Gender & Identity in Online Culture

[Russell Nash]

I admit I haven't read the entire thread, but this whole thing reminds me of an entirely irrelevant thing that happened to me.

I moved to Germany almost six years ago. I had some high school and college German, but that was a long time before. My wife and I were practicing a bit and the first thing I did here was sign up for a six month long 40 hour a week class. To say that learning a language is hard is to state the obvious. The really hard part isn't watching TV or reading the newspaper, it's understanding the guy in front of you, who isn't helping to be understood. (This was just a little background.)

About a month after I moved here I met a friend of my brother-in-law's. To quote my brother-in-law this friend is a "flamboyant queen". Anyway this guy never stopped moving. Half to time he talked it was from the other room and the other half of the time he had his back to me. I understood one word out of twenty and maybe understood one sentence every half hour. When I did understand something, I pieced it together about three sentences after it was spoken. I spent two hours staring at this guy trying to just get something.

Two weeks later my brother-in-law says,"why did you hate Dario?" I said, "huh?" He said , "Dario said you were really rude and he wants to know why you hate him."

Since then everytime I see this guy, he treats me like I'm a Nazi wondering why he's not wearing his pink triangle. He has decided it is because I hate gays.

The last time this was brought up was at our monthly poker game. I looked around the table at the people I chose for the game and personally invited. There was me(naturally), my wife, my brother-in-law(who also told us about this guy he just started dating), the best man from my weddings in the states and here, his boyfriend, my best man's sister, and her girlfriend. To use the common saying from our group, my wife and I are the mandated breeders.

Anyway, I do hate this guy now, but just because he made it impossible to be any other way.

As I started off saying, this story is totally irrelevant, but it came to mind.

[SFEley]

So, the solution is to talk about it -- and then get your feelings and ego out of hte way. Remember: given the vast swath of priveleges that come with being male, what we're tlaking about is very small potatoes. Ditto for white privelege. Therefore, it can come across as petty when men take a conversation about female opression - or othering - and turn it into a conversation about how it hurts mens feelings when this is brought up.

That's not where I was going with this.  My feelings aren't hurt, and I certainly wasn't trying to close down anyone else's communication.  I was simply adding my own perspective on the awkwardness that Clint and others were talking about.  I can't add much about female oppression because, well, I can't, although I'm eager to listen about it.  From my end, my options are to talk about what I do know, or don't talk.

Palimpsest, you said both sides need to be talking about this stuff.  I thought that was a really good point, and I attempted to follow through.  My post was very largely motivated by you.  You now appear to be saying that it bothers you when men talk about their side of it.  Our problems are petty, so you don't want to hear about them.  Our job is to educate ourselves until we know what you know, and until we've done that we really shouldn't speak.

It's probably not what you meant, but it's sometimes what I read in your posts.

[SFEley]

...By the way, I initially had six more paragraphs in that last post.  I cut them, deciding they probably needed more consideration and that I was probably too close to crossing the line again by being too honest in what I thought.

I almost cut the whole thing -- in fact I started to -- but I finally decided against allowing a sense of guilt to silence me entirely.  I still feel guilty, though.  A part of me says "Shit, what if I'm just frustrating Palimpsest again by telling her my feelings are important?  What if she's right, and my feelings really aren't as important on this topic as hers are?  That makes me an asshole, doesn't it?  Should I be talking at all?"

This is the kind of thing I'm talking about.

And now I feel like I'm being too honest here.

But enough.  I've killed more than an hour on this now.  I've got to go make dinner for my family.

[Rachel Swirsky]

Hey Steve,

You aren't being too honest. I appreciate your thoughtfulness.

That's not where I was going with this.  My feelings aren't hurt, and I certainly wasn't trying to close down anyone else's communication.  I was simply adding my own perspective on the awkwardness that Clint and others were talking about.  I can't add much about female oppression because, well, I can't, although I'm eager to listen about it.  From my end, my options are to talk about what I do know, or don't talk.

Right. I don't read you as closing down anyone else's communication. I didn't mean this about you specifically, sorry if that came across.

But the evolution of this thread does show male privelege -- requests to avoid creating a default, and to avoid othering, became in part a conversation about how defaults are okay, and how women are incorrect in their perceptions that they aren't. Rather than focusing on how othering affects women, the conversation becomes about how it affects men.

There's no individual blame in this. It's not even that it shouldn't have happened. It probably needed to happen.

But that doesn't mean that it didn't folow an arc where men exercised privelege to negotiate female realities, and where men's experiences -- (we need a baseline, why don't you tell us you're a woman?, i have to walk on eggshells, and etc.) -- were brought to the center of hte disucssion.

This happens in 90% of mixed-sex discussions about feminism, and in 90% of mixed-race conversations about white supremacy. Again: it's okay. There's no blame to individuals. It's part of how our cultural systems work.

Conversations about rape generally turn to one thing or another -- either how the victim should have been more careful, or how men are affected by rape accusations. Talking about women, or about the responsibilties or rapists, is extremely difficult. The conversation slips back to a male perspective. It's extremely difficult to avoid.

At the same time, I will observe that and mention it. Because it operates invisibly, and while it is perfectly fine any one time it operates, in aggregate, it promotes the centering of men at the heart of discourse, which is one of the things I discussed earlier in "patriarchy hurts men, too."

Palimpsest, you said both sides need to be talking about this stuff.  I thought that was a really good point, and I attempted to follow through.  My post was very largely motivated by you.  You now appear to be saying that it bothers you when men talk about their side of it.  Our problems are petty, so you don't want to hear about them. 

I don't not want to hear about them. We can talk about them.

But that doesn't mean that they aren't petty. When I come into a discourse about how non-white women are excluded from feminism, and white women play into the hands of white supremacy by talking about high heels and abortion instead of class division, and there's angry language about white women in it, it hurts my feelings. My hurt feelings are real. They're worth examining and talking about. But, in comparison to what the point of their post was, it's still petty.

The first time I realized how racist I was -- am! -- was a heart-breaking moment. It hurt like I can't believe. I was working with an anthropologist professor who I loved, absolutely loved, and she liked me very much. We were doing an independent study about creative writing. I was writing black characters. I had a black woman invite a white owman into her home, and my professor said, "I don't believe this. Most black people I know are never comfortable with white people in their space." I looked at her, across this small office, and realized that even though I wanted to be anti-racist, even though she liked me a lot, there was an impassable gulf between us. Race would always be in the room.

It's good to talk about that. I needed to talk about that.

Part of what hurts about it is that I'm not used to being racialized, to being marked out for my race, to being unpriveleged in this way. That's an uncomfortable feeling, and also worth talking about. However, when we're discussing the subject of racism, even though it may be something I want or need to talk about, in the subject of racism, it's still petty. The white man's burden, and the fear of walking on eggshells, are small things, in the wake of male privelege. 

This is what I mean about framing my activism in reaction to your feelings, or refusing to do so. Black women shouldn't frame their conversation around my feelings. And I don't think feminists should frame thair conversatoin around men's feelings. It puts white people and men at the center of the conversation, again.

Our job is to educate ourselves until we know what you know, and until we've done that we really shouldn't speak.

Well, educating yourselves is a good idea. So is taking lumps. I try to do both, personally.

But you were mentioning an invisible, ill-defined line, and I was pointing out that the reason it's invisible to you is that you're centered in a male-defined narrative. If you really want to find the line, you can.

It isn't magic. It's grounded in a coherent body of work. It isn't a single line, of course, it's a bunch of lines that move through each other -- feminism is better called feminisms -- but you'll understand why I make my lines, and you will be able to argue for why you or someone else would draw the line elsewhere.

The recommendation to lurk on feminist blogs is specifically to avoid venting outrage. It isn't that I don't wnat to talk to you. I'm in your space, bringing these ideas here. But if you go to a feminist blog, you are entering their community, and their community is built on a commonality of experience which may seem obscure at first, but becomes clear as information is brought in. Often, men will enter feminist blogs and make very superficial arguments, and the women and experienced feminist and pro-feminist men there will not be tolerant of that, because feminism 101 isn't what those spaces are about. Feminism 101 can be what this space is about, however.

I can bring some of my knowledge to this conversation, but I can't bring everything in. Among other things, I recommend my own weird hybrid of second and third wave feminism, blended with social anthropology and literary theory. I don't know everything.

If you are committed to social equality, it's something that requires work. The benefit is working to end oppression, making privelege visible, understading where the line is, helping women -- and other groups. The detriment is it takes work, and that work is internal and painful.

It can't be solved in a single conversation; that was one of my points.

I hope I've been clearer this time. Please let me know if I haven't. I don't want to dismiss you -- I have sincerely appreciated your willingness to examine yourself and to participate frankly in this conversation. At the same time, I myself am also trying to be honest.

I think there are gaps in terminology between us that also make things difficult. And, of course, I don't always express things as well as I could. I apologize for that, and for any offense I've given through misstep or misunderstanding.

[Rachel Swirsky]

...By the way, I initially had six more paragraphs in that last post.  I cut them, deciding they probably needed more consideration and that I was probably too close to crossing the line again by being too honest in what I thought.

I almost cut the whole thing -- in fact I started to -- but I finally decided against allowing a sense of guilt to silence me entirely.  I still feel guilty, though.  A part of me says "Shit, what if I'm just frustrating Palimpsest again by telling her my feelings are important?  What if she's right, and my feelings really aren't as important on this topic as hers are?  That makes me an asshole, doesn't it?  Should I be talking at all?"

Thank you for trusting to put your words out there.

Willingness to take these risks does, in my mind, mean willingness to take lumps. It's not that I don't trust in your good faith, but good faith is not always everything. That's been a hard lesson for me. (Again, this is my way of talking about race and sex, modeled on the ways I've seen being most successful and respectful.)

What I want to add to the above post is that even if you do say something assholish, or say something sexist, or something offensive -- oh well. It's okay. We all do. It isn't a binary thing that makes you an asshole or a sexist or a worthless human being, just someone who said something unperfect. We don't need to be perfect all the time.

At the same time, it's okay for me to point it out (just as I appreciate you pointing out how my words have come across).

I apologize for using second person here. These are general beliefs of mine, not meant to indicate you as opposed to me or anyone else.

And I apologize for emotionally loaded language as well. When I say upset, I mean... unsettled, I suppose... and I am often speaking out of my own experience as a white person entering communities where people of color speak. I know I get defensive, and hurt, sometimes very much so. I apologize for projecting those terms on you. I was trying to speak in a way that would be grounded in my experience, and I think I've been sloppy about pronouns.

[slic]

When I have more time, I will address other things posted, but I wanted to point out that a quick fact.  In French and Italian (and other Romance Languages, I'm sure), they have masculine and feminine pronouns - when dealing with groups of mixed gender they use the masculine pronoun.  I'm not going to comment on the sexism, just pointing out the facts.

but I was actually taught, from elementary school through college, to always use male pronouns unless you knew the person was female.  Do they still teach that?

Some people do. It's still sexist -- overtly so -- it overtly positions men, the priveleged class, as the default. If you want mor einformation, ther'es a very good essay by Ursula LeGuin on the subject, which you can find if you seek out her book of essays.

[Tango Alpha Delta]

...By the way, I initially had six more paragraphs in that last post.  I cut them, deciding they probably needed more consideration and that I was probably too close to crossing the line again by being too honest in what I thought.

I almost cut the whole thing -- in fact I started to -- but I finally decided against allowing a sense of guilt to silence me entirely.  I still feel guilty, though.  A part of me says "Shit, what if I'm just frustrating Palimpsest again by telling her my feelings are important?  What if she's right, and my feelings really aren't as important on this topic as hers are?  That makes me an asshole, doesn't it?  Should I be talking at all?"

This is the kind of thing I'm talking about.

And now I feel like I'm being too honest here.

But enough.  I've killed more than an hour on this now.  I've got to go make dinner for my family.

When I said that "white men suffer, too", this is kind of what I was talking about.  I don't think anyone needs to feel sorry for us, but give some of us credit for agonizing over this stuff, and for understanding that it needs to change more quickly.

I don't consider my "suffering" to be even the the palest shadow of the real suffering that others have gone through for not fitting "the norm", but I point it out because I think it's important that people who believe in the "many colors of the homo-rainbow" (as I do) keep in mind that white -- or pink, or peach, or whatever the hell this pigment is -- and male people are still human, too.

As far as making changes in the status quo, I think the *slush bomb* Palimpsest and Hautdesert mentioned is a grand way to do it.  I root for you all, and wish your effort every success... though I am implicitly excluded from participating.  I especially like the idea because it shows that the people who feel they don't have "power", as discussed earlier, are finding ways to seize it.  In America, at least, I think that is the most important step left for our society to take.

Now, I would like to share, as a humorous aside (note the careful tread to indicate the humorosity), my mental state as I have written these posts today.  You know how often these types of conversations devolve into some variation of "I'm not a bigot... why, I have [fill-in-the-blank] friends!"?  Well, I read the references to the percentages of published women, etc, and chuckled to myself.  "I'm not going to fall into that trap!"  I wasn't about to mention that my favorite author of the last few years was Lois MacMaster Bujold, because that would be self-serving and hypocritical, right? Very paternalistic and condescending.

Then it started to bug me; I really don't have a very diverse collection.  Asimov, Vonnegut, Vinge... oh, there's Left Hand of Darkness!  Ha!  I've got LeGuin.  And if I broaden the genre, I've got Alice Walker and Amy Tan, too!  No, this is still not looking good.  I'm not going to stoop to listing stuff in the forum, but I need to prove to myself how open-minded I am.  Oh!  The CDs!  I've got loads and loads of very diverse artists.  Los Lobos, Ladysmith Black Mambazo, Seal, and the Pogues!  Where are all the women?  Tori Amos; that'll do the trick.  Hmmm... Elvis Costello, Harry Connick, Jr., Peter Gabriel.  This isn't bolstering the case any.  There's Ofra Haza, though; Enya, Sarah MacLachlan.  Wow, this is starting to sound desperate.  Wait, there's Dada!  I think they're gay!  Too bad they're still more or less geeky white guys.

Wow.  I'm really glad I didn't try to list my diverse collection as proof that I'm some kind of multi-cultural saint. I would just make a fool of myself if I did that!

(Okay... humorous aside is over with.  Thank you for indulging me.)

[hautdesert]

Tad, if you're a Peter Gabriel fan there must be good in you!    (not like I didn't know that already, but liking PG just confirms it...)

<subliminal message>read C.J. Cherryh, maybe try some Leigh Brackett, rest her soul, there's a pretty good collection available on amazon, not to mention used books...</subliminal message>

[Birnam Wood]

I'm convinced that there is plenty of institutionalized/systematized racism, ethnocentrism, and sexism.  The ways that we relate to others are meaningful patterns of behavior and are a part of our culture.  Generally, we are blind to our culture.  It is not easy to bring culture to a conscious level, and it is usually a painful process that requires going through culture shock.  Even then, it only happens in degrees as we become more and more aware of our own cultural behavior and thought through discovering differences in other cultures.

(A note on culture shock's stages: this includes initial rejection, sometimes progresses to idealization of a foreign culture over our native culture, and hopefully ends in a more objective view of the culture that sees both the good and the bad).

So, when someone to say that they don't see institutionalized discrimination, this is well explained by the accepted definition of culture that it is something we are usually blind to anyway.  I'm more inclined to believe the person who does see it.  Then again, there is sometimes the self-fulfilling prophecy, the reading-between-the-lines-when-there's-nothing-there phenomenon.  After all, the universe reveals itself to us through the questions we ask of it.  So, I listen (never discounting claims of discrimination out of hand), but still evaluate what I hear.

Keep in mind that gender can also be viewed as a culture or subculture.  I would even say there are a lot more than two distinct gender subcultures in the US.  As we move in and out of these groups socially, we can experience culture shock.  If we want to do it comfortably, we have to learn and take our lumps ( as Palimpsest said).

Still, I don't think it's necessary to become encultured in order for them to be tolerant.  They can also choose to withdraw from the dialogue for the most part and use tolerance when they can't.  A lot of people are not comfortable with people trying to convert them.  I think those people have to be tolerated, too.  Still, mutual tolerance means that we must have some sensitivity to each other in a public forum.

Or they can piss people off and get "bashed" (not making any threats here- referring to social bashing).

One problem of Anthropology is it's paradigm of cultural relativism.  This is essentially the viewpoint that you cannot judge actions using rules external to the actor's culture.   This was played up a lot in Star Trek in their Prime Directive (which was repeatedly shown to be defectiveness).  We have feminist anthropologists to thank (sincerely) for criticizing the failings cultural relativism with respect to human rights abuses- abuses which are more far more often carried out against women than men (although not exclusively).

This presents a problem that has yet to be fully resolved in the field.  I gave the issue considerable thought years ago.  I can't say I have the magic bullet answer, but I worked out my own understanding of how the solution might be framed.  Essentially, I see this down to conflict between the collective rights of the group versus the rights of the individual.  Since the individual is part of the group, the two are not exactly mutually exclusive, and there are probably a lot of gray areas.  But I think that this is a problem that falls to governments and there should be some formal process to evaluate questionable practices on a case-by-case basis and seek to balance the group versus the individual as much as possible.

if it is traditional for the wife to be buried alive with her husband when he dies (this really happens, not fictional) should the government of the region abolish this practice because it violates the rights of the wife?  Does the group not have a right to practice their beliefs?  What if the wife consents to the burial?  Even if she does consent and is of sound body and mind (keep in mind that in reality, she is usually drugged or drunk), can we discount that there is intense social pressure being placed on her?  But a wife might potentially choose to sacrifice herself for her surviving family rather than except being banished.  I don't really see how this can be avoided 100% of the time without putting a group in conflict with the government and possibly costing more lives.  Like I said, I don't have all the answers here by any means.

I might add that there are still women who are perfectly comfortable with 50's gender roles.  My own wife, who was born in and grew up mostly in the Philippines, is generally more conservative about gender roles than I am, which really trips me out sometimes.  Despite being more conservative in general, the Philippines has had two women as presidents and they have a long tradition of women as business owners.  There is a diverse set of values out there. . .

At any rate, I think the approach of applying cultural relativism except when it conflicts with an individual's human rights (including equal treatment and social equality) is a good, if sometimes still problematic approach.  For those who don't agree with it, I think we should be tolerant, but also expect tolerance from them in return.

[SFEley]

But the evolution of this thread does show male privelege -- requests to avoid creating a default, and to avoid othering, became in part a conversation about how defaults are okay, and how women are incorrect in their perceptions that they aren't. Rather than focusing on how othering affects women, the conversation becomes about how it affects men.

There's no individual blame in this. It's not even that it shouldn't have happened. It probably needed to happen.

But that doesn't mean that it didn't folow an arc where men exercised privelege to negotiate female realities, and where men's experiences -- (we need a baseline, why don't you tell us you're a woman?, i have to walk on eggshells, and etc.) -- were brought to the center of hte disucssion.

Very fair response, Palimpsest.  Thank you for returning with water rather than fire.  >8->

...Hmmm.  And I just deleted a bunch more paragraphs, though this time it was for a more positive reason.  I was attempting to ask how the communication patterns you observed exercise privilege -- since the people who were griping here about how you present yourself don't really have the power to change it -- and this is on technical grounds a conversation between equals.  (Okay, a few of us are moderators, but we're not moderating anyone frivolously.)  But in the process of framing the question, I think I suddenly Got It.  Or I Got Something, anyway.

You're not saying that anyone is preventing you from sharing your perspective by literally censoring you.  If I'm right, you're saying they're preventing you from sharing your perspective by socially pressuring you to justify your mode of presentation before can get far enough into it.  Is that right?

If so...hmmm.  I could say "Ignore all that jazz, say what you want to say," but even I can see it's more complicated than that.  And the balances are delicate, because no one's actually denying your right to a perspective or to share it, they're just...  Not sitting still for it?  

Huh.  I'm sitting here for a few minutes pondering, and the best I can do is that this all might come down to narrative pace.  Male/female differences in how a story gets told and listened to.

Am I onto something here, or am I just tripping out?


 

Well, educating yourselves is a good idea. So is taking lumps. I try to do both, personally.

This is extremely well said.  And for what it's worth, I'm trying.  I really am listening and thinking about what I hear.  And I have deep confidence that I'm not the only one.  

I have a few more thoughts, in particular about women, and probably some questions too, but it's been a long day.  I'll come back to them.  

Meanwhile...  Is anyone up for a thread about the ways in which it's fun to be a woman or a man?  There's got to be something light and grinnable we can share to lighten the weight of all the stones in this topic.  >8->

[Birnam Wood]

...Hmmm.  And I just deleted a bunch more paragraphs, though this time it was for a more positive reason.  I was attempting to ask how the communication patterns you observed exercise privilege -- since the people who were griping here about how you present yourself don't really have the power to change it -- and this is on technical grounds a conversation between equals.  (Okay, a few of us are moderators, but we're not moderating anyone frivolously.)  But in the process of framing the question, I think I suddenly Got It.  Or I Got Something, anyway.

. . .

Huh.  I'm sitting here for a few minutes pondering, and the best I can do is that this all might come down to narrative pace.  Male/female differences in how a story gets told and listened to.

Am I onto something here, or am I just tripping out?

This is along the lines of my theory, by the way, and I look forward to Palimpsest's response.  I've been thinking lately about literary trends being culturally bound- i.e., one reason authors are successful is because they are able to connect with with people either through human universals that span the ages or through tapping into aspects of their contemporary culture.  (Of course there are other reasons, too, like they should actually write well, etc.)

I've observed in the work place at various jobs over the years that people tend to hire/promote those whom they think will fit in or that they connect with.  It's possible to connect with people despite cultural differences, but it is often easier to do when you have shared cultural knowledge.  So, with White men in positions of power for so long, even in the absence of sexist beliefs, I would expect women to be at a disadvantage, especially among men who don't know how to relate to women with a set of expectations they don't understand.  I think this can extend to how people write and how editors read and connect with stories.  In fact, I really think that happens.

Meanwhile...  Is anyone up for a thread about the ways in which it's fun to be a woman or a man?  There's got to be something light and grinnable we can share to lighten the weight of all the stones in this topic.  >8->

Maybe we should write a musical.  I just heard about the short film West Bank Story, and I'm feeling inspired!  Maybe we could call it

Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus: The Musical

, and still keep it in the speculative fiction genre somehow.

[Tango Alpha Delta]

Tad, if you're a Peter Gabriel fan there must be good in you!    (not like I didn't know that already, but liking PG just confirms it...)

<subliminal message>read C.J. Cherryh, maybe try some Leigh Brackett, rest her soul, there's a pretty good collection available on amazon, not to mention used books...</subliminal message>

Following the whole gender-thread, the "...there must be good in you!"  comment, combined with a conversation I had earlier this week about "editing a better version of Star Wars"... I just had a brilliant thought:

What if we convinced George Lucas to let Lois M. Bujold re-write those three terrible movies?

(I'm still angry about those, because I knew from the first trailer for Ep.1 that a) they would be terrible, and b) I would have to see them anyway because I have been programmed since age 5 to do so.  And, to paraphrase Tom Waits, "I could eat alphabet soup and sh1t a better script than that.")

[Anarkey]

As far as making changes in the status quo, I think the *slush bomb* Palimpsest and Hautdesert mentioned is a grand way to do it.  I root for you all, and wish your effort every success... though I am implicitly excluded from participating.  I especially like the idea because it shows that the people who feel they don't have "power", as discussed earlier, are finding ways to seize it.  In America, at least, I think that is the most important step left for our society to take.

Actually, if you check the page (and since palimpsest didn't pimp it, I will : http://www.rachelswirsky.com/slush.html),
 you can participate if you're willing to do a collaborative work.  I'd be delighted to collaborate on a story with you for the slushbomb.  If you are interested, PM me.

[Anarkey]

You're not saying that anyone is preventing you from sharing your perspective by literally censoring you.  If I'm right, you're saying they're preventing you from sharing your perspective by socially pressuring you to justify your mode of presentation before can get far enough into it.  Is that right?

If so...hmmm.  I could say "Ignore all that jazz, say what you want to say," but even I can see it's more complicated than that.  And the balances are delicate, because no one's actually denying your right to a perspective or to share it, they're just...  Not sitting still for it? 

Interrupting, more like.  Even in a forum like this, you can easily derail someone by taking a sideline and running with it, or jumping on one small detail and ignoring the larger picture, or drawing thing whole thing back to square one with "define your terms".  It's a lot of work, and that's the thing palimpsest keeps saying.  It's a long, hard slog before you can even get to the place where you can say the thing you want to say.  Sometimes, a lot of times, women are not up for the slog.  Everyone has busy lives, and this stuff takes time. 

I have to say now that I have enormous respect and admiration for palimpsest (and haut) for being willing to have this conversation again, and being willing to chalk each point and counterpoint of it, even though (like any woman) they've probably done it dozens of times before.

But, Steve, I've liked the way you've phrased this, especially "they're preventing you from sharing your perspective by socially pressuring you to justify your mode of presentation before can get far enough into it."

Inside I went "yes! exactly" when I read that.  I haven't quite been able to talk about the leap between the meta of the discourse and the discourse itself.  But yes, you have to run the obstacle course first, and you have to do it every time and it's incredibly wearying, because you just want to get to the meat of what you have to say. 

[CatRambo]

I don't want to derail, but I've really appreciated what a thoughtful, careful discussion this is, and the amount of thoughtwork that has appeared in these posts. 

It would be interesting to see an article or paper come out of this discussion.  (Hint, hint, Palimpset.)

[Anarkey]

When I have more time, I will address other things posted, but I wanted to point out that a quick fact.  In French and Italian (and other Romance Languages, I'm sure), they have masculine and feminine pronouns - when dealing with groups of mixed gender they use the masculine pronoun.  I'm not going to comment on the sexism, just pointing out the facts.

FWIW, I don't think generalizing in the plural is quite the same as generalizing in the singular.  We do, after all, talk about mankind and men quite a lot when we mean both genders (and while it is still arguably sexist, it's not quite the same thing as individuating someone as male when they might not be).  German ubiquitously uses "man" for "one", and I think that's a closer parallel to using "he" when you mean "someone".  I have no idea if and how the German feminist movement addresses "man", but I'd be interested to hear it.

Also, I think it's a bit of a red herring to draw from the Romance languages as an example because they have a completely different approach to gender in language than Germanic languages.  Every noun in a Romance language has a gender, and (unlike German) none of those genders are neuter (das Mädchen, anyone?).  In Spanish, tie is female and dress is male.  Stars are female, planets male (which is an oddity, because "planeta" is an "a" ending word, and "a" ending words are usually female).  Sea, sugar and internet can be either.  In short, the whole world of words in a Romance language is gendered in a way that's probably incomprehensible to mono-lingual English speakers.  It's not a useful comparison, IMO.

I would argue that it is precisely because English tends to be gender neutral with its nouns (and even pluralized pronouns) that it's more significant when it is NOT gender neutral with singular pronouns. 

However, I have to admit that I've no idea why you dragged that example in to the (delightfully civilized) fray.  Your post indicated you were short on time, so perhaps there was some explanation left out, or some inference we were supposed to have drawn from your example, but all I could really do was say "Unless you show me more, I don't think these two things are really alike."  So feel free to show me more, or more explicitly detail the link you were drawing.

[fiveyearwinter]

It absolutely makes sense to me because I see it all the time.  It's perfectly acceptable for women to make "male bashing" comments but not for a man to make "female bashing" comments.  Now I will sometimes make "female bashing" comments as jokes but only to women I know really really really well where I know that they know I'm just being funny and not being mean. i.e. when I'm sure it's safe.   

Hi Clint and Steve, since you brought it up,

What you're leaving out of your analyses, again -- I pointed this out in an earlier comment too -- is power.

Men, as a class, are not oppressed for their sex.

Women, as a class, are.

Therefore, female bashing jokes have much more power to contribute to the injury of women in our society. Directly. When you tell a joke about a greedy ex-wife, you are contirbuting to the culture which sees traditional women's work as less important than men's, and thus women who have worked at home as having no call on the money they helped their husband earn by facilitating his career. When you tell a joke about a dumb blonde, you reinforce the idea that women can be smart or attractive, but not both. And so on.

These things hurt women, in ways that jokes like Homer Simpson have never and will never hurt men. Indeed, Homer Simpson type jokes support the power structures as they exist. Homer is a total loser, a complete slob, yet entitled to the devotion of his lovely, smarter, prettier wife. He, like Tim Allen on Home Improvement, are playfully unable to do any sort of household work. The result is tha tthe women roll their eyes, and then do all the drudge work, reinforcing the pattern of housework as women's responsibility -- women do more housework, in general (anecdotes to the contrary aside), even women who work. So even jokes that appear to hurt men, in general, are hidden ways of consolidating power.

So that makes it okay...? If we're all trying to be equal, and treat human beings as what they are (people), then current socioeconomic status, gender, skin color - none of these things should determine what is and what is not "acceptable behavior." If a woman makes jokes about men, she has no right to get offended when a man makes jokes about women. period.

So, the solution is to talk about it -- and then get your feelings and ego out of hte way. Remember: given the vast swath of priveleges that come with being male, what we're tlaking about is very small potatoes. Ditto for white privelege. Therefore, it can come across as petty when men take a conversation about female opression - or othering - and turn it into a conversation about how it hurts mens feelings when this is brought up.

On feminist blogs, this phenomenon is known as "What about the men?"

But if you're the kind of person who can't take the risks and take your lumps, there is an alternative. Go read as much as you can. Pick up a huge pile of feminist theory texts and read them all. Go to several feminist blogs and read them, every day, for six months. And don't say anything. Lurk. See what's going on. Learn, rather than assuming it's your right to already know -- or my obligation to organize my activism for my liberation according to your comfort. (This is bracing terminology, and I'm aware of that, but it taps into deeper cultural assumptions about what it's allowable for men to ask of women -- and how it's allowable for men to make all conversations about maleness. It's not meant as a condemnation. It's just what happens in our culture. But that doesn't mean I shouldn't call it out.)

You'll learn what the line is, probably sooner than you think.

Reading this created in me a gut reaction. I had to consciously make the effort to stop typing in a fit of anger and calm down. *sigh*

[slic]

Reading fiveyearwinter's post also caused a gut reaction in me.

Maybe you're so angry because she's right.  Patience and learning are something that seems to be getting lost.  5 min quick fixes, 1 week courses that make you a master programmer - it's hogwash.  Experience counts, knowledge counts and listing to and trying to understand others is one of the best things any one can do.

If a woman makes jokes about men, she has no right to get offended when a man makes jokes about women. period.

For me the solution is not that we stop offending people, it's that people stop being so damn easily offended.  It's a joke, walk away or point out what a foolish thing it is to say.  There was a time when it was ok to call out someone for being ignorant or just plain stupid.  In my office, I politely let someone know when they've made a mistake, and most often they thank me for it.  I'm grateful when it's pointed out to me - I can't learn from mistakes I didn't know I made.

[slic]

When I have more time, I will address other things posted, but I wanted to point out that a quick fact.  In French and Italian (and other Romance Languages, I'm sure), they have masculine and feminine pronouns - when dealing with groups of mixed gender they use the masculine pronoun.  I'm not going to comment on the sexism, just pointing out the facts.

...  So feel free to show me more, or more explicitly detail the link you were drawing.

The point came out of a discussion I was having with my wife about this thread.  She's had pointed out what ClintMemo said (before I had read it) as to what she was taught, and both of us being bilingual, she mentioned the French rule about mixed-gender groups - authors being one of those.

As to where it was meant to go - no where really - just something to mention.  However, as has been pointed out, cultural-bias comes long established practices. As far as English culture goes, French and Italian (Spanish to a certain extent) have had a significant impact. I know that the Angles and Saxons were there first, but I've never studied the influences they left.  Overall, though, I'm just as curious as you on how European feminists address this - have they invented words like hir to cover this?

[fiveyearwinter]

Reading fiveyearwinter's post also caused a gut reaction in me.

Maybe you're so angry because she's right. 

Or maybe I'm so angry because she's wrong.

[SFEley]

Reading fiveyearwinter's post also caused a gut reaction in me.

Maybe you're so angry because she's right. 

Or maybe I'm so angry because she's wrong.

Maybe everybody's angry because "right" and "wrong" aren't the only two possible answers?  But both sides keep on talking as if someone has to be right and someone else has to be wrong?

[Rachel Swirsky]

So that makes it okay...? If we're all trying to be equal, and treat human beings as what they are (people), then current socioeconomic status, gender, skin color - none of these things should determine what is and what is not "acceptable behavior." If a woman makes jokes about men, she has no right to get offended when a man makes jokes about women. period.

So the fact that you have the power in the situation means nothing? Do you also think that both blacks and whites have equal right to say the n-r?

Context matters.

[Rachel Swirsky]

What if we convinced George Lucas to let Lois M. Bujold re-write those three terrible movies?

Sounds good to me, but good luck with Lucas's ego. 

[fiveyearwinter]

So that makes it okay...? If we're all trying to be equal, and treat human beings as what they are (people), then current socioeconomic status, gender, skin color - none of these things should determine what is and what is not "acceptable behavior." If a woman makes jokes about men, she has no right to get offended when a man makes jokes about women. period.

So the fact that you have the power in the situation means nothing? Do you also think that both blacks and whites have equal right to say the n-r?

Context matters.

Technically, under freedom of speech, yes, they both do.

But if we're treating everyone as equals - no one should say that, so yes, I still think they have equal rights - none at all.

Explain to me why men having "the power in the situation" makes it okay for women to insult and offend them? That then victimizes men, AND drags women down to the level of being insulting and offense because they're "striking" back at the white male. Completely undermining the idea of equality.

[Rachel Swirsky]

Huh.  I'm sitting here for a few minutes pondering, and the best I can do is that this all might come down to narrative pace.  Male/female differences in how a story gets told and listened to.

Am I onto something here, or am I just tripping out?

I think Anarkey has a little bit more of what I'm saying. Interrupting, rather than just sitting still.

However, this too is a good thing to talk about. We, as a culture -- and most cultures -- have troubel looking at our assumptions. We are acculturated at a very young age. It is unconscious. The operations of our society are invisible. It is a lot of work to bring them to the surface and articulate them, for everyone, more work for some people in some ways.

One of the rules of our society is that what men have to say is more worthwhile than what women have to say.

We add other rules on top of it -- no, really, we're *equal* type rules. But the underlying framework that what women have to say is less worthwhile remains.

Look at haut's earlier example of how women talk more. We don't [she provided the link, I'm going to lazily rely upon her]. In fact, we talk less. Studies have shown that when women speak more than 1/3 of the time in a conversation, they are considerd to be dominating it. When you force a man and a woman to speak one on one and time it and you force them each to speak 50% of the time, both the man and woman (in the statistical preponderance of cases) will afterward report that the man had barely any time to speak.

But the myth that women speak more is remarkably resistant. Despite the fact that it's been knocked down by studies, and recently publicly debunked in a number of fora; despite the fact that the claims as publicly presented show a range of data and are never traced back to specific instances (common traits of urban myths) -- this message reappears. It was presented as fact on NPR a couple months ago.

Women *seem* to talk more (again, we're talking statistical norms and statistically normative perceptions), because we have less perceived right to speak. Earlier values that women should be silent, and men should make decisions, predominate. Black women have even less than white women. And we think of black women as particularly "loud."

Now, think about hallmarks of good writing as taught in creative writing courses. It avoids adverbs and adjectives that overwrite. It uses strong action verbs and avoids passive constructions. It is direct. It avoids words like "maybe" or "kind of" that equivocate.

Think about what we think about men and women. Women in western culture are trained to equivocate in their language, rather than being direct. Women aer thought to be passive. Men are thought to be active. Women's writing is at least stereotypically more likely to concentrate on description, while men's writing is at least in theory more likely to concentrate on action.

Go to Gender Genie and check it out. The differences between "men's" writing and "women's" writing correlate strongly to what in a creative writing class are called "good" writing and "bad" writing.

So my point, arrived at circuitously (not because I'm a woman, but because I'm an academic :-P), is that there are a lot of unconscious cues on the level of acculturation telling you, and everyone else in this conversation, that it's important for us to focus on male voices.

This goes back to the default thing, too. Men are more or less taught that it's okay for them always to be the subject, while women are the gazed at, the object. Ditto whites. And since we, as white people, and you, as men, are used to being the subject, it's hard to not automatically assume that position. Again, there's no blame there for individuals. But to fight racism and sexism, it is important to remember that the oppressed classes are constructed as having less right to a voice, and that the avenues through which those voices are -- not silenced through censorship, but spoken over or ignored -- are largely invisible.

This is extremely well said.  And for what it's worth, I'm trying.  I really am listening and thinking about what I hear.  And I have deep confidence that I'm not the only one.  

Thank you. I do have that sense, and I deeply appreciate it.

I have a few more thoughts, in particular about women, and probably some questions too, but it's been a long day.  I'll come back to them.  

Ditto.

Meanwhile...  Is anyone up for a thread about the ways in which it's fun to be a woman or a man?  There's got to be something light and grinnable we can share to lighten the weight of all the stones in this topic.  >8->

My reservation about this... and I'm sorry that I have one... is that I feel it could easily lead to more fractiousness, as well as generalizations and stuff.

Could we have a thread on something else we love, perhaps? LOL, people always seem to want to talk abotu SF media. Or maybe just a "things we love" thread? That's not very imaginative. Sorry!