Itty bitty waferthin feminist link

[sqbr]

Came across this post about men's roles in discussions of sexism and gender, which sums up my rather incoherent feelings reasonably well in a nicely nonconfrontational way(*). Found via the quite interesting The Hathor Legacy (One of their bloggers is from Perth! And yet, bizarrely, I don't think we've met), linked via Home on the Strange which is ending soon :(

And thus ends your stream of consciousness end-of-the-work-day linksdump for today.

(*)You know me, always about the nonconfrontational.

Comments

[ataxi.livejournal.com]

It is quite a decent article. It's a terrific example of how to write about this sort of topic (unconscious privilege) without too much aggression -- a topic I complained about somewhat unforgivably in a recent post of my own of which I feel slightly ashamed, truly*.

"But the fact that almost everything in our popular culture is expressed from a default male point of view helps.

Here again, something I have to needlessly quibble with! I don't think "default male point of view" is the correct way to say it. More accurately, almost every social experience is mediated by one of several filters of expectation that are quite rigidly determined by prevailing social relations. Including the "default female" filter of expectation. It's just that "default female" - the view that informs the covers of magazines targeting women, for example - is one of many products of a male-dominated reality that doesn't properly critique that domination.

* Despite standing by what I wrote - it was quite a direct expression of my feelings when I read a certain type of political statement - I still felt like a ruling-class scab for breaking ranks with those who express perfect solidarity with those who suffer systematic prejudice and oppression regardless of how they carry themselves rhetorically.

And how I feel (and what I expressed about it) corresponds in an ugly way to similar defensive expressions I hear from white Australians regarding our culpability as the invaders of Australia for the current condition of indigenous people in the country, etc. etc. "But I don't oppress aborigines / didn't commit genocide!" is much the same thing ...

[alias_sqbr]

*reads article you linked to* (I wasn't in the mood for that sort of thing when your post came up on my flist)

...

Well. That..really hit a nerve, and then I thought very hard about why, and then had a huge personal revelation about me, my health, and how I and others relate to it (which I'm still working through, so won't go into it here)

So..yeah. Um..what where you saying?

Mm. I do think a lot of the rhetoric surrounding this stuff oversimplifies and generalises. Of course then you read the petty, rude, deliberately obtuse replies you get from those having their privilege challenged (I am not immune from this myself, to my constant embarrassment when I realise what I 'm doing) and see why feminists etc tend to speak in strong, irritated, simplistic terms (except when they have complex, nuanced discussions using unfamiliar terminology that go right over my head. Huh, note the "I/they", as if I'm not a feminist too...)

Something that struck me reading your comment was the way that these simplistic dichotomies are not only simply wrong but act to invalidate the experiences of those on the boundaries and peripheries of the divisions at play. Disability and health are particularly pertinent here, since there really is a continuum of experiences from completely healthy to heavily disabled, and to divide the "very inconvenienced but not quite disabled" from the "mildly disabled" with this big thick line and say that anyone on the wrong side has No Idea What It's Like makes things difficult for those on the boundary (specifically, I had a mildish case of something like CFS during my Phd, and it definitely made me pretty miserable, but didn't utterly take over my life in the long term as happened with that woman. Am I allowed to relate to her life via my experiences, or am I just another able-bodied person who doesn't get it?) But even with the gender (which is probably the most well defined and non-arbitrary division of this sort) you have transexuals and intersex people being ignored and in some cases actively attacked by some feminists who see themselves as women-for-women rather than women-for-getting-rid-of-gender-crap. I've seen gay men and transsexuals get pretty short shrift in a lot of discussions on slash (how dare they be interested in realistic stories that are actually about being gay/transsexual rather than unrealistic fetishistic romance? Don't they know this is about women writing for other women?!)

But then if you don't set up these dichotomies you get stuff like "Well, I don't see the need for a ramp and neither do any of my friends, I don't see why we should be held to ransom by anyone playing the "Boohoo, I'm in a wheelchair" card". I guess the trick is to support the rights of one's own group without being dogmatic or a prat, but if supporting ones own agenda without being a prat was easy the world would be a better place right now :/

[(Anonymous)]

I think you have too much time on your hands!

[terrycat.livejournal.com]

Goods link. It is nice to read something which can explain a fairly emotional issue without becoming involved in the emotion too deeply.

[alias_sqbr]

Mmm, exactly.