoint me where you pick fights based on principle instead of actually trying to see where there is common ground.

The problem isn't that MRAs can't find common ground with feminist. The problem is that feminist block our attempts to discuss the issues. How can we find common ground with a group of people that won't listen to what we have to say and doesn't want anyone else to hear our grievances either.
Feminism isn't just ignoring us. Feminism is trying to silence us. How are we supposed to.find common ground with people that believes that we shouldn't even exist as a movement? In Edmonton Canada a feminist ripped flyers from a persons hand, screamed "men have to many rights" and ran away. How are we supposed to find common ground with a person like that? This isn't just an extremist on the fringe of the feminist movement. This is the kind of attitude that we run into on a daily basis. These are the kind of people that make up the feminist movement. Please tell me how we are supposed to open a dialogue on the issues with people like that? Much less find common ground. Please tell me cause I would like to know.

Penn the point of this story was to paint the majority of feminist as warm fuzzy lovers of equality. Although the author of this story maybe the kind of feminist she described the majority of feminism isn't. The majority, the ones in power and control the ones who shape public opinions and form policies, are just as described them. If the majority of feminist were as the author described then there would be no reason for the MRM to exist. But it does exist. And it exists because no one will listen to the issues men face and the majority of feminist work to make sure no one ever will.
I wish feminism was as the author described. But it isn't. I know it isn't. I've seen it.

Another problem is that when we show the average feminist the true nature of the people that are in power in the feminist movement the deny it. Just as in this story and this very comment. If feminist like this author would take back their movement and work toward reasonable solutions then the MRM could work along side feminism for equality of both genders. But as long as feminist ignore the truth they are blocking our path. Both the good and the bad are a problem. The good because they refuse to see that the bad are in control and the bad because they are in control. As long as this is the case we fight all feminist. The good are just as much a problem as the bad because the good enable the bad by refusing to remove them form power.

Hey KR. I totally get what it feels like when you feel like no matter how loud you speak, you won't be heard. It makes you feel hopeless and angry. Believe me, as an opinionated person, I know how this feels. The reality is that we can't change other people, like that person in Edmonton. All we can do is try to inspire other people to change themselves. That means that all you can do is slow down and listen to other people you don't agree with. Try to find something that, as a human being, you can empathize with and talk to them about it. Try to actually be open-minded about the possibility that they might have something valuable to say. People really respond to being listened to and feeling that their opinion is valued, regardless of whether you agree with it or not. You may find that over time, they will begin to listen to you too, and maybe you'll even begin to form relationships with people whose views differ from yours. I'm not saying this to you because you and I disagree, and that I am trying to change your beliefs. I would say this to that person in Edmonton, too. When people don't feel the need to be defensive or reactive, they can be quite reasonable. But before they can do that, they need to calm down and stop pointing fingers at every negative thing the other side has ever done, because that is the opposite of finding common ground. It's remaining divisive. I also want to point out that your posts didn't make me feel like I'd been heard or that my opinions had been carefully considered. I'm not saying that to point fingers, but to give each other something we can empathize with in the other.

I hear what you're saying. But you are an exception to what feminism is. I don't really think you are a feminist. I get your points. But I don't think you get mine.

I'm not addressing the feminism-specific issues you brought up because they're not on topic and I don't want to derail the conversation. Do all anti-feminists have the same views as you? Is there one definitive anti-feminist view, or are there matters that only some of you agree upon?

<3

Thank you! :)

Thank RedRubies. It's true - feminism and submission are not mutually exclusive. It's your choice to live your life as you choose, and that is what feminism is all about :)

Exaaaaactly! :-D

Hey Michelle - thank you for your kind words about my post. I'm not a scholar on the subject either. I want to point out that there are a lot of ignorant people opposed to feminism, just as there a lot of ignorant feminists. When any person is too far on the end of a spectrum like that, there is a tendency to form opinions based on strong feelings, regardless of whether or not those opinions can be backed up by fact. Feminism, like most issues in the world, is not black and white. How can we trust people on either side of the discussion who treat the issue as black and white? People who will ignore something that doesn't jive with their strongly held belief system? This is where my comment on ignorance comes from. So no - I don't believe all anti-feminists are ignorant (it's also up there in a less fleshed-out state in the third paragraph).

As for your question, we've actually already had this discussion back on my other story "Feminism = Freedom of Choice". http://www.experienceproject.com/stories/See-How-Feminism-Has-Failed/2464400

Sorry, my memory isn't what it used to be :) I'll go over there and take a look. Thanks again for a well reasoned and balanced approach, my hat is off to you.

Ok, now I remember, the divide seems to be political and I'm not mad at you for it. It is too bad as I was really trying to find an issue I could be in agreement with you about on this topic. Take care and keep spreading the sunshine, this topic needs more thoughtful discourse and less nastiness.

I actually would be interested in having a political discussion about that one day, but to continue down that road was going involve a lot of looooooooong posts for both of us. :D

No worries :) I really have endeavored to stay out of politics on this site but do find myself brushing up against it on the subject of feminism. It seems that for the most part, feminism seems to lean toward the left and those who reject feminism tend to be more conservative. I am ok with that, there's room for us all.

I guess the issue I really have with saying that feminism has run its course is that on a global or an individual basis, not all women have equal rights or treated equally. As long as there is one person in this life which is suppressing the rights of a woman, I will feel a twinge in my heart to fight for that woman. However, I feel that way for children and men, too, so I guess I'm more of a humanist anyway.

Plus the fact that the pendulum has swung the other way, and now we have women telling other women how they should live their lives - so, again, I feel the twinge to stand up for women to make their own choices.

This is why I am for equal rights but not willing to carry a label with it one way or another.

Ladyfound I love your answer to this question - it was way better than mine, lol. I too try to see feminism as part of a larger context of human rights. I think that when we lose that context, it becomes easier to lose our rational perspective on feminism.

When I say sides, I don't mean men or women - I mean either side of the feminist/anti-feminist spectrum. In my third paragraph I talked about this spectrum. As far as the movement issue goes, again, that's semantics. If divisiveness is what you take from my post, that's too bad...

No, I understand that divisiveness is precisely what you want to avoid (which I applaud) and I have no concerns at all about the true import of what you say or with where you are coming from. My point is that much of this debate is about semantics, the most obvious illustration being that very few 'anti-feminists' actually disgree with any of the things for which feminism stands: they call themselves anti-femiists because the words feminist and feminism have been distorted. I think a major part of the solution is making it clear that feminism is not the preserve of one sex but is something which should be, and is, embraced equally by both genders. I understand that you agree with this, but I think readers may take a different (and mistaken) view because of the connotations of certain words. That's all.

Your criticism is noted. I think that on some level we have to defer to personal responsibility here. There are always going to be people who misinterpret or read into what others say, and while we can to some extent try to protect against that with the language we use - as I have done above - we could never anticipate all the possible misinterpretations (for example, I didn't anticipate yours). Where do we draw the line? For my part, I write with care but I try to focus on the big picture. In the above case, the big picture is abundantly clear and contrary to the scenario of divisiveness that you are alluding to. Analyzing semantics on this level of detail and defensiveness is exactly the kind of thing I believe we need to move away from in order to have meaningful discussions.

That being said, we all have things to learn from each other and I have learned something from you about how to write more inclusively.

I intended no criticism. You write beautifully. However, the point is important and, funnily enough, is about the big picture rather than about what you wrote. It is that, by their choice of words, feminists can unwittingly make people feel excluded.

Haha. I meant the big picture of what I wrote. Oh, language.... you sly devil. ;-)

Sometimes a little dig is just too hard to resist. I would have whiteboarded that but I respected the No Dogs Allowed sign. And the impenetrable barbed wire fence.

@garcia a wonderful toast

I think that reasonable dialogue is important - I try to look at things from a humanist perspective, but feminist issues are still vitally important today, and men's issues are important too. Like I said in another comment, I'm no women's issues scholar. Honestly, I wish we could all look at feminism as distinct part of a larger construct that takes into account the fact that we are all human beings trying to occupy this space respectfully. It doesn't always feel that way. I can be kind of an idealist.

Thank you. I know we are on opposite sides of the fence when it comes to feminism, so it is good to have found some common ground. :)

I can't believe I'm saying this... but I'm glad I am. KR, I'm thrilled that you're taking a rational tone to this post, which, in my opinion, was well written.

Good point Pennonymous.

Pennonymous ... I love, love, love this comment. Thank you for sharing it. I especially enjoyed what you said about everybody talking and nobody listening. It perfectly characterizes many debates I've seen played out.

Pennonymous - interesting also, that I actually see a distinct difference between equality for all and feeling that a woman is most powerful when supporting a man (especially that you phrased it "a woman", rather than "women" in general). I find there is an amazing synergy that happens with well balanced male and female energy; I happen to believe that where male and female energy fall doesn't have to be specific to a person's genitals - or even their gender identity. Male energy is logical and focused whereas female energy is creative and compassionate. Even visually, in my own mind, I picture male and female energy working together as a man and a woman, but that's all metaphor to me. When it comes to people - living and breathing people, I am ferociously pro-equality. Which, "equality" is a philosophical concept about which much is written, and one clear definition does not exist. Just an example, as it comes to interpersonal relationships, I believe that "consensual balance" (I'm coining that term) is more important than "equality" by some definitions. With so many words with various interpretations, it is no wonder it is difficult finding common ground.

Penn the biggest reason I liked is because its well written. I don't agree withal majority of what was said. I just like the way it was said.

Ladyfound - great post. I love what you said about male and female energy. In university I took a world religions course and totally fell for aspects of philosophical taoism relate to these ideas. I think that sometimes, in the very necessary fight for gender equality, we can lose sight of the fact that men and women have unique qualities on a biological level (this is of course a generalized, statistical statement and every falls differently on the gender spectrum). It is possible to be a feminist and have the desire to celebrate my feminine qualities at the same time. It feels like according to some of the thinking out there, our right to equality hinges on us being THE SAME, and there can be a tendency to squash those differences (on a general, not individual level) in order to deserve it. To me, this is an example of an aspect of feminism that has turned on itself, but I know that not everyone will agree with me.

KR.. but that's EXACTLY the point I'm trying to make. It's OK for us to disagree. The key is to be able to find common ground through compromise. :-)

Cocochai, this is the first time I have ever heard a feminist bring up the generel tendency to squash the differences between the sexes as a derogatory thing. Thank you!

Thanks Michelle :-) I've never understood that continued line of thinking myself. I imagine it started because there was a time when we were told - on a cultural and institutional level - what we were and weren't capable of. But I don't think we need "live up to" male standards to deserve equal rights and opportunities. Not all feminists believe we need to prove ourselves against male standards to deserve equal rights (and very few would knowingly believe it), but it's a bizarre self-objectification. However, it is understandably human and reactive given the nature of female oppression over the course of history. It crept into the discussion while everyone's backs were turned. I think that we need to reframe the context under which we argue for equality. As women and more importantly as individuals with unique characteristics, strengths and weaknesses, we are ALL entitled to equal rights and opportunities. * I want to add that there are still issues of institutionalized discrimination against women today - for example, active combat roles in the US military are restricted to men. There are physical fitness requirements for active combat, and anybody who meets them should be permitted, regardless of gender. This should not be construed as living up to male standards of fitness, but as living up to the physical fitness standards required for active duty. For me, knowing like this helps me to put into context how that line of thinking evolved, but I still think that it's counter to the message of real equality.

I tend to not concentrate on the historical aspects of women's rights. I really have trouble staying enamored with the past movements which gave women their current rights in the same way I don't put a lot of attention over the gains made for blacks. Of course I feel that neither group should be denied rights that are basic and deserved. The past discrimination of both groups were sickenening and not ok. They have both been resolved for the most part with policy and laws. Are there others who individually discriminate against both? Of course, that will likely never change. I just don't choose to put a lot of energy into cheerleading these advances. If there are current discriminations, those grab my attention. I think the example you brought up about the military is an interesting one. I cringe when thinking about putting women in combat positions. It feels wrong to me to allow the gender who carries the world's children into combat. In this one case, I actually agree with a system that won't allow a few women who wish to do this to override the good sense of the majority to keep women out of these positions. The next logical step after allowing women into combat is to make the draft a requirement for them also. I do wonder if those who want women to be allowed into combat roles would be ok with requiring them to sign up for the draft?

I think it's important to look at history as a compass for how feminism has evolved. I don't like to harp on the past oppression of women unless it is relevant to the point that I am trying to make, though. I too prefer to move forward and discuss more contemporary issues. I don't believe everything has been resolved yet with respect to policy and laws, but I know for you and I that is a political issue that we have already discussed. For the most part I want to shy away from talking about specific feminist issues because I don't want to go off topic, but I actually want to know your thought process on this, what is it about allowing women who meet the physical requirements to participate in active duty makes you uncomfortable? (besides your point about the next step being the draft - I don't agree that it is the logical next step but that discussion is for another time I think).

I appreciate not being flogged for not bowing down to the feminists victories of the past. Thank you. The thing about active duty women on the front lines of combat has to do with a protective feeling over the actual or potential mothers in this dangerous position. I feel that combat is the wrong place for women. While I realize this may sound like quite a sexist viewpoint, it is how I feel, not just in my rational mind but also in my heart.

I don't believe it is coming from a sexist place, but, as you describe, a protective place. I don't have a problem with your opinion at all in the context that your opinion guides the choices in your own life, and that others are free to make their own choices. :) (Right now they're not, and I wouldn't expect you to argue in favour of changing that).

Thanks for the understanding. This has been a lovely exchange :)